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
Tesla Model 3 named New Zealand’s best passenger car of 2025
Tesla flipped the switch on Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in September, turning every Model 3 and Model Y into New Zealand’s most advanced production car overnight.
The refreshed Tesla Model 3 has won the DRIVEN Car Guide AA Insurance NZ Car of the Year 2025 award in the Passenger Car category, beating all traditional and electric rivals.
Judges praised the all-electric sedan’s driving dynamics, value-packed EV tech, and the game-changing addition of Full Self-Driving (Supervised) that went live in New Zealand this September.
Why the Model 3 clinched the crown
DRIVEN admitted they were late to the “Highland” party because the updated sedan arrived in New Zealand as a 2024 model, just before the new Model Y stole the headlines. Yet two things forced a re-evaluation this year.
First, experiencing the new Model Y reminded testers how many big upgrades originated in the Model 3, such as the smoother ride, quieter cabin, ventilated seats, rear touchscreen, and stalk-less minimalist interior. Second, and far more importantly, Tesla flipped the switch on Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in September, turning every Model 3 and Model Y into New Zealand’s most advanced production car overnight.
FSD changes everything for Kiwi buyers
The publication called the entry-level rear-wheel-drive version “good to drive and represents a lot of EV technology for the money,” but highlighted that FSD elevates it into another league. “Make no mistake, despite the ‘Supervised’ bit in the name that requires you to remain ready to take control, it’s autonomous and very capable in some surprisingly tricky scenarios,” the review stated.
-->At NZ$11,400, FSD is far from cheap, but Tesla also offers FSD (Supervised) on a $159 monthly subscription, making the tech accessible without the full upfront investment. That’s a game-changer, as it allows users to access the company’s most advanced system without forking over a huge amount of money.
News
Tesla starts rolling out FSD V14.2.1 to AI4 vehicles including Cybertruck
FSD V14.2.1 was released just about a week after the initial FSD V14.2 update was rolled out.
It appears that the Tesla AI team burned the midnight oil, allowing them to release FSD V14.2.1 on Thanksgiving. The update has been reported by Tesla owners with AI4 vehicles, as well as Cybertruck owners.
For the Tesla AI team, at least, it appears that work really does not stop.
FSD V14.2.1
Initial posts about FSD V14.2.1 were shared by Tesla owners on social media platform X. As per the Tesla owners, V14.2.1 appears to be a point update that’s designed to polish the features and capacities that have been available in FSD V14. A look at the release notes for FSD V14.2.1, however, shows that an extra line has been added.
“Camera visibility can lead to increased attention monitoring sensitivity.”
Whether this could lead to more drivers being alerted to pay attention to the roads more remains to be seen. This would likely become evident as soon as the first batch of videos from Tesla owners who received V14.21 start sharing their first drive impressions of the update. Despite the update being released on Thanksgiving, it would not be surprising if first impressions videos of FSD V14.2.1 are shared today, just the same.
-->Rapid FSD releases
What is rather interesting and impressive is the fact that FSD V14.2.1 was released just about a week after the initial FSD V14.2 update was rolled out. This bodes well for Tesla’s FSD users, especially since CEO Elon Musk has stated in the past that the V14.2 series will be for “widespread use.”
FSD V14 has so far received numerous positive reviews from Tesla owners, with numerous drivers noting that the system now drives better than most human drivers because it is cautious, confident, and considerate at the same time. The only question now, really, is if the V14.2 series does make it to the company’s wide FSD fleet, which is still populated by numerous HW3 vehicles.
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.
Tesla Model 3 named New Zealand’s best passenger car of 2025
Tesla starts rolling out FSD V14.2.1 to AI4 vehicles including Cybertruck
