Connect with us
Tesla FSD Beta testers prove FSD stops for "children" Tesla FSD Beta testers prove FSD stops for "children"

News

Tesla FSD Beta testers prove FSD stops for “children”

Credit: @TeslaDriver2022.

Published

on

Tesla FSD Beta testers are debunking the claims that FSD doesn’t stop for “children.” Tesla FSD Beta critic, The Dawn Project, recently aired EV ads showing clips of a test that it paid for. These tests, according to The Dawn Project, show that Tesla’s FSD Beta “Tesla’s FSD software “repeatedly hits child-sized mannequins.”

Dan O’Dowd, the founder of The Dawn Project, said that Tesla’s FSD is “a lethal threat to all Americans.”  Earlier this year, O’Dowd placed a full-page ad in the New York Times campaigning to ban Tesla’s FSD. He also ran for the state senate in California. His entire campaign was centered around banning Tesla’s FSD.

Debunking the claims that Tesla’s FSD Beta hits “children”

Many Tesla owners and FSD Beta testers not only disagree, but some have decided to perform their own tests. On Twitter, @WholeMarsBlog shared a thread of the many instances Tesla’s FSD Beta reacted to pedestrians and children. He pointed out that spreading misinformation is similar to running ads telling people not to wear seat belts.

Another Tesla FSD Beta tester, @TeslaDriver2022 performed their own test. I reached out to them and we spoke on the phone.  @TeslaDriver2022 told me that they’ve been beta testing the software for over a year now and have seen a ton of improvements over the past year.

 

https://twitter.com/tesladriver2022/status/1557152108071342085

Advertisement
-

“Prior to the Beta program and even owning Teslas, I’ve owned Volvos for years with their Pilot Assist program which is kind of like basic Autopilot. And I was not seeing that progress. I have a family and I want my children in the safest vehicles which is why we had gotten Volvos.”

@TeslaDriver2022 told me that they would see Tesla’s video and eventually they made the switch to Tesla. Their partner drives a Model Y and they drive a Model 3.

“I became very interested in the potential of Tesla’s technology and when it came time for us to get new cars we both bought Teslas because we thought they were the safest vehicles for our family to be in.”

After driving with Volvo’s Pilot Assist for years, @TeslaDriver2022 said that Tesla’s FSD Beta continues to improve.

“The FSD Beta has just been getting better exponentially even since I’ve been using it. Just some of the predictions it’s got and the capabilities to understand when things are getting in their path. Not even that. Some of the most impressive stuff is just when I’m driving down the road at 45 miles an hour and there’s a car that will turn in front of me to get into a parking lot.

“Its ability to understand whether or not that car is gonna make it or not and whether or not it needs to slow down. It’s becoming very human-like.”

Advertisement
-

@TeslaDriver2022’s Tesla FSD Beta test with “children”

I asked @TeslaDriver2022 what was it about O’Dowd’s ad that inspired them to perform their own Tesla FSD Beta testing with a “child.”  @TeslaDriver2022 told me that they thought the ad “simply just was not true.”

“That commercial is 100%, not the experience I’ve ever had driving my Tesla.”

“I saw his ad on the news after work yesterday and I thought, ‘what is this?!‘ And to be honest with you, I didn’t really know too much about him until that came out. Later on, I was just sitting on the couch really bothered by the ad.

“I drive with FSD Beta with my kids in the car all the time. I see how safe it is. It’s safer than anything else that’s out there. I was talking to my partner and joking and said that ‘I’m about to go into the garage and get one of our Amazon boxes, cut out a cardboard ‘child’ and put one of our kids’ jackets on it and run a test.’”

@TeslaDriver2022’s partner thought this was brilliant and they immediately ran the tests. They ran multiple tests and after tweeting it, received feedback from various Twitter users wanting them to perform other variations of the tests.

“When I originally tested it, I did around eight different tests and in every single one of them, the vehicle would path predict around the cardboard ‘child.’ It wasn’t even ever a close call. It went around the child-sized object every single time.”

Advertisement
-

After doing the tests that Twitter users suggested, @TeslaDriver2022 recorded what they said was the most impressive of the results.

“I had my neighbor come over and I did a couple of other videos. One was more to the right, one with the ‘child’ crossing the street, and one where my neighbor just launched it out and I think the launched-out ones were a little bit more impressive because that shows a lot of the AI that Tesla has.”

In the last set of tests, the launching out of the cardboard ‘child’ simulates an all too common scenario where a child runs out in front of an oncoming car. The fact that Tesla’s AI was able to tell what was happening and avoided hitting the object is telling.

“I don’t necessarily believe a lot of other vehicles have that. And the fact that Tesla is constantly updating it and making it better is what’s really impressive about it.”

 

Disclaimer: Johnna is long Tesla. 

I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1

Johnna Crider is a Baton Rouge writer covering Tesla, Elon Musk, EVs, and clean energy & supports Tesla's mission. Johnna also interviewed Elon Musk and you can listen here

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet

Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.

Published

on

By

Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.

The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.

Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.

Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.

There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.

The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.

Advertisement
-

The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk

Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.

Published

on

By

Credit: Mykhailo Fedorov/Twitter

Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.

Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.


SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.

Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.

The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.

SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.

Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day

FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.

Published

on

By

Rendering of Elon Musk overlooking a Starship fleet (Credit: Grok)

The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.

The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.

A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.

The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.

Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.

Advertisement
-

As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.

Continue Reading