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.
Energy
Tesla’s newest “Folding V4 Superchargers” are key to its most aggressive expansion yet
Tesla’s folding V4 Supercharger ships 33% more per truck, cuts deployment time and cost significantly.
Tesla is rolling out a folding V4 Supercharger design, an engineering change that allows 33% more units to fit on a single delivery truck, cuts deployment time in half, and reduces overall installation cost by roughly 20%.
The folding mechanism addresses one of the least glamorous but most consequential bottlenecks in charging infrastructure: getting hardware from factory floor to job site efficiently. By collapsing the form factor for transit and unfolding into an operational configuration on arrival, the new design dramatically reduces the logistics overhead that has historically slowed Supercharger rollouts, particularly at large or remote sites where multiple units are needed simultaneously.
The timing aligns with a broader acceleration in Tesla’s network strategy. In March 2026, Tesla’s Gigafactory New York produced its final V3 Supercharger cabinet after more than seven years and 15,000 units, pivoting entirely to V4 cabinet production. The V4 cabinet itself is already a generational leap, delivering up to 500 kW per stall for passenger vehicles and up to 1.2 MW for the Tesla Semi, while supporting twice the stalls per cabinet at three times the power density of its predecessor. The folding transport innovation layers logistical efficiency on top of that technical foundation.
Tesla launches first ‘true’ East Coast V4 Supercharger: here’s what that means
Tesla Charging’s Director Max de Zegher, commenting on the V4 cabinet when it launched, captured the operational philosophy behind these changes: “Posts can peak up to 500kW for cars, but we need less than 1MW across 8 posts to deliver maximum power to cars 99% of the time.” The design philosophy has always been about maximizing real-world throughput, not just peak specs, and the folding transport upgrade extends that thinking into the supply chain itself.
Posts can peak up to 500kW for cars, but we need less than 1MW across 8 posts to deliver maximum power to cars 99% of the time.
No more DC busbar between cabinets. Power comes from a single V4 cabinet to 8 stalls. Easier to install, cheaper, more reliable.
Introducing Folding Unit Superchargers
– V4 cabinet with 500kW charging
– 8 posts per unit
– 2 units per truck
– 2 configurations: folded, unfoldedFaster. Cheaper. Better. pic.twitter.com/YyALz0U5cA
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) March 25, 2026
The network is expanding rapidly on multiple fronts. The first true 500 kW V4 Supercharger on the East Coast opened in Kissimmee, Florida in March 2026, followed closely by a new site in Nashville, Tennessee. A public Megacharger for the Tesla Semi launched in Ontario, California in early March, with 37 additional Megacharger sites targeted for completion by end of year. Meanwhile, more than 27,500 Supercharger stalls are now accessible to non-Tesla EVs from brands including Ford, GM, Rivian, Hyundai, and most recently Stellantis, whose Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Fiat, and Maserati BEV customers gained access in March 2026.
As Tesla pushes toward a denser, faster, and more open charging network, innovations like the folding V4 Supercharger reflect the company’s growing focus on deployment velocity, not just hardware performance. Getting chargers to the ground faster, cheaper, and in greater volume per shipment may ultimately matter as much as the kilowatts they deliver.
Elon Musk
The Boring Company clears final Nashville hurdle: Music City loop is full speed ahead
The Boring Company has cleared its final Nashville hurdles, putting the Music City Loop on track for 2026.
The Boring Company has cleared one of its most significant regulatory milestones yet, securing a key easement from the Music City Center in Nashville just days ago, the latest in a series of approvals that have pushed the Music City Loop project firmly into construction reality.
On March 24, 2026, the Convention Center Authority voted to grant The Boring Company access to an easement along the west side of the Music City Center property, allowing tunneling beneath the privately owned venue. The move follows a unanimous 7-0 vote by the Metro Nashville Airport Authority on February 18, and a joint state and federal approval from the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration on February 25. Together, these green lights have cleared the path for a roughly 10-mile underground tunnel connecting downtown Nashville to Nashville International Airport, with potential extensions into midtown along West End Avenue.
Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption
Nashville was selected by The Boring Company largely because of its rapid population growth and the strain that growth has placed on surface infrastructure. Traffic has become a persistent problem for residents, convention visitors, and airport travelers alike. The Music City Loop promises an approximately 8-minute underground transit time between downtown and the Nashville International Airport (BNA), removing thousands of vehicles from surface roads daily while operating as a fully electric, zero-emissions system at no cost to taxpayers.
The project fits squarely within a broader vision Musk has championed for years. In responding to a breakdown of the Loop’s construction costs, Musk posted on X: “Tunnels are so underrated.” The comment reflected a longstanding belief that underground transit represents one of the most cost-effective and scalable infrastructure solutions available. The Boring Company has claimed it can build 13 miles of twin tunnels in Nashville for between $240 million and $300 million total, a fraction of what comparable projects cost elsewhere in the country.
Image Credit: The Boring Company/Twitter
The Las Vegas Loop, The Boring Company’s first operational system, has served as a proof of concept. During the CONEXPO trade show in March 2026, the Vegas Loop transported approximately 82,000 passengers over five days at the Las Vegas Convention Center, demonstrating the system’s capacity during large-scale events. Nashville draws millions of convention visitors and tourists each year, and local business leaders have pointed to that same capacity as a major draw for supporting the project.
The Music City Loop was first announced in July 2025. Construction began within hours of the February 25 state approval, with The Boring Company’s Prufrock tunneling machine already in the ground the same evening. The first operational segment is targeted for late 2026, with the full route expected to be complete by 2029. The project represents one of the largest privately funded infrastructure efforts currently underway in the United States.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick disqualify herself from an ongoing high-stakes Tesla shareholder lawsuit.
The filing, submitted March 25, cites an apparent LinkedIn “support” reaction from McCormick’s account to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate California securities-fraud case.
The move escalates long-simmering tensions between Musk, Tesla, and the Delaware judiciary, where McCormick previously presided over the landmark challenge to Musk’s record $56 billion 2018 compensation package.
Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package
The LinkedIn post was written by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California jury consultant who assisted the plaintiffs who sued Musk over 2022 tweets about his Twitter acquisition. Plotkin praised the trial team for “standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.”
The New York Post initially reported the story.
A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.
This appears to be unequivocal proof she denied the pay package because of her own personal beliefs and not the law.
Corruption. https://t.co/8dvgcfYuvh
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 25, 2026
McCormick swiftly denied intentional endorsement. In a letter to attorneys, she stated she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her. She wrote:
“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally.”
The chancellor maintains the reaction was inadvertent, but critics, including Musk allies, call the explanation implausible given the platform’s deliberate interface.
McCormick’s central role in the Tesla pay-package litigation underscores the stakes. In Tornetta v. Musk, in January 2024, she ruled the 2018 performance-based stock-option grant, potentially worth $56 billion at the time and now valued far higher, was invalid.
The package consisted of 12 tranches of options, each vesting only after Tesla achieved ambitious market-cap and operational milestones. McCormick found Musk exercised “transaction-specific control” over Tesla as a controlling stockholder, the board lacked sufficient independence, and proxy disclosures to shareholders were materially deficient.
Applying the entire-fairness standard, she concluded defendants failed to prove the deal was fair in process or price and ordered full rescission, an “unfathomable” remedy she described as necessary to deter fiduciary breaches.
After the ruling, Tesla shareholders ratified the package a second time in June 2024. McCormick rejected that ratification in December 2024, holding that post-trial votes could not cure defects.
Tesla appealed. On December 19 of last year, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the rescission remedy while largely leaving McCormick’s liability findings intact. The high court deemed total unwinding inequitable and impractical, restoring the package but awarding the plaintiff only nominal $1 damages plus reduced attorneys’ fees. Musk ultimately received the full award.
The current recusal motion arises in yet another Tesla derivative suit before McCormick. Legal observers say granting it could signal heightened scrutiny of judicial social-media activity; denial might reinforce perceptions of an insular Delaware bench.
Broader fallout includes accelerated corporate migration out of Delaware, Musk himself moved Tesla’s incorporation to Texas after the first ruling, and renewed debate over whether the state’s specialized courts remain the gold standard for corporate governance disputes.
A decision is expected soon; whichever way it lands, the episode highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and public confidence in high-profile litigation.
Tesla’s newest “Folding V4 Superchargers” are key to its most aggressive expansion yet
The Boring Company clears final Nashville hurdle: Music City loop is full speed ahead
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
