It turns out that Tesla’s FSD Bet actually does stop for kids and pedestrians as demonstrated in a video with both a mannequin and an actual child. Recently, the founder of the Dawn Project who is also the CEO of Green Hills Software, which makes automated driving systems, Dan O’Dowd, claimed that Tesla’s FSD Beta did not stop for a child-sized mannequin. This led to a mainstream media storm against Tesla and its life-saving technology.
Tesla owner and FSD Beta Tester, @WholeMarsBlog asked if there were anyone in the Bay Area with a child who could run in front of his car while FSD Beta was engaged. Many took this as a joke, however, The Verge published an open letter to @WholeMarsBlog asking him not to do this.
It turned out that there was someone in the Bay Area willing to allow his child to put Tesla’s FSD Beta to the ultimate test. And it should be noted that the person who allowed this was the driver during the test.
In a Twitter DM, @WholeMarsBlog told me:
“Our tests showed that Tesla Full Self-Driving Beta has no problem detecting pedestrians of all ages. As long as the driver is paying attention, which the system ensures, there is no risk to pedestrians even in the event that the software fails to detect them.”
“This is driver assistance and is not expected to be perfect. It sickens me that Dan O’Dowd would push harmful misinformation to benefit himself financially. He should be charged criminally for false advertising, along with any stations that ran his ads. I don’t have millions to spend on ads like Dan, so please share the video on social media so that everyone who saw Dan’s ad can see our test too.”
Tesla FSD Beta doesn’t hit the mannequin or the child.
In a series of tests involving a child-sized mannequin dressed up and later on a child, Tesla’s FSD Beta proves to not do as O’Dowd claimed it would do.
During the first test, the mannequin was standing in the middle of the street and the car wouldn’t move once FSD Beta was turned on. After moving the mannequin further down the road, the group engaged FSD Beta and it slowly began to move forward.
Once it got closer to the mannequin, it slowed down and came to a complete stop. @WholeMarsBlog showed a detailed look at the screen which showed that Tesla’s FSD Beta detected a pedestrian in the street. It should be noted that, unlike O’Dowd’s video, there were no cones on either side of the vehicle blocking the car from moving around the mannequin.
In the next test, they moved the mannequin a little to the right. The vehicle not only recognized that there was a pedestrian in the street but easily moved around it safely.
Testing Tesla’s FSD Beta with People
In the next series of tests, one of the members of the group, Alvey, participated. Alvey stood in the middle of the street and FSD Beta immediately recognized Alvey as a pedestrian and came to a complete stop at a safe distance. Next up, Alvey walks in front of the car as it’s driving and the car immediately stopped.
In the next test, Tad Park, the CEO of Volt Equity took the driver’s seat. Tad said that he trusted the system enough and has tried FSD Beta previously.
“I would trust my kids’ lives with it and so I’m very confident that it’s going to detect my kids. And then, I’m also in control of the vehicle so I can brake at any time.”
Not only does Tesla’s FSD Beta detect Tad’s son, but it stopped for him. In the next test, Tad’s son crossed the street in front of the moving vehicle. Again, FSD Beta recognized what was happening and reacted accordingly. It slowed down and @WholeMarsBlog pointed out that it waited for him to cross and then continued on.
Attempting to run the mannequin over at a higher speed
The next test was for them to run the mannequin over at a higher speed. They moved it far enough that it was almost out of view but Tesla Vision still detected it. They accelerated to 40 miles per hour but instead of hitting the mannequin, FSD Beta slowed down and moved over to the right.
“It’s not like the commercials you see on TV.”
The video disproves the claim that Tesla FSD Beta will hit kids and do so repeatedly. You can watch it below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu4ZEnIwYZI
Disclaimer: Johnna is long Tesla.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
