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

[PATEL]

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.”

Sponsored

 

[Tecyber1]

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)

This is where Tesla sue the ever living shit out of the woman and anyone else perpetuating that lie! One look and it's easy to tell that was NOT with FSD engaged. Let me guess what this woman looks like in 3..2....

Think of the stupidity of trying to sue an AI/Tech company that is at the top of their game by claiming their technology failed...took them two minutes to look and prove her wrong! Again, sue her into oblivion for false allegations and brand damage etc.

 

[AlDente]

Accusations are juicy. Acquittals are not (except maybe OJ lol)

Ouch!

 

[SCTesla]

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.”

Again, these test are irrelevant. She was in a CT using V13. They are trying this on V14. That's apples to oranges.

Elon says she disengaged. If it goes to court we will see for sure.

 

[Oscar]

I also think Tesla should launch a counter-suit against those crooks including their lawyers so nobody dares do those nonsense to abuse the legal system!

 

[Sjohnson20]

In my experience, disengaging FSD leads to full regen almost immediately, with hard deceleration.

The video shows that vehicle does not seem to slow much, if at all. The 4 seconds of travel after disengagement would not be enough to completely stop, but the impact speed implies the throttle was being applied.

perhaps she was on fsd but pressing the pedal to make it go faster? That would explain why it seems like the speed is so high.

 

[ÆCIII]

- -

perhaps she was on fsd but pressing the pedal to make it go faster? That would explain why it seems like the speed is so high.

Per Elon data confirms she disengaged FSD four seconds before the crash.
Even if she did press the pedal, maintaining control of the vehicle is still her responsibility. That's why current FSD versions are called (Supervised).

-ÆCIII

 

[JackCypher]

I've had FSD turn itself off. The notification is unsettling subtle - there is a 'gong'. Also, FSD upon self-disengage does NOT tell you why - the response is as if nothing happened. ODD, because when turn FSD OFF - I am prompted to report 'why'

That in itself is a risk - if the driver does not detect that. Yes, we are paying attention, however operator response time can vary.

If music is playing - the driver may not detect the 'gong', or talking to the passenger. Or more importantly - on a phone call.

The reality is that the transfer to FSD and the FSD Self-Disengage event needs to made painfully clear to the driver.

I could argue that is should NOT disengage unless the Driver HAS CONFIRMED THEY HAVE TAKE BACK CONTROL. This is called Haptic feedback.

These concepts are not new. Critical systems incorporate 'Lock-out/tag-outs', deadman switches, etc. And these mechanisms are on industrial equipment - which operators are trained to operate.

So how did us: the everyman driver get handed this? Does not a 3,000 vehicle present a risk?

For someone borrowing my CT and using the 'cool' FSD - they may not understand the subtleties and events where FSD may turn off. So 'You should know' is not aways a fall back position.

We've had fatalities from the Button gear shift - Because pushing a button has no feedback - as a actual mechanical gearshift does.

I don't have a position on the accident, FSD does deaccelerate the vehicle when it disengages. This potentially could be one of the 'corner cases' where events merge into a bad result.

 

[CyberGus]

I've had FSD turn itself off.

Well, that's new. Any idea why?

You're not wrong, FSD can be disengaged by
- tug on the steering
- tap on the brake
- press of the right scroll-wheel

so presumably it is always done with intent. However, that places a heavy burden on the switches in the brake and scroll-wheel... spill a Pepsi on the squircle, and FSD might sometimes spontaneously engage/disengage.

I would think that any FSD disengagement would cause a rapid deceleration, even using AEB if headed toward a collision.

 

[JackCypher]

Well, that's new. Any idea why?

You're not wrong, FSD can be disengaged by
- tug on the steering
- tap on the brake
- press of the right scroll-wheel

so presumably it is always done with intent. However, that places a heavy burden on the switches in the brake and scroll-wheel... spill a Pepsi on the squircle, and FSD might sometimes spontaneously engage/disengage.

I would think that any FSD disengagement would cause a rapid deceleration, even using AEB if headed toward a collision.

Agree, It occurred repeatedly on the same oddly similar 91 East bound to 15 North bound exchange. This was FSD version from about 1 year ago.

About mid way in the elevated curve of the ramp - it 'Gonged' and turn OFF. Oddly, again the elevated ramp had the same california concrete colored K-rail walls, matching the concrete sides of the roadway.?!?! perhaps the camera was confused about where the edges and the K-rail wall was?

Also, there was NO display as to why - it simply turned off.

Yes, it does cause rapid deceleration. I ponder what the transition is to collision avoidance from FSD?

I am also and assuming the CT has collision avoidance? - it's a lesser implementation of FSD.

 

[doggod]

How do you export with those overlays? I know they are visible in the car, but I copied a recent video from the USB drive and those details are not in the videos.

use the Tesla app. or record video in car. when you plug the memory stick into a computer it will n to show the extra data. this data is only shown when viewing video while stick is in the car.

 

[doggod]

it is clear from the video she was pressing the accelerator pedal, otherwise the truck would have slowed down. try turning off FSD without your foot on any pedal. vehicle will come to a complete stop using regenerative braking which you are unable to turn off or lower the amount on cybertruck. only way to turn it off is to be in off road mode.

 

[ÆCIII]

I've had FSD turn itself off. The notification is unsettling subtle - there is a 'gong'. Also, FSD upon self-disengage does NOT tell you why - the response is as if nothing happened. ODD, because when turn FSD OFF - I am prompted to report 'why'

That in itself is a risk - if the driver does not detect that. Yes, we are paying attention, however operator response time can vary.

If music is playing - the driver may not detect the 'gong', or talking to the passenger. Or more importantly - on a phone call.

The reality is that the transfer to FSD and the FSD Self-Disengage event needs to made painfully clear to the driver.

I could argue that is should NOT disengage unless the Driver HAS CONFIRMED THEY HAVE TAKE BACK CONTROL. This is called Haptic feedback.

These concepts are not new. Critical systems incorporate 'Lock-out/tag-outs', deadman switches, etc. And these mechanisms are on industrial equipment - which operators are trained to operate.

So how did us: the everyman driver get handed this? Does not a 3,000 vehicle present a risk?

For someone borrowing my CT and using the 'cool' FSD - they may not understand the subtleties and events where FSD may turn off. So 'You should know' is not aways a fall back position.

We've had fatalities from the Button gear shift - Because pushing a button has no feedback - as a actual mechanical gearshift does.

I don't have a position on the accident, FSD does de-accelerate the vehicle when it disengages. This potentially could be one of the 'corner cases' where events merge into a bad result.

If a driver is paying proper attention as they have acknowledged and accepted responsibility to do when they activate FSD, then regardless of whatever FSD does they should be ready to take control. Whether FSD does something unexpected while remaining active, or disengaging unexpectedly is irrelevant because the driver should be paying attention to instantly control the vehicle in either case.

Your example of 'Haptic Feedback' is also unnecessary and dangerous, because there are situations where a driver needs to instantly take control with only milliseconds to react, not take control and then wait for a vehicle receive "acknowledgement" from the user, which in itself could be dangerous because the extra time for all this acknowledgement could result in the vehicle crashing into something instead of veering away from a hazard. But your point of 'Haptic Feedback' is also moot, because the very action of a driver pulling on the wheel, tapping the brake, or pressing the button/stalk to disengage FSD, actually does already "CONFIRM" to the car they have taken control, and Tesla's FSD data will show this time and time again. So there's no need to mince words on drivers taking control. Millions of FSD users do it successfully over and over, and Tesla data will show that too.

Drivers should Already be Paying Attention, so there is no requirement to GET their attention by making disengagements "painfully clear". They should already be watching the vehicle's operation and the road, because FSD is not fully autonomous yet. So the need for FSD to somehow overly alarm a notice of disengagement, is a moot point. The current audible indication is already more than adequate, especially with Tesla assuring it reduces other audio in the car when the audible indicator sounds. Millions of Tesla owners have used FSD and I've never seen or heard a single one say this is an issue before.

Attempting to blur lines by saying there's lapse in reaction time is also irrelevant because humans have slower reaction times to many situations whether using FSD or not, and they are still responsible as the driver of the car.

If someone 'borrows' your CT and you don't make them create and use their own driver profile, then You are responsible for their actions under your driver profile. If they create their own driver profile, the FSD notifications will appear to them when they'll have to activate FSD in their profile for the first time. Then they are responsible for reading and acknowledging the FSD screens instructing them of it's limitations and the fact it's not fully autonomous yet. Tesla also made efforts to include assistance tips on screen for new drivers/profiles to show them how to engage FSD. There are also the Tesla tutorial videos, the owners manual, and other resources. So if you just carelessly loan out your vehicle for someone to use FSD under your driver profile, or you don't make sure they can operate FSD correctly, that would be negligence on your part and not on Tesla.

For FSD versions in privately owned vehicles, Tesla has not told anyone that FSD is fully autonomous, or that they can neglect to pay attention. Tesla continually cautions that attention is required. So anyone borrowing a vehicle with FSD would not expect it to be fully autonomous unless they were misled or given false information. Loaning out a CT is also a tedious situation at best for other reasons, especially for owners not familiar with steer by wire, regen braking, or usage of the psuedo mirrors on screen in many situation. I seriously don't see a frequent use case of someone loaning out their CT anyway for all the above reasons. If you loan a vehicle to someone, you should assure they know how to operate it as well as you do.

So attempting to mince words in efforts to blur perceptions of operator responsibility versus FSD is pointless, because Tesla has clearly stated driver responsibilities.

- ÆCIII

Sponsored