Women sues Tesla claiming Cybertruck crash caused by FSD (video). Musk responds & owners test with their own FSD

[PATEL]

UPDATE:

Since the video was posted, Tesla owners have tested FSD at the same location and none have crashed or died!

“I tested it twice today with Tesla FSD engaged the entire time with zero human intervention. And unless you think I am a hologram speaking to you from another dimension now, it worked out really well. Here is the video of me taking the exact same curve twice, with Tesla FSD v14.2.2.5.”

_______________________________________


Article https://www.foxbusiness.com/technol...ck-nearly-drive-mom-baby-off-overpass-lawsuit

A Texas woman is suing Tesla for a million dollars, claiming her Cybertruck crashed while it was in self-driving mode.





Musk responds:

Musk has now responded directly to those claims, saying on X that internal data shows Autopilot (or FSD, as Autopilot has never been available on the Cybertruck) was disengaged 4 seconds before impact.

“Logs show driver disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing,” Musk said, adding, “As anyone knows who uses it, that video is not how Autopilot drives.”

According to Musk’s comments, the vehicle was under full manual control during the critical moments leading up to the collision, from around this frame in the video.

This detail is significant, as it directly challenges the central claim in the lawsuit—that the Cybertruck was operating autonomously when it veered off course.

In the footage, the Cybertruck initially appears to follow the curve of the overpass before abruptly continuing straight, and perhaps even accelerating into the barrier, which could indicate driver confusion or a delayed reaction.

The plaintiff’s legal team maintains that the system failed and that the driver attempted to regain control too late to avoid the crash. The lawsuit also alleges Tesla misrepresented the capabilities of its driver-assistance technology and failed to implement sufficient safety redundancies.

While Musk posted his comments on X, Tesla has not formally responded to the lawsuit, and the case remains in its early stages. The case will likely continue, and as more telemetry data becomes available through discovery, a clearer picture of what happened in the moments before the crash is likely to emerge. - (via Drivetesla)

Sponsored

 

[CyberGus]

It may have been an inadvertent disengagement. While in FSD I tend to pull my feet back from the pedals, which raises my knee enough to bump the squircle as it turns. I'll move my leg out of the way of course, but a hard enough bump on the squircle will disengage FSD (in the middle of a turn, no less).

Since I'm supposed to be supervising, I always place my hands on the wheel during a complex maneuver... such as high-speed cornering within Jersey barriers.

I rate this accident as "operator error"

 

[CyberJustice]

she disengaged for the length of that entire video.

 

[ÆCIII]

Regardless, drivers have to acknowledge and agree on screen they are responsible for taking control of the vehicle any time, before enabling driver assistance features - so even if it was an (unlikely) inadvertent disengagement by accidentally touching the brake or whatever, the driver is still responsible for paying attention and taking control of the vehicle instantly at any time.

So, either way the driver is trying to deny responsibility when Tesla has proof she agreed to that responsibility.

Currently the latest version of FSD, with exception of Robotaxis, is still (Supervised), so people should know what that means as their responsibility to supervise and take control any time if necessary.

But from the video I believe she did disengage - whether attentively or not. Either way the responsibility is on her and not Tesla.

Today's tendency for emotional weakness to accept responsibility (in many things), is actually a cultural problem that's corrupted the mindset and attitudes of many people.

-ÆCIII

 

[Zane Edwards]

Either way it is (Unsupervised)......big bold, lengthy disclosure that we all agree too

 

[ÆCIII]

Either way it is (Unsupervised)......big bold, lengthy disclosure that we all agree too

You mean (Supervised). Only approved robotaxis are (Unsupervised) right now.
-ÆCIII

 

[REM]

Tesla needs to counter-sue for libel damages.

This type of lawfare needs to STOP.

 

[MyFirstElectricTesla]

Article https://www.foxbusiness.com/technol...ck-nearly-drive-mom-baby-off-overpass-lawsuit

A Texas woman is suing Tesla for a million dollars, claiming her Cybertruck crashed while it was in self-driving mode.





Musk responds:

Musk has now responded directly to those claims, saying on X that internal data shows Autopilot (or FSD, as Autopilot has never been available on the Cybertruck) was disengaged 4 seconds before impact.

“Logs show driver disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing,” Musk said, adding, “As anyone knows who uses it, that video is not how Autopilot drives.”

According to Musk’s comments, the vehicle was under full manual control during the critical moments leading up to the collision, from around this frame in the video.

This detail is significant, as it directly challenges the central claim in the lawsuit—that the Cybertruck was operating autonomously when it veered off course.

In the footage, the Cybertruck initially appears to follow the curve of the overpass before abruptly continuing straight, and perhaps even accelerating into the barrier, which could indicate driver confusion or a delayed reaction.

The plaintiff’s legal team maintains that the system failed and that the driver attempted to regain control too late to avoid the crash. The lawsuit also alleges Tesla misrepresented the capabilities of its driver-assistance technology and failed to implement sufficient safety redundancies.

While Musk posted his comments on X, Tesla has not formally responded to the lawsuit, and the case remains in its early stages. The case will likely continue, and as more telemetry data becomes available through discovery, a clearer picture of what happened in the moments before the crash is likely to emerge. - (via Drivetesla)

Already posted more than a week ago.

 

[CyberGus]

Today's tendency for weakness to accept responsibility (in many things), is actually a cultural problem that's corrupted the mindset and attitudes of many people.

This type of lawfare needs to STOP.

It's difficult to discourage frivolous lawsuits without impeding legitimate claims. Have the loser pay legal fees can be a deterrent, but only if the plaintiff has something to lose.

We live in a litigious society, I don't think it's anything new. Most people will roll the dice if given a 1% chance at millions of dollars (or a even a "nuisance" settlement).

I think at-fault drivers never believe they are at fault simply because their perception of events is incorrect ("why was it going faster when I was pressing on the brake??").

 

[CyberGus]

Already posted more than a week ago.

True, but the Elon tweet is new.

 

[ÆCIII]

It's difficult to discourage frivolous lawsuits without impeding legitimate claims. Have the loser pay legal fees can be a deterrent, but only if the plaintiff has something to lose.

We live in a litigious society, I don't think it's anything new. Most people will roll the dice if given a 1% chance at millions of dollars (or a even a "nuisance" settlement).

I think at-fault drivers never believe they are at fault simply because their perception of events is incorrect ("why was it going faster when I was pressing on the brake??").

Or, just as likely they choose to deny their own responsibility and try to lie their way out of it.

-ÆCIII

 

[Gigahorse]

True, but the Elon tweet is new.

Agreed, this "lawsuit" has been ALLLLLLL over the internet lately, and is a bad look. I am glad Elon responded and think that a simple response like that from him or the Tesla team in general could squash 90% of these "stories" before they get traction.

 

[CyberGus]

Or, just as likely they choose to deny their own responsibility and try to lie their way out of it.

-ÆCIII

That's probably a corollary to:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair

 

[AlDente]

Tesla has all the data. The PI lawyer knows nothing about the massive amount of telemetry data that is kept by the vehicle but he's hoping for a large enough "settlement" from Tesla to just make specious claims like this go away. I hope Tesla fights it but even if they win in court, the FUD sters have already accomplished their goal. The poor woman is just a pawn in this but it was her responsibility to Supervise all vehicle operations and whether her disengagement was intentional or accidental, it was her accident and could/should have been avoided.

As all regular FSD users know, the vehicles ALWAYS er on the side of passenger and vehicle safety. For Tesla, it's yet another FUD story that provides opportunity for the greedy, slows progress and alienates the ignorant. Mission accomplished?

 

[Ty77064]

It's a money grab, and the Ambulance Chaser (lawyer) convinced her to sue. I'm guessing the lawyer doesn't know that Tesla hired a legal team to fight this kind of stuff. Outside of the Tesla circle, not very many people know.

I agree with CyberGus, it should be loser pays.

I still have to explain to people the myths about electric cars.

Sponsored