This weekend, a tragic crash involving a 2019 Tesla Model S ended up claiming the lives of two individuals, a 59-year-old and a 69-year-old, both of whom are yet to be identified. Considering the nature of the case and partly due to the involvement of a Tesla, the incident has been covered by both local and national media outlets. This became quite notable in social media platforms, where the crash has been linked to Autopilot.
Two killed in huge blaze after driverless Tesla on autopilot crashes into tree https://t.co/JcwWM9hZAf pic.twitter.com/kvwUdg5ety
— New York Post (@nypost) April 18, 2021
This guide presents what is currently known about the tragic incident, as well as some commentary and videos from EV owners who have attempted to replicate (at least to a degree) the alleged events that led up to the tragic Model S crash.
What happened?
On Saturday night, a 2019 Model S crashed into a tree at about 11:25 p.m. in the Carlton Woods Subdivision on Hammock Dunes Place in Houston, Texas. According to authorities, the Model S crashed into a tree after failing to navigate a turn at high speed near 18 Hammock Dunes Place. The collision resulted in a fire that took the local fire department about four hours and over 30,000 gallons of water to extinguish. Investigators have found two victims from the incident, one sitting on the passenger seat and another in the back seat.
What did witnesses say?
KPRC 2 reporter Deven Clarke was able to speak to one of the victims’ brother-in-law, who stated that the Tesla owner and a friend simply wanted to take the car out for a spin. The brother-in-law remarked that there were just two people in the vehicle. He also added that the Tesla owner backed out of the driveway and then may have hopped in the back seat before crashing a few hundred yards down the road. The owner was reportedly the person found in the back seat of the car.
What has the police said?
In a statement to KHOU-11, Harris County Pct. 4 Constable Mark Herman remarked that deputies who recovered the Tesla are certain that the vehicle had no driver when it collided with the tree. He also emphasized that some of the authorities who responded to the incident were reconstructionists, and that they were very confident that there was no one driving the vehicle when it crashed.
“They are 100% certain that no one was in the driver seat driving that vehicle at the time of impact. They are positive. And again, the height from the back seat to the front seat, that would be almost impossible, but again our investigators are trained. They handle collisions. Several of our folks are reconstructionists, but they feel very confident just with the positioning of the bodies after the impact that there was no one driving that vehicle,” Herman said.
Was Autopilot involved?
Despite the inflammatory social media posts from some media outlets, it has not been determined yet if Autopilot had been active in the Model S when it collided with the tree. It should be noted that the roads in the Carlton Woods Subdivision on Hammock Dunes Place do not seem to have visible lane lines, which is a requirement for Autopilot’s activation. Regular cruise control could be activated in such areas as per videos from Tesla owners, but Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features are generally inaccessible in a residential area, at least in their current state.
This should dismiss the idea that AP was somehow the cause of this horrific incident. I pray for the family and friends of the deceased. Let’s trust the real investigators will discover what really happened here. pic.twitter.com/0tp8Vbh6fH
— Mikey Likes (@mliebow) April 18, 2021
Is the NTSB investigating the incident?
In a statement to Bloomberg, National Transportation Safety Board spokesperson Chris O’Neil confirmed that the NTSB does not plan to open a new probe about the tragic incident.
What happens when Autopilot is engaged and a driver unbuckles the seatbelt?
One scenario that has been suggested is that the driver might have activated Autopilot and jumped into the back seat. This would have been a tricky maneuver as the driver would have had to unbuckle himself, which results in Teslas engaging their alerts and eventually coming to a stop. Such a scenario was demonstrated by FSD Beta user @brandonee916.
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
