Tesla FSD – After a Tesla crash in Texas killed a 76-year-old woman, NHTSA and the NTSB opened investigations. Tesla’s vice president of AI software disputed how Autopilot versus FSD (Supervised) was engaged, while the company also settled another fatal 2023 FSD (Supervis
The moment the truck of attention rolled in, it didn’t slow down.
In Texas, a Tesla struck a home and killed a 76-year-old woman—an event that quickly became national news after the driver told police that Autopilot, Tesla’s basic driver-assistance system (which has since been discontinued), was engaged at the time of the crash.
But the story didn’t settle there. Ashok Elluswamy, Tesla’s vice president of AI software, offered a different account on X. He said the driver manually overrode what he described as “self-driving” by pressing the accelerator “all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area.”
Elluswamy’s comments point toward the vehicle having FSD (Supervised) rather than Autopilot. Still. he didn’t have to convince everyone—because. as the reporting makes clear. without an independent investigation. it isn’t possible to confirm what was actually engaged. Now, that missing confirmation is exactly what regulators have moved to obtain.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have opened investigations into the crash.
Those agencies are also not starting from scratch. Tesla has already been pulled into scrutiny through a separate track: the company settled a lawsuit connected to a fatal 2023 crash involving a vehicle using FSD (Supervised). That settlement is tied to a different NHTSA investigation focused on whether the system could “detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions. ” including “sun glare. fog. or airborne dust.”.
Put together, the two investigations create an uncomfortable picture for the public and for Tesla’s messaging. Tesla positions itself as an AI and robotics company. and FSD (Supervised) is currently the most visible. revenue-generating product tied to that branding. Yet with every new crash detail and every regulatory inquiry. the central promise—safety in real-world driving—gets tested again at street level. not in marketing language.
There’s a second thread running alongside the Tesla case, too—one that makes the timing feel more urgent. Earlier in the same week’s coverage of the broader automated-transportation landscape. Waymo’s expanding Ojai robotaxi program drew fresh attention. A reader tipped the outlet to a research report on Waymo and its growing fleet of Ojai robotaxis. after Waymo struck a supplier deal with Zeekr. a brand owned by China’s Geely Holding Group. to provide electric vehicles designed to operate as robotaxis.
The minivan-like robotaxi was designed in Sweden and manufactured in China. The vehicles don’t contain any vehicle communication modules, and current U.S. policy bans Chinese-connected vehicle technology. Once the robotaxis arrive in the U.S., Waymo takes over and adds its self-driving system. The Ojai is equipped with Waymo’s sixth-generation system. including 13 cameras. four lidar sensors. six radar units. and an array of external audio receivers.
MoffettNathanson examined Bill of Lading documents—detailed receipts of shipped goods filed with the U.S. government—and counted Zeekr vehicle labels CM1e or CME, its label for Waymo-bound vehicles. The firm found Waymo is on pace to import 3,156 vehicles into the U.S. this year, about 300 vehicles per month.
This week’s Tesla scrutiny is unfolding at the same time the robotaxi industry is racing toward scale. Regulators are deciding how the technology behaves, and companies are deciding how fast to expand.
Within that same push forward, the U.S. Department of Transportation proposed changes to federal vehicle regulations that would allow companies to skip the inclusion of brake pedals in “vehicles designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems.” Companies like Tesla and Zoox could benefit from that proposal.
But for Tesla, the questions raised by the Texas crash are not theoretical. They go to what the system was doing in a specific moment—whether the vehicle was running the discontinued Autopilot, or whether it had FSD (Supervised) engaged, and how the driver intervened.
Elluswamy’s account on X doesn’t replace the need for that evidence. NHTSA and NTSB moving on it does. In the wake of a deadly crash. the difference between Autopilot and FSD (Supervised) isn’t a technical trivia point—it’s the dividing line between what drivers thought they had. what Tesla says it had. and what investigators will ultimately be able to prove.
Tesla FSD (Supervised) Autopilot NHTSA NTSB crash investigation AI software automated driving robotaxi Waymo Zeekr cybersecurity
So they’re investigating… but meanwhile Tesla will just say “driver error” again, right?
Wait, Autopilot was supposedly on but the Tesla guy said it wasn’t? How can they even tell after the crash, like the car is literally dead. This is messy.
I saw that post where he said the driver pressed the gas to 100% or whatever. But isn’t that like the same thing as “engaged” just without the driver knowing? Either way it still hit a home so the system kinda failed.
Idk why people act shocked. These cars advertise “self driving” and then regulators are like “we can’t confirm what was actually engaged” like hello?? Also the article mentions sun glare/fog/dust detection from a 2023 crash, so sounds like they knew about visibility issues and then this happens anyway. I’m not even sure Autopilot vs FSD is the real problem, it’s that they keep calling it helpful when it’s clearly not.