News
Tesla’s camera-based driver monitoring system exists; pretending it doesn’t makes roads less safe
Tesla’s FSD Beta program has begun its expansion to more users. And while the system is only being distributed today to drivers with a perfect Safety Score, the advanced driver-assist system is expected to be released to users with a rating of 99 and below in the near future. True to form, with the expansion of FSD Beta also came the predictable wave of complaints and pearl-clutching from critics, some of whom still refuse to acknowledge that Tesla is now utilizing its vehicles’ in-cabin camera to bolster its driver-monitoring systems.
Just recently, the NHTSA sent a letter to Tesla asking for an explanation why the company rolled out some improvements to Autopilot without issuing a safety recall. According to the NHTSA, Tesla should have filed for a recall notice if the company found a “safety defect” on its vehicles. What was missed by the NHTSA was that the Autopilot update, which enabled the company’s vehicles to slow down and alert their drivers when an emergency vehicle is detected, was done as a proactive measure, not as a response to a defect.
Consumer Reports Weighs In
Weighing in on the issue, Consumer Reports argued that ultimately, over-the-air software updates do not really address the main weakness of Teslas, which is driver-monitoring. The magazine admitted that Tesla’s driver-assist system’s object detection and response is better than comparable systems, but Kelly Funkhouser, head of connected and automated vehicle testing for Consumer Reports, argued that it is this very reason why the magazine has safety concerns with Tesla’s cars.
“In our tests, Tesla continues to perform well at object detection and response compared to other vehicles. It’s actually because the driver assistance system performs so well that we are concerned about overreliance on it. The most important change Tesla needs to make is to add safeguards—such as an effective direct driver monitoring system—to ensure the driver is aware of their surroundings and able to take over in these types of scenarios,” Funkhouser said.
Jake Fisher, senior director of Consumer Reports‘ Auto Test Center, also shared his own take on the issue, particularly around some Autopilot crashes involving stationary emergency vehicles on the side of the road. “CR’s position is that crashes like these can be avoided if there is an effective driver monitoring system, and that’s the underlying problem here,” Fisher said, adding that over-the-air software updates are typically not sent to address defects.
Tesla’s camera-based DMS
Funkhouser and Fisher’s reference to direct driver monitoring systems is interesting because the exact feature has been steadily rolling out to Tesla’s vehicles over the past months. It is quite strange that Consumer Reports seems unaware about this, considering that the magazine has Teslas in its fleet. Tesla, after all, has been rolling out its camera-based driver monitoring system to its fleet since late May 2021. A rollout of the camera-based system to radar-equipped vehicles was done in the previous quarter.
Tesla’s Release Notes for its camera-based driver monitoring function describes how the function works. “The cabin camera above your rearview mirror can now detect and alert driver inattentiveness while Autopilot is engaged. Camera data does not leave the car itself, which means the system cannot save or transmit information unless data sharing is enabled,” Tesla noted in its Release Notes.
What is interesting is that Consumer Reports‘ Jake Fisher was made aware of the function when it launched last May. In a tweet, Fisher even noted that the camera-based system was not “just about preventing abuse;” it also “has the potential to save lives by preventing distraction.” This shows that Consumer Reports, or at least the head of its Auto Test Center, has been fully aware that Tesla’s in-cabin cameras are now steadily being used for driver monitoring purposes. This makes his recent comments about Tesla’s lack of driver monitoring quite strange.
Legacy or Bust?
That being said, Consumer Reports appears to have a prepared narrative once it acknowledges the existence of Tesla’s camera-based driver-monitoring system. Back in March, the magazine posted an article criticizing Tesla for its in-cabin cameras, titled “Tesla’s In-Car Cameras Raise Privacy Concerns.” In the article, the magazine noted that the EV maker could simply be using its in-cabin cameras for its own benefit. “
“We have already seen Tesla blaming the driver for not paying attention immediately after news reports of a crash while a driver is using Autopilot. Now, Tesla can use video footage to prove that a driver is distracted rather than addressing the reasons why the driver wasn’t paying attention in the first place,” Funkhouser said.
Considering that Consumer Reports seems to be critical of Tesla’s use (or non-use for that matter) of its vehicles’ in-cabin cameras, it appears that the magazine is arguing that the only effective and safe driver monitoring systems are those utilized by veteran automakers like General Motors for its Super Cruise system. However, even the advanced eye-tracking technology used by GM for Super Cruise, which Consumer Reports overtly praises, has been proven to be susceptible to driver abuse.
This was proven by Car and Driver, when the motoring publication fooled Super Cruise into operating without a driver using a pair of gag glasses with eyes painted on them. One could easily criticize Car and Driver for publicly showcasing a vulnerability in Super Cruise’s driver monitoring systems, but one has to remember that Consumer Reports also published an extensive guide on how to fool Tesla’s Autopilot into operating without a driver using a series of tricks and a defeat device.
Salivating for the first FSD Beta accident
What is quite unfortunate amidst the criticism surrounding the expansion of FSD Beta is the fact that skeptics seem to be salivating for the first accident involving the advanced driver-assist system. Fortunately, Tesla seems to be aware of this, which may be the reason why the Beta is only being released to the safest drivers in the fleet. Tesla does plan on releasing the system to drivers with lower safety scores, but it would not be a surprise if the company ends up adopting an even more cautious approach when it does so.
That being said, incidents on the road are inevitable, and one can only hope that when something does happen, it would not be too easy for an organization such as Consumer Reports to run away with a narrative that echoes falsehoods that its own executives have recognized publicly — such as the potential benefits of Tesla’s camera-based driver monitoring system. Tesla’s FSD suite and Autopilot are designed as safety features, after all, and so far, they are already making the company’s fleet of vehicles less susceptible to accidents on the road. Over time, and as more people participate in the FSD Beta program, Autopilot and Full Self-Driving would only get safer.
Tesla is not above criticism, of course. There are several aspects of the company that deserves to be called out. Service and quality control, as well as the treatment of longtime Tesla customers who purchased FSD cars with MCU1 units, are but a few of them. However, it’s difficult to defend the notion that FSD and Autopilot are making the roads less safe. Autopilot and FSD have already saved numerous lives, and they have the potential to save countless more once they are fully developed. So why block their development and rollout?
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
News
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.
SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.
Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.
The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.
Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.
The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.
Tesla is set to launch Cybercab on Thursday at an event in Austin, Texas, which will officially bring the company’s first steering wheel-less and pedal-less vehicle to a limited number of consumers for the first time.
The event, which is invite-only, is still thin on details: we’ll be there, and it seems the event will be held at Gigafactory Texas, but the launch of this vehicle truly relies on it being operational outside of the factory and on public roads.
🚨 Close-Up look at Tesla Cybercab without steering wheel: pic.twitter.com/9TXCDeDCz7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 3, 2026
Nevertheless, there are some big things to expect, and other things to temper expectations on. For what it’s worth, we believe this event could be perhaps the biggest indication that Tesla is ready to truly enter a new phase and chapter in its historic story.
Tesla Cybercab’s First Foray into the Public with Real-World Riders
Cybercab will likely hit the streets of Austin and the surrounding areas, likely in the established geofence that Tesla has expanded on for the past 14 months. Just yesterday, Tesla expanded it once again by 9 percent.
Tesla will put, for the first time, a vehicle without any manual controls on public roads, likely without any help from teleoperators. This is a truly groundbreaking development if it comes through in this fashion: it would be groundbreaking for Tesla to roll out a truly driverless ride-hailing vehicle.
Cybercab Has Already Been Unveiled
This is not an unveiling event. Cybercab has been released for nearly two years, as Tesla first showed it to the public on October 10, 2024.
FIRST LOOK: Tesla ‘Cybercab’ Robotaxi makes its global debut
While there is some small speculation that Tesla could release the Roadster at the event as a surprise, it seems more likely the focus will be on the Cybercab and the huge accomplishment that will come with releasing a vehicle with no manual controls.
There Will Be a Lot of Hype
What’s important to remember about the Cybercab event is that Tesla will continue to prioritize safety and the rollout will likely be slow, just as it has been with Robotaxi.
One of the biggest complaints about Robotaxi is vehicle population, and the fact that the wait for a ride, at least in some instances, has been longer than most want to admit.
It will take time for this project to truly scale. It will take time for Tesla to roll this out in a large fashion. The important thing to note is that they are doing it, and they’re doing it with a vehicle that is completely engineered and built internally. That’s something no other ride-hailing service can say.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
Tesla Cybercab Event: what to expect from Austin
