My SO just complained about the same when she found out the jug labled weed killer she bought in fact affects all plants and grass, not just weeds.

"Why isn't it called plant killer rather than weed killer", she griped. Why indeed.

> "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)"

Water (Dry)

I agree with the sentiment and don't like Elon at all. But I think there is a case to say the Full refers to features, so not only lane change / parking, but actual driving fully. If it said Perfect FSD or even High Quality FSD, that's definitely worse, but we have to acknowledge FSD can fully drive in many cases, not enough for me to be comfortable enough maybe, but comparing to rat poison seems like a stretch.

And doorbell footage of the crash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR_Y_yf84m8

Holy shit, it looks like it was going at full highway speeds (at least) in a residential neighborhood. Doesn't look like it attempts to stop or steer away at any point. This seems like the outcome one would expect from a passed-out driver and a stuck accelerator. I'm honestly amazed that the driver survived.

Are there any US federal or state laws stipulating some sort of black box style recording of data for accident investigation?

If not then I suspect a Tesla will turn out to be quite surprisingly forgetful about what it was up to in a road traffic collision.

RTC is a UK term that took over from RTA (road traffic accident) - it describes what happened rather than heading off into the weeds as to cause.

> telemetry will tell the story

Idk, the death-toll gap between Tesla and Waymo seems to tell a story enough.

Teslas do glithcy speed limits readings often, from GPS drift (ie. it thinks the car is on the highway) or may be deceived by some sign with numbers on the street.

When that happens and depending on Autopilot [1] settings, the car will shoot out to reach the new limit. If the driver is distracted enough not to notice or react in time, the car could crash. GPS inaccuracy does sound plausible given Teslas slow down if an abrupt change of direction is near (ie roundabout) per GPS and map data.

The house sits at a corner, not a culthesac.

1. It's not clear the driver allegedly said "autopilot" or "FSD"

If Tesla was bold enough to intentionally auto disengage seconds before an accident (to avoid liability) then can they be trusted to maintain telemetry throughout dicey circumstances?

And _we_ will never see the telemetry.

Maybe NTSB will.

Certainly Tesla will. And that will inform how their PR team responds to this collision.

Maybe some plaintiffs will if they can manage to subpoena the data from Tesla in some hypothetical future court case.

The reason I will never buy a Tesla is because it is one of the most advanced surveillance systems against the driver, but there is no one empowered to inspect the car / company (comprehensively, not superficially).

> I seriously doubt FSD would drive into a house.

Strawman. You seem to be insinuating that FSD intended to aim for a house. Usually the chain of events would start with something like “FSD was engaged on the road and in the intended lane” then “FSD lost track of the boundary of the lane” or maybe “FSD identified an obstruction in the lane so it maneuvered out of lane”.

Software with bugs in it? Preposterous!

The reddit post from the grandchild says "autopilot", which is really just lane keeping and adaptive cruise control.

I believe autopilot would totally run into a house. It doesn't respect stop signs or red lights. If the house is at a T intersection the autopilot might try to drive right through it. I agree about FSD though

“Wait for the telemetry”. Like that case where it took years and reverse engineering to pull the footage that Tesla claimed did not exist?

Surely, we can trust Tesla will be providing all relevant information to the authorities without delay.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/08/29/tesla-a...

> 1) I’ve put enough kms on FSD to know that it isn’t going to drive into a house.

Is it possible FSD on this vehicle was a different version? Can't FSD change from one drive to the next, based on software updates or even external conditions?

Perhaps you drove in a different region with differing conditions?

> 3) Regardless of who was controlling it, why did this guy let his car jump the kerb and go through a house? Why was he going fast enough?

Why is it called "Full Self Driving" if the person behind the wheel must control (or even just monitor) the speed?

"I coded like 500 line of C, I know for a fact segfaults cannot happen"

That's how you sound

> Regardless of who was controlling it, why did this guy let his car jump the kerb and go through a house? Why was he going fast enough?

There are decades worth of man-machines UX research to prove this: the more you lean on automated systems to perform a manual task, like specific vehicle operations, the more your reaction time and relefexes for that specific motor skill will suffer.

Non-level 4 driver assistance tech should only be used for helping prevent accidents and not pretend to be actual full self driving

"I haven't encountered a rare edge case, therefor the rare edge case must not exist"

"I've driven drunk enough times to know I'd never cause an accident"

[flagged]

Yeah that's cringey, "high speed" is enough.

Sounds like a junior reporter trying to hit a word count.

rate = distance / time

Cameras get dirty and it is unreasonable to think that they wouldn't. This would force my hand to clean the cameras. Why is this a bad thing?

Used to work in the hardware industry. Friend worked for a company who was a component manufacturer about the mindset of Tesla - which affirmed to him why he'd never buy one:

"Hey, we sent you over the new firmware for the component, check it out." (The test suite for this component takes approximately 36 hours to execute.)

Three hours later:

"This is working so much better, thanks a lot!"

"???"

"Oh, we just flashed a car we have here and took it out for a drive."

"?!?"

Oof.

Made my day lol. Brilliant.

If FSD proves to be demonstrably safer in such a scenario then it would make sense to use it there.

They do that on bikes as well. At first, I was very confused about what was happening.

> don’t understand why a person would need FSD in a suburb street

My parents have a Tesla. It’s convenient. I engage my Subaru’s lane-keeping in suburbs, too, to reduce driver fatigue.

The Subaru behaves predictably. The Tesla is mostly more capable, but does something dumbfucked and dangerous every few dozen trips.

The grandchildren's post: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/1uardtu/driver...

It seems your standards are pretty arbitrary.

Personally I want to know that a provable crime was actually committed before calling for someone to be jailed.

Hands on wheel doesn’t absolve the FSD from stopping the car before hitting the wall/object. And the person. This was completely avoidable.

I can't imagine the lawyers going after him when they can go after the world's only trillionaire.

The latest FSD does not attempt to check if your hands are on the wheel at all.

Whatever they do or don't say in the fine print, they and their CEO clearly communicate to every Tesla owner I've met that you do not have to keep your hands on the wheel. tesla.com/fsd has a splash page showing someone driving the car hands-free. I do agree that the driver should also be held responsible.

There used to be UI options for "by how much can FSD exceed the posted speed limit" and "should FSD actually come to a stop at a stop sign".

> Ultimately the driver is responsible

Recent lawsuits [1] seem to suggest both are. The driver committed manslaughter and should go to jail. The company sold a dangerous product that killed someone and should pay massive damages.

[1] https://electrek.co/2026/04/16/tesla-facing-up-to-14-billion...

You might not think so, but there are many people that believe Tesla marketing that FSD is better than paying attention. I struggle convincing my parents that they shouldn't drive if they are likely to fall asleep behind the wheel and it's helpful to categorize an FSD crash separately from a human driver crash.

"The name is a lie, but we have a disclaimer" is not generally considered adequate.

Being responsible and being at fault are two different things.

The tell is the the name. Full Self Driving.

If full self driving was active then the driver was Tesla.

But the car was fully self driving right? Fully, as completely driving by itself? If the person in the front seat is driving, the feature isn't really "full self driving" now is it?

Looks accurate to the content to me.

If it is Full-Self Driving, the machine is the driver. The company providing is ultimately responsible.