Tesla Sued For Cybertruck Using FSD Attempting To Drive Off Bridge

Unloved, unwanted, a face only a mother could love and its dad is a drug addict. The poor cybertruck was just looking to end it all Edit: thanks for my first ever award!

Now imagine being in the cybercab, with no steering wheel and brakes. Then this happens.

Video: https://youtube.com/shorts/MfL8CBcwRYA

The driver was not a true believer.

Well thats too fast for conditions

Should've let the Cybersuck drive off the bridge and end it's misery. Obviously without a human passenger (not driver as it's Full Self Driving!) trapped inside by Tesla's death handles.

Do they still love their truck?

I wonder what the economic fallout will be when their leases are up and it's time to turn them in

Doesn't it occupy a really niche tax bracket in some states? I remember an article about somebody complaining they bought a cybertruck for tax reasons and everyone treats them like shit

SO FSD should have slowed down, right?

Its powered by tesla stocks, and Tesla stock doesnt slow down.

Still love the truck tho 🫠

But why worry? The stainless steel body is ‘bulletproof.’ 😆

Is LIDAR still for cucks Elmo?

How about some love for this massive steel beam. A little more to the left or right and it would have ended badly

It wanted to explore the mouth feel of river water.

“Sure my Cybertruck tried a murder-suicide me but it makes me look so tough. All my masculine identity is tied to it.”

When is “Full Self Driving” not “Full” and not “Self”?????

Deathcab

Full Suicide Driving

My understanding was that even its mother wanted to have it strangled with the umbilical cord. Elon wouldn’t go for it.

Full Self Diving

And interior door handles that only work under power

Time for Tesla to make an ejector seat standard equipment.

But it’s only hw4!!!! Oh wait…

Sadly I imagine they will say the *supervised and the manual clearly state that driver attention is required and use corporate puffery argument again to get it dismissed. But getting more info about how bad fsd is onto the internet is a good thing.

Why do you think the Austin robotaxi (supervised) has gone no where in an entire year

At least it hit the pole instead of careening off the bridge. Saved his fucking life. Honestly, some people.

Driver attention is required, but calling it "Full Self Driving" seems to give people a false sense of confidence.

I mean I’d do the same if I was a six figure dumpster

And it’s made to act as a boat for a short time (fElon literally tried marketing this)

Seems like that was the right decision as they don't belong on the road!

Cybertrucks are self aware now? Even the T800 couldn’t self terminate in Terminator 2z

>And it’s made to act as a boat for a short time Boat, like in a viking funeral? 😉🤪🤣

CyberToaster having an existential crisis you say?

that's from 2025. FSD 14 is actually not bad. FSD 13 on cybertruck seemed to be bad and V13 had problems on these types of roads in texas with going too fast

Was using Autopilot, not FSD. Autopilot is adaptive cruise control and lane centering. It can't be trusted to do more than navigate a straight line road and needs to always be closely monitored. Not defending Tesla at all because FSD is a hot unworkable mess in its current format, but if she thought Autopilot had the same capabilities as FSD she clearly did not read the manual.

Literally anything can be a boat for a short time.

Its hard to believe, but this Incel Camino was being driven by a woman...maybe a masculine woman?

I refuse to blame anyone for conflating the deliberately confusing continuum of shifting goalposts that started out as "Autopilot" and morphed into "FSD". Technoking himself called the Paint it Black video an "autopilot" demo when he directed his minions to fake it. Remember when "summon" was supposed to make coast to coast driverless trips? Its a confusing collage of claims about imaginary products, and customers shouldn't be expected to monitor Griftoking's social media stream in order to figure out capabilities. California has it right - don't call it "autopilot", and give it a moniker that implies its a driver assist feature.

I 100% agree. But Tesla will say the manual says the driver needs to pay attention.

Even if that's true, the problem is the closer it gets to being passable, the more near misses and bad accidents will happen because drivers using FSD will get more complacent.

I totally agree that Tesla clearly blurs the lines of the capabilities of its self driving packages between AutoPilot, AutoSteer and FSD. But courts also generally agree it is the drivers responsibility to read and understand the operation and functions of a vehicles safety features and its operating limitations. Failing to operate a vehicle per its stated limitations can actually lead to a charge of driver negligence. The lawsuit claims she was using AutoPilot yet also makes claims regarding FSD. So did she actually read the manual and know the difference between the 2 technologies and its limitations? I suspect she is going to have a difficult time collecting on this lawsuit if she didn't read the manual and understand the limitations or differences between AutoPilot and FSD. Feel free to Google the Tesla manual for driving assist features and its limitations. It clearly states limitations as follows for all including FSD. In particular the first point. \*\*From Tesla Manual In addition, these features may not work as intended when: * The road has sharp curves or significant changes in elevation. * Road signs and signals are unclear, ambiguous, or poorly maintained. * Visibility is poor (due to heavy rain, snow, hail, etc. or poorly lit roadways at night) * You are driving in a tunnel or next to a highway divider that interferes with the view of the camera(s) * Bright light (such as from oncoming headlights or direct sunlight) interferes with the view of the camera(s)

As Bob slowly sunk into the dark water, he was able to gasp one more time, "sTiLl LoVe The tRuCk though!! Gargle gargle"

It’s a trash truck. It looks like a trashcan lid

His cars would rather end it all than work for him

"well, it will float until it doesn't..."

All gas no breaks

And they want to remove pedals and steering wheels in future vehicles so you can't even try to save yourself.

No, the wording in the suit is confusing because they are trying to assert that all of Tesla's self driving features are defective, and that Tesla is grossly negligent in designing, marketing, selling, etc all of them (as well as being negligent in employing Mr Musk). They try to group them all collectively as "self-driving", but they get sloppy in their wording in several places. The vehicle in the specific incident was a Cybertruck in FSD mode.

Even in FSD mode Tesla states it can work incorrectly when confronted with elevation changes (going up highway ramp) navigating sharp corners (it was a corner) and when having its vision blocked by a highway divider. (basically what she hit) Thats 3 strikes against any explanation for using FSD if she read the manual and was paying attention. This is the reason so many of these suits against Tesla have been dismissed or they were deemed only partly responsible because the FSD was not being used or monitored properly. Personally I wouldn't trust FSD to navigate me on anything more that a flat stretch of prairie highway in daylight. If you buy a chainsaw and ignore the user manual and safety precautions and cut your foot off or lose an eye not wearing goggles good luck suing the chainsaw maanufacturer. Musk most definately hypes Teslas capabilities but I think the courts consider his role as CEO and making forward looking statements that are even misleading to be a SEC issue. Its hard to prove his hype has hurt stockholders, it has in fact made many of them very rich and people continue to buy the stock. I'm sure the SEC under the current administration is unlikely to do more than slap his wrist for any of it.

Well, yeah, the gist of the suit seems to be that Tesla was well aware of the limitations of FSD (as per their manual) and a) were negligent in not fixing them, and b) were negligent in advertising FSD as if it did not have those limitations (and c) were negligent in allowing Mr Musk to lie about it). It's hard to say if the suit has a real chance of prevailing. Tesla has lost suits recently on similar grounds, so the courts may be taking a different view. OTOH, the plaintiff's main goal might be an out-of-court settlement. (the chainsaw comparison doesn't really work - I don't beleive any chainsaw manufacturer claims their saw will not cut your foot off in their advertising).

CEO's hype their companies all the time with forward looking statements (robotaxis, FSD, a 30K vehicle on and on), thats their job although Musk definately pushes the limit. This does not meen as an owner you don't have to follow what your manual states. Musk is sly with what he often says eg "You *will or should* be able to drive coast to coast with FSD". He doesn't say when, doesn't say you can right now. Not long ago the CEO's of both Ford and GM claimed they would be fully electric by the mid 30's and lost billions for their shareholders and have mostly recinded those plans. Were they lying or simply making a forward looking statement based on their best analysis from engineers and market analysts? Its best to always take what any CEO claims with a dash of salt.

To be fair, that wall came out of nowhere. So did the pole. And the 15mph exit sign.

Are you saying that she's trying to sue Tesla because autopilot *tried* to drive off the bridge; but if she had used the more advanced capabilities of FSD, it would have *succeeded* in driving off the bridge? /s

Yes but profits over safety and its cheaper just to buy an election and have safety standards reduced.

This comment deserves an award

Agree with you completely on that last sentence. But apropos of the suit, there's a difference between an action for securities fraud (where forward looking statements are, to a degree, allowable, altho you can't outright lie, as Musk did when he said he had financing to take Tesla private) and an action for negligence (where what you *should* have known/done carries as much weight as what you said). And either way, it'll be up to the court to decide, and courts are notoriously unpredictable.