Take a look at this. A Tesla Robotaxi in Austin pauses, seems to reconsider a right-hand turn through some bollards, and then decides: I’m just gonna send it. Tesla Robotaxi Rams through several Bollards and keeps going. by u/bladerskb in SelfDrivingCars “You Can’t Go This Way! Don’t Do That! Holy Cow!” The vehicle is operating […]
I mean, I guess “impeccable safety record” is in the eye of the beholder?
Or maybe I can recognize nuance? Not once did I try to say Tesla was not at fault, only that there is no sign of anyone even arguing whether FSD disengaging immediately before a crash shifts blame. It does not, nor can I find any legal, regulatory, or actual news indicating that it ever did.
There are plenty of real issues we should focus on rather than claiming something there is no evidence of
They clearly state they do that for safety and count it as engaged
Or maybe provide citations and proof of your claim instead of going off strawmanning on a different topic.
As for real issues, yeah we should focus on how we should never trust a for-profit corporation lead by a known liar to supply statistics on their own safety.
So OP provided a citation from the NSHTA report on how FSD disengages before a crash which has been in the news a lot when it first was revealed and I provided a journalistist investigation that found Tesla is potentially fudging their statistics with FSD.
Plenty of citations there to make a case.
Your turn to once again provide a citation to back up your case.
Teslas are programmed to turn off autopilot half a second before a crash so statistics can say “autopilot was off at the time of the crash”.
And no one has anything to support that.
Please add a citation to support that before you insist on citations to support disagreeing with an unsupported claim
Note my previous response (accidentally responded to the nhtsa thing in the past with an edit)
Im not disagreeing that FSD can disengage just before a crash, just arguing that I’ve not seen them try to shift blame based on it and I remember reading somewhere that it’s intentional to try to mitigate the aftermath
I do not see anything about your contention there. Perhaps you could support that since my entire point was that is wrong.
And I used stronger language because if you wanted to claim FSD was unsafe you have all these well documented historical issues and do not need to spread the unsubstantiated claim that FSD disengages to shift blame
Or maybe I can recognize nuance? Not once did I try to say Tesla was not at fault, only that there is no sign of anyone even arguing whether FSD disengaging immediately before a crash shifts blame. It does not, nor can I find any legal, regulatory, or actual news indicating that it ever did.
There are plenty of real issues we should focus on rather than claiming something there is no evidence of
Or maybe provide citations and proof of your claim instead of going off strawmanning on a different topic.
As for real issues, yeah we should focus on how we should never trust a for-profit corporation lead by a known liar to supply statistics on their own safety.
https://electrek.co/2026/05/28/tesla-fsd-safety-stats-misleading-reuters-investigation/
By “strawmanning on a different topic.” perhaps you mean sticking to the original topic while you go off strawmanning on a different topic?
So OP provided a citation from the NSHTA report on how FSD disengages before a crash which has been in the news a lot when it first was revealed and I provided a journalistist investigation that found Tesla is potentially fudging their statistics with FSD.
Plenty of citations there to make a case.
Your turn to once again provide a citation to back up your case.
This whole chain is a response to
And no one has anything to support that.
Please add a citation to support that before you insist on citations to support disagreeing with an unsupported claim
Note my previous response (accidentally responded to the nhtsa thing in the past with an edit)
Done playing chess with a pigeon and you trying desperately to strawman.
Simply provide your citations for your original argument.
I do not see anything about your contention there. Perhaps you could support that since my entire point was that is wrong.
And I used stronger language because if you wanted to claim FSD was unsafe you have all these well documented historical issues and do not need to spread the unsubstantiated claim that FSD disengages to shift blame