If there are no consequences for lying, then why would they ever stop lying?
post
Just the fact that it crosses that double wide white line, that means under no circumstance do not cross this line! Only to end behind a perfectly visible veritable wall of bollards! All this in high daylight too!
The strongest danger of Tesla FSD I think, is that in most situations it drives very confidently, and very well. So people begin to trust it.
But then suddenly it does something insanely stupid like this, or cross a red light without hesitation, or completely ignore a stop sign.
This is when you die. Not the 90% of the time it drives fine.
Watching the video, I get the feeling like the car software hit a wall and asked for human help.
Traffic infractions for people have to balance the severity of the infraction and the human who did it. But this is a systemic failure and corporate is responsible. The fines need to be corporate-level to match.
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".
That’s bullshit, stop spreading lies. They clearly state they do that for safety and count it as engaged
Ok fine, I can’t find it but I know I read it ……
But either way I’ll call both of us wrong. Out of all the accident reports involving self-driving, I did not see Tesla assigning the human blame for that.
The closest I found was a cybertruck accident where the driver disengaged FSD 4 seconds before. The driver claims the truck was already unrecoverable, but there would be no simple yes/no in the logs on that, nor did Tesla claim there was. Seems like they ruled out the obvious and it needs to be escalated to a legal proceeding or accident reconstruction
There was an ntsa investigation saying FSD sometimes disengaged just before a crash but it also said things like collision avoidance engaged. I could not find any result, including any action taken.
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
Right. There was no denial, no attempt to shift blame, nor did that investigation produce any findings I was able to find.
Note that when Tesla says it disengaged, they contend to give a time down to the second. I also could not find any outrage reports that they tried to shift blame this way and you know there are many haters who would jump on that chance
Shifting to legal articles, I see several saying trying to shift blame this was would not work
I have no facts but I must scream.
Peak corporate bootlicking.
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.
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?
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”.
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
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
My bad, that was me controlling it remotely. Once you get a taste of that phap phap phap sound while mowing them down in GTA V, you start needing that satisfaction everywhere...
I mean, I guess "impeccable safety record" is in the eye of the
beholderstakeholder?
Fixed that for you
I'd say any "bollard" you can drive over isn't a bollard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_bollard
"Traffic bollards" or "flexible bollards" seem to be the terms for this type of bollard. They're intended to guide traffic, rather than to stop it dead as a security measure.
Just like any pedestrian… amirite?!?!
/s
And that's why regulation on all of these self-driving vehicles need to be much more tightly regulated. You cannot trust a for-profit company, much less one run by a known liar, to self-regulate.
y'all not got bendy bollards? most bollards are bendy.
is that just a Chicago thing? they don't trust us with solid bollards, it would be a mass-casualty-incident instantly
British bollards on the other hqnd tend to be stout and solid, after the Battle of Trafalgar it was found the French guns that were captured could not be retrofitted into British ships so they got turned into London bollards as a way of rubbing it in. While only a few of these still exist, they inspired the general shape of London bollards for a long time.
Also can't believe I can remember bollard lore but not important things
British bollards are hilarious. These would kill half of American drivers.
This setup in Watford makes great Youtube content, even police can't avoid hitting them.
I'm just glad I live in a part of the country that doesn't have these things.
They jinxed it or was it cursed from the beginning?
Before the teslas came out everyone was shitting on how stupid elon musk was for insisting he didnt use lidar, despite how glaringly obvious it was it wouldnt work.
What's even more amazing is 10 years ago or how ever long it was we where "2 years" away from full self driving. To this day there is no full self driving from Tesla, yet we are still some how 2 years away.
Everything elon musk says is a lie to inflate his ego and his stocks. From the Tesla tunnel, to solar roofing, etc, etc.
Those posts are called bollards? I have been calling them useless pains in the ass sticks (upias for short). They make it impossible to make a right turn out of my street without crossing into the on-coming traffic lane. The lawn crews are slowing removing them when they ride over them.
The small, light posts are called typically called traffic poles, at least around here. A bollard is a heavy, strong thing made of concrete or metal. The poles are meant to direct traffic and to gently deter drivers from crossing them. Bollards are intended to stop vehicles dead without giving a shit how much damage they cause.
Poles can be very good for traffic when used correctly but sometimes street planners make mistakes. Either that or people insist on going against what the poles are suggesting.
Clearly it saw them. It makes more sense to believe it realized it was in a bad place and it had only one option to extricate itself. I know this video makes the clicks but the problem was how it got into that situation. The problem had already happened.
From the video, I was wondering what the fuck road crews were thinking, and seeing myself do exactly the same. I see the picture lower in the article showing the approach but I still don’t understand since the car could not get into that situation without running over the traffic poles. The details are important here.
But wtf is that trying to do? I’ve never seen anything like that

all 59 comments