News
Tesla’s no-side-mirror approach becomes feasible as NHTSA ponders camera-based systems
When Tesla unveiled the next-generation Roadster and the Cybertruck to the world, the two vehicles immediately shocked the automotive industry. The Roadster stunned because of its insane specs, and the Cybertruck shocked because of its unorthodox design that is unlike any other pickup truck on the market. However, the two vehicles also share something very unique: they both lack side mirrors.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, titled “Rear Visibility,” requires all vehicles to “be equipped with rearview mirrors to provide drivers with a view of objects that are to their side or their side and rear.” However, the NHTSA recently hinted that “light vehicles and heavy trucks” may eventually be equipped with camera systems instead of traditional side mirrors.
An edition of the United States government’s Federal Register from late 2019 shows the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration sought more information on the possibility of vehicles utilizing a “Camera Monitor System,” or CMS. The removal of mirrors instead of camera systems would eliminate the need for traditional side mirrors and possibly rearview mirrors, too.
Tesla’s absence of side mirrors started back in 2013 with the unveiling of the Model X. After wrestling with the idea of a side-mirrorless SUV to increase aerodynamic performance, CEO Elon Musk stated that manufacturers were required to install side mirrors on vehicles. A side mirror-less design actually benefits electric cars like Teslas, since side mirrors increase drag, reducing range. This was done by Audi with the e-tron, with the vehicle being offered with a side mirror-less trim that is slightly more efficient.
The Cybertruck’s side mirrors were absent during its unveiling event in November 2019. Instead of regular mirrors, Tesla had equipped the vehicle with Autopilot cameras that are in the truck’s front fender. Many enthusiasts of the electric carmaker speculated that this was a design that wouldn’t enter production as regulations still existed that required side mirrors.
To determine the effectiveness of camera systems instead of traditional mirrors, the NHTSA conducted its research and testing. The organization also examined testing performed by other parties. The CMS noted that during a trial period from 2006 to 2011, NHTSA research showed that several safety concerns arose from the use of cameras instead of mirrors. These stemmed from glares when sunlight touched the cameras. However, the German Federal Highway Research Institute published a separate study that showed the CMS meets “specific quality criteria” and can provide “sufficient” rear visibility for drivers.
So the question is: What has changed in the nine years since the study concluded? For one, cameras have gotten significantly better. What was once a quality piece of photography equipment can be found on the back of an iPhone. High-resolution pictures and videos are not uncommon, and it is not rare for even extremely affordable cameras to provide better quality images than what was available in 2011.
To determine an accurate and fair assessment of the CMS, a new study should be performed using the 2020 technology. The use of rearview backup cameras is a standard feature on most vehicles today. While such systems are used mostly when backing into a parking spot, it is still relevant, and it shows that the widely adopted technology can be used in an effective and safe manner. This feature could be expanded on, and mirrors could be removed from vehicles if the proper research was performed and quality cameras were placed on a vehicle’s exterior.
Tesla has hinted at mirrorless driving in the past, and the door is open now more than ever. It seems this system could be integrated into performance vehicles like the Roadster, or pickups like the Cybertruck in the future. The designs of these two all-electric vehicles have hinted towards a future that does not include traditional side mirrors, which could change the way other carmakers design vehicles as a whole. Tesla’s minimalistic interior and large centrally-located dash screen has been adopted by many other carmakers, showing the electric car company influences other automakers in the industry. A side-mirror-less theme may be the next big trend that Tesla starts.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
