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

[JackCypher]

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

It appears - thankfully - you've not been involved in litigation of these types of cases.

I have, my company designs and develops medical devices, which I've been involved in for about 30 years. I've also, developed Neutron generators control systems, particle accelerators and other types of equipment that can injure or kill a well trained and intentioned operators....and spectators.

There are very detailed and nuanced discussions about 'what the system should do' , and 'what the operator does' and how to hand-off back and forth occurs. And...importantly that the operator - who IS responsible knows what is going on. So they are reasonably [and liability] informed about what the device they are operating is doing.

This is why there are beeps and flashing lights and such. Designs also have to included color blindness - [this is why traffic lights have 3 different emitter positions - so the color blind know the red light from the position]

And "just warn the operator'...telling them to 'pay attention' does not alleviate from poor design.

? Would the liability of the Ford Pinto gas tank design defect would be solved by bold font in the manual, perhaps a sticker on the dashboard - warning about getting rear ended - resulting in fire, explosion and death? How does that legally bind the person who rear-ends your Pinto?

Not everyone on these forms is speaking from antidotal experience - I appreciate your vehemence, however, this is very nuanced.

A very recent example of the bizarre chain of liability is an oil change employee was killed by another employee driving a customers car for an oil change. The deceased employee family- sued the customer - being the owner of the vehicle that caused the injury. I doubt the family of the deceased is interested in the wording of the oil change liability boilerplate.

I am not defending the person this thread started with - only relating my own experience - that FSD turned itself off with no warning other than a 'gong' that could potentially go unnoticed. And my CT slowed down - however, FSD also accelerates and decelerates the vehicle. So If I missed the gong - I may loose track of road conditions - as my attention is distracted trying to determine what happened with the FSD thingy.

It is my opinion Tesla's are safe vehicles. Improvements can always be made.... what else are these forums for?

Sponsored

 

[JackCypher]

America is the most Litigious Society in the world!

We spend over 2 percent of gross domestic product on torts

$310 billion a year

$1,000 for each person in America

American spends more $ money on litigation, than any other nation on planet Earth.

So with a:

Litigious Society they always go after the deepest pockets and trial by jury can be profoundly immoral and wicked.
and
That is what the law firm is hoping for a jury that can be swayed in favor of the driver and agist Tesla Co.
Now
If Tesla lawsuits for deformation they would go after the news firm, the legal team, The city, The county, The state or the deepest pockets.
Will Tesla start lawsuits agist the state?
No
Will Tesla have lawsuits on the city?
No
Will Tesla lawsuits on the news firm?
Maybe
Will Tesla lawsuits on the driver?
No
Should Tesla start lawsuits on the entire lot?
Ya Sure
But what would Tesla gain out of the lawsuits?

Sad but true...God Bless America!

 

[ÆCIII]

It appears - thankfully - you've not been involved in litigation of these types of cases.

I have, my company designs and develops medical devices, which I've been involved in for about 30 years. I've also, developed Neutron generators control systems, particle accelerators and other types of equipment that can injure or kill a well trained and intentioned operators....and spectators.

There are very detailed and nuanced discussions about 'what the system should do' , and 'what the operator does' and how to hand-off back and forth occurs. And...importantly that the operator - who IS responsible knows what is going on. So they are reasonably [and liability] informed about what the device they are operating is doing.

This is why there are beeps and flashing lights and such. Designs also have to included color blindness - [this is why traffic lights have 3 different emitter positions - so the color blind know the red light from the position]

And "just warn the operator'...telling them to 'pay attention' does not alleviate from poor design.

? Would the liability of the Ford Pinto gas tank design defect would be solved by bold font in the manual, perhaps a sticker on the dashboard - warning about getting rear ended - resulting in fire, explosion and death? How does that legally bind the person who rear-ends your Pinto?

Not everyone on these forms is speaking from antidotal experience - I appreciate your vehemence, however, this is very nuanced.

A very recent example of the bizarre chain of liability is an oil change employee was killed by another employee driving a customers car for an oil change. The deceased employee family- sued the customer - being the owner of the vehicle that caused the injury. I doubt the family of the deceased is interested in the wording of the oil change liability boilerplate.

I am not defending the person this thread started with - only relating my own experience - that FSD turned itself off with no warning other than a 'gong' that could potentially go unnoticed. And my CT slowed down - however, FSD also accelerates and decelerates the vehicle. So If I missed the gong - I may loose track of road conditions - as my attention is distracted trying to determine what happened with the FSD thingy.

It is my opinion Tesla's are safe vehicles. Improvements can always be made.... what else are these forums for?

The 'nuance' is in how responsibility is placed, and one's perception of how responsibility is placed.

Your medical device example is an interactive device which users have very little control over until they get the feedback or indications to allow them to decide what to do with it next.

But vehicles including Teslas, are primarily designed to allow a driver to interact with the road, hazards, and surroundings of their environment in real time, by using direct vehicle controls of steering, acceleration, and braking. Operators do not have to wait for an FSD system indication to operate the vehicle. Once they see a change in their surroundings, they simply can respond with vehicle controls to assure a safe path or vehicle state. This has been the case for decades since vehicles have been manufactured.

Tesla is simply stating that FSD will drive the vehicle, but drivers still can (and must) respond in real time as they always would to any situation, and be attentive just as if FSD was not existing. One irony is that FSD takes such a load off the operator by handling the mundane repetitive parts of driving that would normally cause more driving fatigue, so it's actually easier to be more alert and pay better attention when using FSD. Whatever indications FSD might give, those are just supplemental, just like FSD is supplemental. Drivers can and must react to the exterior surroundings regardless of whether FSD is active or not, and if FSD does something wrong, the driver simply corrects as if FSD wasn't even active in the first place. Indications and signals from FSD are just supplemental and are not something a driver should wait on or be distracted by verses paying attention to the road.

Pilots in general aviation have to be very attentive and sharp to fly airplanes, keeping an eye on the weather, managing aircraft load, watching the aircraft autopilot versus aircraft elevator trim, avoiding icing conditions, using VFR or IFR approaches, setting up for approaches based on density altitude and aircraft load, and the list goes on with a whole plethora of things pilots must constantly manage and keep an eye on, which is much more difficult than driving a vehicle.

Trying to split hairs over system behavior nuances with Teslas condidering how refined they already are, seems like one is just targeting Tesla. There's a lot more flawed systems in the aircraft world that could use your kind of scrutiny, from how fuel tank distribution and switches can allow a bad situation or fuel starvation if the pilot doesn't know the quirks and system specifics, or how a good engine can be cut off by mistake when a first officer was meaning to shut off a bad engine that was compromised by a bird strike, or how there is still very limited virtual surroundings visibility in fog or clouds. Aircraft systems have come a long way but there are still a lot of swiss cheese holes that can line up.

But the difference is FSD (Supervised) does not alleviate responsibilty from the driver, not even a little. Your discussion would be more suited to critical indications in fully autonomous FSD versions like those used in Robotaxis. But for the current FSD (Supervised) in cars, Tesla should not be litigously forced to babysit human lapses any more than an aircraft manufacturer should be required to babysit or be responsible for the mistakes of an incompentent pilot.

Lawyers make money helping people point fingers, but each side of a case can play the same game. Ultimately for this discussion Tesla has more than done their part refining FSD for many years, so they've already had all the discussions about system indications and feedback that you have or would bring up. Tesla also has their iron-clad data and telemetry of what FSD does verses what controls the driver inputs, and even what the cabin camera sees the driver doing or not doing. Tesla has known people would try to split hairs in efforts to deny operator responsibility, and they've refined their integrated data collection to cover in those situations.

People have to accept their own responsibilty, especially when Tesla makes it very easy, and clearly states their responsibilities to them for their acknowledgement when activating FSD.

-ÆCIII

 

[Eka]

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.

I've had 3 full FSD crashes(software). Last time was on a mid 12.* version (HW3 MY). When it happened, there was no more FSD steering control with no override feel to take control steering*, immediate loud alarm over lowered volume music, red take control now steering wheel shown on screen, and after a couple seconds the car started to regen slow.

The other 2 (software) crashes were on earlier FSD versions. The car still seamed to be controlling it's self, but had the same alarms. I think they both had the shadow version of FSD still running so control continued until I took over.

All 3 of my (software) crashes happened on long continuous drives without shutdown.

* Car was already going straight.

edit: added (software) tags.

 

[REM]

I am not defending the person this thread started with - only relating my own experience - that FSD turned itself off with no warning other than a 'gong' that could potentially go unnoticed.

Can you provide proof of this?

 

[REM]

I've had 3 full FSD crashes.

 

[Eka]

It literally said FSD crashed in a warning message. These were not the inattention kick outs.

 

[REM]

It literally said FSD crashed in a warning message. These were not the inattention kick outs.

oh. your wording

you have had 3 FSD software force quits. I understand what you mean now.

 

[Oscar]

I got “take control immediately” many times for whatever reason, and I can safely and calmly took over. I don’t see any problem with that, unless you got distracted or panic.

 

[BengalBoy]

"Take Control" only happens when the Sun's glare blinds the camera, or, you are not watching the road, playing on your phone, in a very hard rain, yada, yada, yada. After almost two years of ownership and using FSD since it first was installed on a CyberTruck I question the posts I see in this thread. Either the posters are Trolls or incompetents.

 

[Pops]

I got “take control immediately” many times for whatever reason, and I can safely and calmly took over. I don’t see any problem with that, unless you got distracted or panic.

I get the "takeover immediately" error message on the Model Y very frequently. I've already gotten two this morning. It's literally never happened on the Cybertruck. I'm thinking there's some issue with our Model Y and I'm going to take it in for service.

 

[HaulingAss]

The rear emergency escape cables are hidden and not obvious by design. those rear emergency release cables need to NOT be visible or obvious as they override the child lock... for safety.

Federal law requires mechanical releases on both front doors but none are required on rear doors. Tesla added them out of an abundance of caution. It's up to the owners to read the Owner's Manual. If you think they should be more visible, I suggest (as a first step) lobbying the DOT to require manual releases on rear passenger doors in the first place, and to make them more visible, in the second place.

That said, in this case it sounds like the teenagers were so loaded on drugs and alcohol, and the crash was at such a high speed, they probably wouldn't have been able to get themselves out if the emergency door release had flashing blue and red lights on it. They might have just said, "Bro! Wow! That's so psychedelic! What is happening?"

You can't save people who put themselves in such situations from their own stupidity. Being sober when you crash goes a LONG ways towards being able to get out. It's hard enough to climb to whatever door isn't crushed shut or blocked by a stone wall or tree trunk when 100% sober, trying to do it while loaded up on intoxicants can make it next to impossible. When people reach a certain level of intoxication they can lose their will and ability to take action.

 

[CyberSav]

I've had FSD turn itself off. The notification is unsettling subtle - there is a 'gong'.

Since when? That subtle gong sound is only when you manually override and take over such as with a strong steering input.

It never just gongs and is like "okay you're on your own now." When it disables, it is accompanied with the red steering wheel take over graphic and loud alarm.

 

[HaulingAss]

I've had 3 full FSD crashes. Last time was on a mid 12.* version (HW3 MY). When it happened, there was no more FSD steering control with no override feel to take control steering*, immediate loud alarm over lowered volume music, red take control now steering wheel shown on screen, and after a couple seconds the car started to regen slow.

The other 2 crashes were on earlier FSD versions. The car still seamed to be controlling it's self, but had the same alarms. I think they both had the shadow version of FSD still running so control continued until I took over.

All 3 of my crashes happened on long continuous drives without shutdown.

* Car was already going straight.

Oh, my, God! And you are not embarrassed to admit that?

In each of the three crashes, why didn't you take over the second you noticed it wasn't driving safely? Three crashes on FSD? I recommend you stop using it (and perhaps stop being in control of a motor vehicle of any kind).

 

[ÆCIII]

I've had 3 full FSD crashes. Last time was on a mid 12.* version (HW3 MY). When it happened, there was no more FSD steering control with no override feel to take control steering*, immediate loud alarm over lowered volume music, red take control now steering wheel shown on screen, and after a couple seconds the car started to regen slow.

The other 2 crashes were on earlier FSD versions. The car still seamed to be controlling it's self, but had the same alarms. I think they both had the shadow version of FSD still running so control continued until I took over.

All 3 of my crashes happened on long continuous drives without shutdown.

* Car was already going straight.

What do you mean by "crashes" - FSD software program crashes, or an actual vehicle crash? Your ambiguity out of context is sneaky and attempts to imply the worst interpretation.

You just joined this forum yesterday March 20, 2026 - so with those statements you're obviously going to have to provide some proof - otherwise the BS flag is strongly raised and flying.

- ÆCIII

Sponsored