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.
-->
News
Waymo rider data hints that Tesla’s Cybercab strategy might be the smartest, after all
These observations all but validate Tesla’s controversial two-seat Cybercab strategy, which has caught a lot of criticism since it was unveiled last year.
Toyota Connected Europe designer Karim Dia Toubajie has highlighted a particular trend that became evident in Waymo’s Q3 2025 occupancy stats. As it turned out, 90% of the trips taken by the driverless taxis carried two or fewer passengers.
These observations all but validate Tesla’s controversial two-seat Cybercab strategy, which has caught a lot of criticism since it was unveiled last year.
Toyota designer observes a trend
Karim Dia Toubajie, Lead Product Designer (Sustainable Mobility) at Toyota Connected Europe, analyzed Waymo’s latest California Public Utilities Commission filings and posted the results on LinkedIn this week.
“90% of robotaxi trips have 2 or less passengers, so why are we using 5-seater vehicles?” Toubajie asked. He continued: “90% of trips have 2 or less people, 75% of trips have 1 or less people.” He accompanied his comments with a graphic showing Waymo’s occupancy rates, which showed 71% of trips having one passenger, 15% of trips having two passengers, 6% of trips having three passengers, 5% of trips having zero passengers, and only 3% of trips having four passengers.
The data excludes operational trips like depot runs or charging, though Toubajie pointed out that most of the time, Waymo’s massive self-driving taxis are really just transporting 1 or 2 people, at times even no passengers at all. “This means that most of the time, the vehicle being used significantly outweighs the needs of the trip,” the Toyota designer wrote in his post.
-->Cybercab suddenly looks perfectly sized
Toubajie gave a nod to Tesla’s approach. “The Tesla Cybercab announced in 2024, is a 2-seater robotaxi with a 50kWh battery but I still believe this is on the larger side of what’s required for most trips,” he wrote.
With Waymo’s own numbers now proving 90% of demand fits two seats or fewer, the wheel-less, lidar-free Cybercab now looks like the smartest play in the room. The Cybercab is designed to be easy to produce, with CEO Elon Musk commenting that its product line would resemble a consumer electronics factory more than an automotive plant. This means that the Cybercab could saturate the roads quickly once it is deployed.
While the Cybercab will likely take the lion’s share of Tesla’s ride-hailing passengers, the Model 3 sedan and Model Y crossover would be perfect for the remaining 9% of riders who require larger vehicles. This should be easy to implement for Tesla, as the Model Y and Model 3 are both mass-market vehicles.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk and James Cameron find middle ground in space and AI despite political differences
Musk responded with some positive words for the director on X.
Avatar director James Cameron has stated that he can still agree with Elon Musk on space exploration and AI safety despite their stark political differences.
In an interview with Puck’s The Town podcast, the liberal director praised Musk’s SpaceX achievements and said higher priorities must unite them, such as space travel and artificial intelligence. Musk responded with some positive words for the director on X.
A longtime mutual respect
Cameron and Musk have bonded over technology for years. As far back as 2011, Cameron told NBC News that “Elon is making very strong strides. I think he’s the likeliest person to step into the shoes of the shuttle program and actually provide human access to low Earth orbit. So… go, Elon.” Cameron was right, as SpaceX would go on to become the dominant force in spaceflight over the years.
Even after Musk’s embrace of conservative politics and his roles as senior advisor and former DOGE head, Cameron refused to cancel his relationship with the CEO. “I can separate a person and their politics from the things that they want to accomplish if they’re aligned with what I think are good goals,” Cameron said. Musk appreciated the director’s comments, stating that “Jim understands physics, which is rare in Hollywood.”
Shared AI warnings
Both men have stated that artificial intelligence could be an existential threat to humanity, though Musk has noted that Tesla’s products such as Optimus could usher in an era of sustainable abundance. Musk recently predicted that money and jobs could become irrelevant with advancing AI, while Cameron warned of a deeper crisis, as noted in a Fox News report.
-->“Because the overall risk of AI in general… is that we lose purpose as people. We lose jobs. We lose a sense of, ‘Well, what are we here for?’” Cameron said. “We are these flawed biological machines, and a computer can be theoretically more precise, more correct, faster, all of those things. And that’s going to be a threshold existential issue.”
He concluded: “I just think it’s important for us as a human civilization to prioritize. We’ve got to make this Earth our spaceship. That’s really what we need to be thinking.”
News
Blue Origin announces Super-Heavy New Glenn 9×4 to Rival SpaceX Starship
The announcement followed the company’s successful NG-2 launch on November 13.
Blue Origin has revealed plans to develop New Glenn 9×4, a “super heavy” rocket designed to deliver 70 metric tons to low-Earth orbit and directly compete with SpaceX’s Starship.
The announcement followed the company’s successful NG-2 launch on November 13, which deployed NASA’s ESCAPADE (Escape and Plasma Acceleration Dynamics Explorers) Mars mission and landed the first stage.
Upgraded engines and reusability
As noted in a Universe Today report, Blue Origin will roll out upgraded BE-4 engines producing 640,000 lbf each, up from 550,000 lbf, starting with NG-3. This should boost the New Glenn rocket’s total first-stage thrust to 4.5 million pounds. Upper-stage BE-3U engines are expected to improve from 320,000 lbf to 400,000 lbf over the next few flights as well.
“These enhancements will immediately benefit customers already manifested on New Glenn to fly to destinations including low-Earth orbit, the Moon, and beyond. Additional vehicle upgrades include a reusable fairing to support increased flight rates, an updated lower-cost tank design, and a higher-performing and reusable thermal protection system to improve turnaround time,” Blue Origin noted.
New Glenn “Super Heavy” 9×4
The super-heavy New Glenn 9×4, with nine BE-4s on the booster, four BE-3Us on the upper stage, will feature an 8.7-meter payload fairing. Blue Origin expects New Glenn 9×4 to be capable of transporting 70 metric tons to LEO, 14 tons to GSO, and 20 tons to trans-lunar injection, as noted by the company in a blog post. This is very impressive, as New Glenn 9×4’s capacity exceeds Falcon Heavy, SpaceX’s largest rocket available to consumers today. Falcon Heavy is capable of carrying up to 64 metric tons to low Earth orbit in a fully expendable configuration.
-->That being said, SpaceX’s Starship’s capacity is extremely impressive. As per SpaceX, Starship is designed to be capable of carrying up to 100-150 metric tonnes to orbit in its fully reusable configuration. At its expendable configuration, Starship’s capacity enters unheard-of territory, with SpaceX stating that the vehicle could transport 250 metric tonnes of cargo.
Waymo rider data hints that Tesla’s Cybercab strategy might be the smartest, after all
Elon Musk and James Cameron find middle ground in space and AI despite political differences
