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’s Starship FL launch site will witness scenes once reserved for sci-fi films
A Starship that launches from the Florida site could touch down on the same site years later.
The Department of the Air Force (DAF) has released its Final Environmental Impact Statement for SpaceX’s efforts to launch and land Starship and its Super Heavy booster at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station’s SLC-37.
According to the Impact Statement, Starship could launch up to 76 times per year on the site, with Super Heavy boosters returning within minutes of liftoff and Starship upper stages landing back on the same pad in a timeframe that was once only possible in sci-fi movies.
Booster in Minutes, Ship in (possibly) years
The EIS explicitly referenced a never-before-seen operational concept: Super Heavy boosters will launch, reach orbit, and be caught by the tower chopsticks roughly seven minutes after liftoff. Meanwhile, the Starship upper stage will complete its mission, whether a short orbital test, lunar landing, or a multi-year Mars cargo run, and return to the exact same SLC-37 pad upon mission completion.
“The Super Heavy booster landings would occur within a few minutes of launch, while the Starship landings would occur upon completion of the Starship missions, which could last hours or years,” the EIS read.
This means a Starship that departs the Florida site in, say, 2027, could touch down on the same site in 2030 or later, right beside a brand-new stack preparing for its own journey, as noted in a Talk Of Titusville report. The 214-page document treats these multi-year round trips as standard procedure, effectively turning the location into one of the world’s first true interplanetary spaceports.
-->Noise and emissions flagged but deemed manageable
While the project received a clean bill of health overall, the EIS identified two areas requiring ongoing mitigation. Sonic booms from Super Heavy booster and Starship returns will cause significant community annoyance” particularly during nighttime operations, though structural damage is not expected. Nitrogen oxide emissions during launches will also exceed federal de minimis thresholds, prompting an adaptive management plan with real-time monitoring.
Other impacts, such as traffic, wildlife (including southeastern beach mouse and Florida scrub-jay), wetlands, and historic sites, were deemed manageable under existing permits and mitigation strategies. The Air Force is expected to issue its Record of Decision within weeks, followed by FAA concurrence, setting the stage for rapid redevelopment of the former site into a dual-tower Starship complex.
SpaceX Starship Environmental Impact Statement by Simon Alvarez
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) testing gains major ground in Spain
Based on information posted by the Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT), it appears that Tesla is already busy testing FSD in the country.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) program is accelerating across Europe, with Spain emerging as a key testing hub under the country’s new ES-AV framework program.
Based on information posted by the Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT), it appears that Tesla is already busy testing FSD in the country.
Spain’s ES-AV framework
Spain’s DGT launched the ES-AV Program in July 2025 to standardize testing for automated vehicles from prototypes to pre-homologation stages. The DGT described the purpose of the program on its official website.
“The program is designed to complement and enhance oversight, regulation, research, and transparency efforts, as well as to support innovation and advancements in automotive technology and industry. This framework also aims to capitalize on the opportunity to position Spain as a pioneer and leader in automated vehicle technology, seeking to provide solutions that help overcome or alleviate certain shortcomings or negative externalities of the current transportation system,” the DGT wrote.
The program identifies three testing phases based on technological maturity and the scope of a company’s operations. Each phase has a set of minimum eligibility requirements, and applicants must indicate which phase they wish to participate in, at least based on their specific technological development.
-->
Tesla FSD tests
As noted by Tesla watcher Kees Roelandschap on X, the DGT’s new framework effectively gives the green flight for nationwide FSD testing. So far, Tesla Spain has a total of 19 vehicles authorized to test FSD on the country’s roads, though it would not be surprising if this fleet grows in the coming months.
The start date for the program is listed at November 27, 2025 to November 26, 2027. The DGT also noted that unlimited FSD tests could be done across Spain on any national route. And since Tesla is already in Phase 3 of the ES-AV Program, onboard safety operators are optional. Remote monitoring would also be allowed.
Tesla’s FSD tests in Spain could help the company gain a lot of real-world data on the country’s roads. Considering the scope of tests that are allowed for the electric vehicle maker, it seems like Spain would be one of the European countries that would be friendly to FSD’s operations. So far, Tesla’s FSD push in Europe is notable, with the company holding FSD demonstrations in Germany, France, and Italy. Tesla is also pushing for national approval in the Netherlands in early 2026.
News
Tesla FSD V14.2.1 is earning rave reviews from users in diverse conditions
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software continues its rapid evolution, with the latest V14.2.1 update drawing widespread praise.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software continues its rapid evolution, with the latest V14.2.1 update drawing widespread praise for its smoother performance and smarter decision-making.
Videos and firsthand accounts from Tesla owners highlight V14.2.1 as an update that improves navigation responsiveness, sign recognition, and overall fluidity, among other things. Some drivers have even described it as “more alive than ever,” hinting at the system eventually feeling “sentient,” as Elon Musk has predicted.
FSD V14.2.1 first impressions
Early adopters are buzzing about how V14.2.1 feels less intrusive while staying vigilant. In a post shared on X, Tesla owner @LactoseLunatic described the update as a “huge leap forward,” adding that the system remains “incredibly assertive but still safe.”
Another Tesla driver, Devin Olsenn, who logged ~600 km on V14.2.1, reported no safety disengagements, with the car feeling “more alive than ever.” The Tesla owner noted that his wife now defaults to using FSD V14, as the system is already very smooth and refined.
Adverse weather and regulatory zones are testing grounds where V14.2.1 shines, at least according to testers in snow areas. Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt shared a video of his first snowy drive on unplowed rural roads in New Hampshire, where FSD did great and erred on the side of caution. As per Merritt, FSD V14.2.1 was “extra cautious” but it performed well overall.
-->Sign recognition and freeway prowess
Sign recognition also seemed to show improvements with FSD V14.2.1. Longtime FSD tester Chuck Cook highlighted a clip from his upcoming first-impressions video, showcasing improved school zone behavior. “I think it read the signs better,” he observed, though in standard mode, it didn’t fully drop to 15 mph within the short timeframe. This nuance points to V14.2.1’s growing awareness of temporal rules, a step toward fewer false positives in dynamic environments.
FSD V14.2.1 also seems to excel in high-stress highway scenarios. Fellow FSD tester @BLKMDL3 posted a video of FSD V14.2.1 managing a multi-lane freeway closure due to a police chase-related accident. “Perfectly handles all lanes of the freeway merging into one,” the Tesla owner noted in his post on X.
FSD V14.2.1 was released on Thanksgiving, much to the pleasant surprise of Tesla owners. The update’s release notes are almost identical to the system’s previous iteration, save for one line item read, “Camera visibility can lead to increased attention monitoring sensitivity.”
SpaceX’s Starship FL launch site will witness scenes once reserved for sci-fi films
Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) testing gains major ground in Spain
