News
Tesla posts stern response to Washington Post’s article on alleged Autopilot dangers
Tesla has posted a stern response to a recent article from The Washington Post that suggested that the electric vehicle maker is putting people at risk because it allows systems like Autopilot to be deployed in areas that it was not designed for. The publication noted that it was able to identify about 40 fatal or serious crashes since 2016, and at least eight of them happened in roads where Autopilot was not designed to be used in the first place.
Overall, the Washington Post article argued that while Tesla does inform drivers that they are responsible for their vehicles while Autopilot is engaged, the company is nonetheless also at fault since it allows its driver-assist system to be deployed irresponsibly. “Even though the company has the technical ability to limit Autopilot’s availability by geography, it has taken few definitive steps to restrict use of the software,” the article read.
In its response, which was posted through its official account on X, Tesla highlighted that it is very serious about keeping both its customers and pedestrians safe. The company noted that the data is clear about the fact that systems like Autopilot, when used safety, drastically reduce the number of accidents on the road. The company also reiterated the fact that features like Traffic Aware Cruise Control are Level 2 systems, which require constant supervision from the driver.
Following is the pertinent section of Tesla’s response.
While there are many articles that do not accurately convey the nature of our safety systems, the recent Washington Post article is particularly egregious in its misstatements and lack of relevant context.
We at Tesla believe that we have a moral obligation to continue improving our already best-in-class safety systems. At the same time, we also believe it is morally indefensible not to make these systems available to a wider set of consumers, given the incontrovertible data that shows it is saving lives and preventing injury.
Regulators around the globe have a duty to protect consumers, and the Tesla team looks forward to continuing our work with them towards our common goal of eliminating as many deaths and injuries as possible on our roadways.
Below are some important facts, context and background.
Background
1. Safety metrics are emphatically stronger when Autopilot is engaged than when not engaged.
a. In the 4th quarter of 2022, we recorded one crash for every 4.85 million miles driven in which drivers were using Autopilot technology. For drivers who were not using Autopilot technology, we recorded one crash for every 1.40 million miles driven. By comparison, the most recent data available from NHTSA and FHWA (from 2021) shows that in the United States there was an automobile crash approximately every 652,000 miles.
b. The data is clear: The more automation technology offered to support the driver, the safer the driver and other road users. Anecdotes from the WaPo article come from plaintiff attorneys—cases involving significant driver misuse—and are not a substitute for rigorous analysis and billions of miles of data.
c. Recent Data continues this trend and is even more compelling. Autopilot is ~10X safer than US average and ~5X safer than a Tesla with no AP tech enabled. More detailed information will be publicly available in the near future.
2. Autopilot features, including Traffic-Aware Cruise Control and Autosteer, are SAE Level 2 driver-assist systems, meaning –
a. Whether the driver chooses to engage Autosteer or not, the driver is in control of the vehicle at all times. The driver is notified of this responsibility, consents, agrees to monitor the driving assistance, and can disengage anytime.
b. Despite the driver being responsible for control for the vehicle, Tesla has a number of additional safety measures designed to monitor that drivers engage in active driver supervision, including torque-based and camera-based monitoring. We have continued to make progress in improving these monitoring systems to reduce misuse.
c. Based on the above, among other factors, the data strongly indicates our customers are far safer by having the choice to decide when it is appropriate to engage Autopilot features. When used properly, it provides safety benefits on all road classes.
Tesla also provided some context about some of the crashes that were highlighted by The Washington Post. As per the electric vehicle maker, the incidents that the publication cited involved drivers who were not using Autopilot correctly. The publication, therefore, omitted several important facts when it was framing its narrative around Autopilot’s alleged risks, Tesla argued.
Following is the pertinent section of Tesla’s response.
The Washington Post leverages instances of driver misuse of the Autopilot driver assist feature to suggest the system is the problem. The article got it wrong, misreporting what’s actually alleged in the pending lawsuit and omitting several important facts:
1. Contrary to the Post article, the Complaint doesn’t reference complacency or Operational Design Domain.
2. Instead, the Complaint acknowledges the harms of driver inattention, misuse, and negligence.
3. Mr. Angulo and the parents of Ms. Benavides who tragically died in the crash, first sued the Tesla driver—and settled with him—before ever pursuing a claim against Tesla.
4. The Benavides lawsuit alleges the Tesla driver “carelessly and/or recklessly” “drove through the intersection…ignoring the controlling stop sign and traffic signal.”
5. The Tesla driver didn’t blame Tesla, didn’t sue Tesla, didn’t try to get Tesla to pay on his behalf. He took responsibility.
6. The Post had the driver’s statements to police and reports that he said he was “driving on cruise.” They omit that he also admitted to police “I expect to be the driver and be responsible for this.”
7. The driver later testified in the litigation he knew Autopilot didn’t make the car self-driving and he was the driver, contrary to the Post and Angulo claims that he was mislead, over-reliant or complacent. He readily and repeatedly admitted:
a. “I was highly aware that was still my responsibility to operate the vehicle safely.”
b. He agreed it was his “responsibility as the driver of the vehicle, even with Autopilot activated, to drive safely and be in control of the vehicle at all times.”
c. “I would say specifically I was aware that the car was my responsibility. I didn’t read all these statements and passages, but I’m aware the car was my responsibility.”
8. The Post also failed to disclose that Autopilot restricted the vehicle’s speed to 45 mph (the speed limit) based on the road type, but the driver was pressing the accelerator to maintain 60 mph when he ran the stop sign and caused the crash. The car displayed an alert to the driver that, because he was overriding Autopilot with the accelerator, “Cruise control will not brake.”
While there are many articles that do not accurately convey the nature of our safety systems, the recent Washington Post article is particularly egregious in its misstatements and lack of relevant context.
We at Tesla believe that we have a moral obligation to continue…
— Tesla (@Tesla) December 12, 2023
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just cleared a key FCC hurdle in its fight with Verizon and AT&T
The FCC accepted SpaceX’s bid for Grain’s 800 MHz spectrum, opening review for Starlink Mobile.
The Federal Communications Commission has formally opened its review of SpaceX’s plan to buy a nationwide block of 800 MHz spectrum from Grain Management, moving Starlink Mobile one step closer to operating as a full U.S. wireless carrier.
In a public notice issued Tuesday, the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau said it accepted for filing the applications to transfer control of two Grain license companies, Prism License Co. 1 and Prism License Co. 2, to Starlink Spectrum Holdings, a wholly owned SpaceX subsidiary. The deal covers 546 paired licenses across 3,224 counties, reaching roughly 100% of the U.S. population in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The proceeding sits under WT Docket No. 26-313.
Acceptance is not approval. It means the applications cleared an initial review and the public comment window is now open. Comments and petitions to deny are due December 1, and oppositions are due December 8. The bureau also said the conditions attached to Grain’s July purchase of the licenses from T-Mobile, which require rapid buildout for terrestrial and direct to device service, would carry over to SpaceX if the transfer is approved.
SpaceX announced the agreement on October 8, saying the new airwaves would let Starlink Mobile’s signal reach phones inside buildings, something its 2 GHz spectrum from EchoStar cannot do as well. The portfolio includes up to 14 MHz of paired spectrum in the 817 to 824 MHz and 862 to 869 MHz bands, which most existing phones already support. Elon Musk called it “the last critical piece of the spectrum puzzle needed for SpaceX to provide complete phone coverage in America.”
According to the filing, SpaceX would hold up to 89 MHz of total spectrum in any given market after the deal closes, including up to 14 MHz below 1 GHz. That is far under the 385 MHz threshold the FCC uses to flag a transaction for closer competitive scrutiny, and well short of the roughly 300 MHz each of AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile holds.
Tuesday’s notice does not decide how SpaceX can use the spectrum from orbit. A separate application SpaceX filed on October 27 seeking authority to provide supplemental coverage from space on the same frequencies, along with related waiver requests, is still pending before the commission.
The ground network is already taking shape. Last week, SpaceX picked Qualcomm to supply radios, baseband units and software for a nationwide 5G build, with deployment across tens of thousands of U.S. cell sites starting in 2027. The FCC also voted on October 29 to advance a proposal opening another 482 MHz to direct to device service, though AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile hacritive pushed to strip nearly 300 MHz from it. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell has said service on SpaceX’s own airwaves is targeted for early 2028.
A Tesla upfitter has offered to take over Cybertruck lines from the company in a last-ditch effort to save the all-electric pickup from being completely canceled in the middle of 2027.
Unplugged Performance, the Hawthorne, California-based Tesla aftermarket specialist, has publicly offered to take over Cybertruck production from Tesla, funding the effort “through a consortium of investors.”
An open offer to Tesla: We fully support putting Cybercab first, and we’d be glad to take the Cybertruck line off your hands.
We’d fund it with a consortium of investors and run it at no cost to Tesla’s floor space, headcount, or focus. All of that goes to Cybercab. Cybercab gets first call on battery cells too. We’ll wait our turn.
Tesla gains incremental profit: a license fee, plus FSD and Robotaxi network revenues on every vehicle built.
We’d build the Cybertruck, a three-row CyberSUV, and an unmanned CyberCargo hauler. More autonomous miles, across every surface of this planet and beyond.
Worth a conversation?— UP (@UnpluggedTesla) November 10, 2026
The proposal comes as Tesla prioritizes its Cybercab Robotaxi program and prepares to wind down Cybertruck assembly at Gigafactory Texas around mid-2027.
Founded in 2013 by Ben Schaffer and located adjacent to Tesla’s Design Studio and SpaceX, Unplugged Performance has become a leading provider of premium upgrades for Tesla vehicles, including extensive Cybertruck packages under its UP INVINCIBLE line.
Through its UP.FIT division, the company has also developed purpose-built police and fleet versions of the Cybertruck, including deliveries to agencies such as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
In an X post on Tuesday, Unplugged said:
“An open offer to Tesla: We fully support putting Cybercab first, and we’d be glad to take the Cybertruck line off your hands. We’d fund it with a consortium of investors and run it at no cost to Tesla’s floor space, headcount, or focus. All of that goes to Cybercab. Cybercab gets first call on battery cells too. We’ll wait our turn. Tesla gains incremental profit: a license fee, plus FSD and Robotaxi network revenues on every vehicle built. We’d build the Cybertruck, a three-row CyberSUV, and an unmanned CyberCargo hauler. More autonomous miles, across every surface of this planet and beyond. Worth a conversation?”
The arrangement would free Tesla resources and manufacturing capacity for Cybercab while allowing continued production of the stainless-steel pickup and expanded variants. Unplugged Performance indicated it would wait for battery cells after Cybercab needs are met and would generate ongoing revenue for Tesla through licensing and software/network services on the vehicles it produces.
Following strong initial interest, Unplugged Performance posted a follow-up inviting potential investors and strategic partners to email cyber@unpluggedperformance.com. The company clarified that the outreach is solely to gauge interest and does not constitute an offer to sell securities or acceptance of funds at this stage.
The proposal arrives shortly after Elon Musk indicated that Cybertruck production in Texas would be phased out by roughly the middle of 2027 to expand Cybercab output.
Whether Tesla engages with the offer remains to be seen, but the public overture highlights both the aftermarket specialist’s deep experience with the Cybertruck platform and the growing focus on autonomy within Tesla’s manufacturing plans.
Elon Musk said the Tesla Cybercab will perform “a majority of all passenger miles” where it is allowed to operate and that point is “obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.”
Musk used the point to double down on the company’s decision to ax the cult-favorite Cybertruck, as its production space will be removed and transitioned into additional Cybercab lines. The move has catalyzed a polarizing conversation on whether its right or wrong.
Whatever side you are on — it’s happening.
Dodge ended the Viper.
Audi retired the R8.
Mitsubishi said goodbye to the Lancer Evo.
Ford bid farewell to the Bronco (at one point).
Chevrolet sunset the Camaro.Tesla is ending the Cybertruck. I’m pissed. I’m upset.
Fans of those five automakers mentioned did the same thing. It happens. It sucks. I don’t like it.
But I still love Tesla. I love my Model Y. I hoped to be in a Cybertruck in a little under two years.
I won’t be. But I still won’t put my family in anything else. Too safe. Too advanced. Too much better than everything else.
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 10, 2026
Regardless, Musk seems to be getting to the point that he is done talking about the choice. At some point, you have to think that this was truly a difficult decision for him and the company as well, and this is not something he took lightly. In fact, he’s probably a little bit disappointed with it, too.
But the point remains that the Cybertruck is gone. Musk’s focus is purely on developing an autonomous platform that the world will utilize for transportation, and he’s telling you that anyone “with eyes and a brain” can see it:
@PalmerLuckey @carlhancock Cybercab will do a majority of all passenger miles in any jurisdiction where it is not prohibited by law.
Obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 10, 2026
Tesla is betting that all of its passengers in the future will be okay with not owning their own personal cars and will be fine with ride-hailing for the rest of their lives. Every dinner, every errand, every trip to the airport and transportation thereafter, will all be operated by ride-sharing, and in Tesla’s perfect world, it will happen in a Cybercab.
As of now, Cybercab is only active in Austin, but it has been spotted all over the country with a driver behind the wheel in those prototypes. In Austin, the car has no steering wheel or pedals for people to control the vehicle.
The Cybertruck dilemma is one that has truly come across the entire Tesla community and while it seems to be a great idea to keep it because people love it, the business side of things is steering Musk and Tesla in another direction.
SpaceX just cleared a key FCC hurdle in its fight with Verizon and AT&T
Tesla upfitter offers to keep Cybertruck alive
