News
OPINION: Tesla’s ‘Safety Score’ Beta needs broader terms for factoring your score
Tesla’s “Safety Score” Beta is one of the most impressive ideas to improve driving safety, in my opinion. An article from Model 3 owner and Tesla enthusiast Nick Howard explained that Tesla is essentially gamifying the act of driving, encouraging owners to drive in a manner that would allow their scores to be higher. If you know anything about the Tesla community, you know that it is filled with die-hard fans who are satirically battling it out for the elusive 100 scores. While Tesla has outlined the ways that driving behaviors could affect the score for better or for worse, I believe that other instances may need to be outlined so owners are perfectly clear on how their score could be affected based on their hobbies or driving style. While I disagree with Consumer Reports’ assumption that the Safety Score is a bad idea (which, in reality, makes no real sense to me), I do believe that some owners are confused on what makes their score higher or lower, especially as many owners are attempting to enter the elusive Full Self-Driving Beta program.
If you’ve taken a peek at Tesla’s Support page that outlines the numerous factors that can affect a driver’s Safety Score, it seems pretty straightforward. There are cut and dry behaviors that tend to be recognized universally as “aggressive,” including tailgating, hard braking, and aggressive turning. Additionally, Forward Collision Warnings per 1,000 miles and forced Autopilot disengagements are also included in the behaviors that could affect your score, but these are exclusive to Tesla, of course, due to their use of Forward Collision Warnings and Autopilot disengagements.
Tesla introduces Safety Score (Beta) system that incentivizes safe driving
It’s very self-explanatory: Drive safely and receive a higher score. But are there not instances where things could get a tad confusing for some drivers, especially those with scores just below the perfect 100 threshold?
One example that I saw over the weekend was from Richard Marrero, a Tesla owner who was curious about taking his vehicle to the local racetrack. While Tesla owners are occasionally hitting the accelerator when a stoplight turns green, it may be understandable for Safety Scores to be affected. However, what if the nature of the driving occurs on a closed circuit? Marrero may drive like a saint on the road but might want to push his vehicle to the limit at a local dragstrip or raceway. After all, why have a high-performance car with face-melting acceleration if you can’t test it from time to time?
Does anyone know if taking my Tesla to a racetrack will hurt my safety score? @elonmusk @SawyerMerritt @DirtyTesla @tesla_raj @Teslarati
— Richard Marrero (@The_Richard_M) October 2, 2021
There are other examples that could affect a Safety Score that are technically out of the driver’s control. In some instances, it may be an action taken by the driver that is technically safer than other options, yet it could reduce the Safety Score. Tesla Joy, a Model 3 owner, encountered this predicament on October 1, according to a Tweet. Her Safety Score was reduced due to hard braking at a “quick changing yellow light.” I believe nearly everyone who has a driver’s license can attest that some stoplights are slightly more accelerated than others. Quick changing yellow lights are one of the most polarizing events in a daily drive. Some will tell you just to run through it, others will argue that the safer thing to do is just slow down and stop. Whichever way you choose to handle this scenario, you are likely to encounter someone who shares a point of view on how to handle the premature yellow light in a different manner.
Today I hard braked for 2 quick changing yellow lights & got dinged. I also sped up at another yellow light and didn’t get dinged but I felt more dangerous that way. Since Tesla car can see?, can hard braking at yellow light be exempt from penalty cuz it’s safer? ? @elonmusk
— Tesla Joy (@TeslaJoy) October 2, 2021
However, I don’t necessarily believe that there is a “wrong” way to handle it. While the right way to do it, according to my knowledge as a driver of over 11 years, would require you to slow down and come to a stop, especially since the yellow light is a key indicator of “slow down.” Tesla Joy did it as most Learner’s Permit booklets would describe, yet she was still docked points.
There are undoubtedly more examples of how Tesla could do a better job of explaining what actions are not favorable for the Safety Score system, and I would love to hear your thoughts or examples on things that have occurred that affected your score. Tesla did a wonderful job of outlining the most face-value actions that Safety Scores will be affected by, but there are other questions that need to be confronted so drivers are clear on what other things could hurt their scores. After all, the wider the FSD Beta testing group is, the more data Tesla will obtain through its Neural Network.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with tips! Email us at tips@teslarati.com, or you can email me directly at joey@teslarati.com.
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
