nhtsa

car-safety-experts-at-nhtsa,-which-regulates-tesla,-axed-by-doge

Car safety experts at NHTSA, which regulates Tesla, axed by DOGE


Tesla has a lot riding on the swift success of its so-called Full Self-Driving software.

Credit: Kai Eckhardt/picture alliance via Getty Images

Job cuts at the US traffic safety regulator instigated by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency disproportionately hit staff assessing self-driving risks, hampering oversight of technology on which the world’s richest man has staked the future of Tesla.

Of roughly 30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration workers dismissed in February as part of Musk’s campaign to shrink the federal workforce, many were in the “office of vehicle automation safety,” people familiar with the situation told the Financial Times.

The cuts are part of mass firings by Doge that have affected at least 20,000 federal employees and raised widespread concern over potential conflicts of interest for Musk given many of the targeted agencies regulate or have contracts with his businesses.

The NHTSA, which has been a thorn in Tesla’s side for years, has eight active investigations into the company after receiving—and publishing—more than 10,000 complaints from members of the public.

Morale at the agency, which has ordered dozens of Tesla recalls and delayed the rollout of the group’s self-driving and driver-assistance software, has plunged following Doge’s opening salvo of job cuts, according to current and former NHTSA staff.

“There is a clear conflict of interest in allowing someone with a business interest influence over appointments and policy at the agency regulating them,” said one former senior NHTSA figure, who was not among the Doge-led layoffs.

Remaining agency employees are now warily watching the experience of other federal regulators that have crossed Musk’s companies.

“Musk has attacked the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission to benefit SpaceX,” said another former top official at the regulator. “Why would he spare NHTSA?”

Musk has repeatedly clashed with federal and state authorities. Last year he called for the FAA chief to resign and sharply criticized the FCC for revoking a 2022 deal for his satellite telecommunications company Starlink to provide rural broadband.

The NHTSA said in a statement that safety remained its top priority and that it would enforce the law on any carmaker in line with its rules and investigations. “The agency’s investigations have been and will continue to be independent,” it added.

Musk, Doge, and Tesla did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The dismissals, instigated by email on Valentine’s Day, affected roughly 4 percent of the agency’s 800 staff and included employees who had been promised promotions as well as newly hired workers, according to seven people familiar with the matter.

Staff working on vehicle automation safety were disproportionately affected, some of the people said, because the division was only formed in 2023 so comprised many newer hires still on probation.

The email cited poor performance as a reason for the dismissals. However, one senior figure still at the NHTSA rejected the notion that this was the basis for the layoffs. Another said morale was low after “some huge talent losses.”

Doge’s actions could hamper Tesla’s plans, according to one laid-off agency worker, who said the dismissals would “certainly weaken NHTSA’s ability to understand self-driving technologies.”

“This is an office that should be on the cutting edge of how to handle AVs [autonomous vehicles] and figuring out what future rulemaking should look like,” said another former NHTSA employee. “It would be ironic if Doge slowed down Tesla.”

The company has a lot riding on the swift success of its so-called Full Self-Driving software.

Musk has promised customers and investors that Tesla will launch a driverless ride-hailing service in Austin, Texas, by June and start production of a fleet of autonomous “cybercabs” next year.

To do so, Tesla needs an exemption from the NHTSA to operate a non-standard driverless vehicle on American roads because Musk’s cybercabs have neither pedals nor a steering wheel.

“Letting Doge fire those in the autonomous division is sheer madness—we should be lobbying to add people to NHTSA,” said one manager at Tesla. They “need to be developing a national framework for AVs, otherwise Tesla doesn’t have a prayer for scale in FSD or robotaxis.”

The NHTSA’s decision on the cybercab exemption and the future of its proposed AV STEP program to evaluate and oversee driverless and assisted cars will be closely watched considering the high stakes for Tesla.

Current and former NHTSA officials have privately expressed concerns about Musk’s ambitious rollout plans and how he would wield his influence to ensure a speedy launch of the cybercab and unsupervised FSD on US roads.

The government could “speed up the [AV STEP] application process and weaken it in some way so the safety case is less onerous to meet,” one person told the FT.

The future of crash reporting is another area of concern for those at the agency, following reports that the Trump administration may seek to loosen or eliminate disclosure rules.

After a spate of incidents, the NHTSA in 2021 introduced a standing general order that requires carmakers to report within 24 hours any serious accidents involving vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance or automated driving systems.

Enforcing the order has been a vital tool for the agency to launch investigations into Tesla and other carmakers because there is no federal regulatory framework to govern cars not under human control.

It was critical for a recall of 2 million Teslas in December 2023 for an update that would force drivers to pay attention when its autopilot assistance software was engaged.

“Crash reporting is vital, the massive Tesla recall on autopilot could not have occurred without it. We got a huge amount of info on crashes and followed up with demands for more data and video,” said one person involved in the recall. “But everything seems to be fair game right now.”

One person familiar with Musk’s thinking said the company felt unfairly penalized by the rules because its sensors and video recording are more advanced than rivals’ so it files more complete data.

“Reporters see that we are reporting more incidents—many of which have nothing to do with autopilot—and have told the wrong story about our safety record,” the person said. “There is a healthy amount of frustration about that dynamic… the idea our bar for safety is lower is just wrong.”

The NHTSA has shown no signs of backing down, overseeing three new recalls of Tesla vehicles since Trump took office, most recently ordering 46,000 Cybertrucks to be checked after discovering an exterior panel was prone to falling off because of faulty glue.

Of its eight active investigations into Tesla vehicles, five concern Musk’s claims about the capabilities of the company’s Autopilot driver-assistance system and its FSD software—central promises of Tesla’s value proposition and the subject of thousands of consumer complaints.

The agency has received an average of 20 per month on FSD since the software was launched, according to an FT analysis of more than 10,000 complaints.

A sharp rise in complaints about so-called “phantom braking” at the start of 2022 triggered one of the investigations. In one, about a mid-October 2024 incident, a Tesla Model 3 in FSD suddenly stopped in front of a car that would have crashed into it had the Tesla driver not taken back control of the vehicle and accelerated.

“Software is so far from being ready to be safely used,” the Model 3 driver said in the complaint.

While multiple Tesla tech updates in the past two years have reduced complaints about braking glitches, other software issues persist. The FT analysis, which used artificial intelligence to categorize complaints, shows errors connected to driver-assist tools such as FSD and Autopilot still make up a large share of complaints made against the company in the past year.

In February, the driver of a 2024 Cybertruck reported that FSD disengaged without warning, causing the vehicle to suddenly accelerate and nearly collide head-on with another car. The owner said they contacted Tesla service but the vehicle was neither inspected nor repaired.

Former Apple executive Jonathan Morrison has been nominated by Trump as the NHTSA’s next administrator and must find a way to navigate the agency through the perceived conflicts of interest with Musk, without being accused of stifling AV innovation.

“Elon has done a lot of really interesting things with tech that were thought to be impossible,” said one former top NHTSA official.

“What concerns me is that Tesla is not known for taking a slow and methodical approach; they move fast and break things, and people are at risk because of that. There have been preventable deaths, so it’s an immediate concern for us.”

© 2025 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

Car safety experts at NHTSA, which regulates Tesla, axed by DOGE Read More »

queer-friendly-data-on-car-crash-deaths-removed-from-nhtsa-website

Queer-friendly data on car crash deaths removed from NHTSA website


Potential road hazard ahead

Trump targeting car crash data sparks concerns over datasets collected since 1975.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

In early February, a dataset tracking car crash deaths in the US curiously went missing from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) website.

Unlike other Donald Trump-ordered changes to government websites in which entire studies were removed and later court-ordered to be restored, only the most recent data on car crash deaths from 2022 was deleted from download files on NHTSA’s website.

The odd removal sparked concerns that the Trump administration may be changing or possibly even ending the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)—a collection of police-reported data from every state that has tracked car crash fatalities since 1975. The Health department has said the data is used to help reduce deaths from not wearing a seatbelt or deaths involving a drunk driver.

NHTSA did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But the agency eventually provided a vague response to Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, an organization that advises lawmakers and bills itself as a “unique partnership of insurers, law enforcement, public health, and consumer experts working together to make America’s roads safer.”

“The file was taken down for some minor corrections and should be back up by the end of this week,” NHTSA told Advocates without any further explanation of what fixes were needed.

Ars spoke to several safety organizations and auto industry analysts who depend on FARS data to analyze trends, including efforts to flag the most dangerous cars in America.

A rumor began circulating that the 2022 data was yanked because NHTSA began allowing “other” sexes to be monitored in FARS data starting with that report. It was expected that NHTSA pulled the data down to comply with a Trump executive order “defending women” by banning government “efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex.”

To get to the bottom of the rumors, Ars consulted an archived version of the FARS downloads page, which showed that the 2022 dataset was available as recently as January 30. The uncensored data showed that unlike prior years, 22 car crash victims were documented using a category in 2022 for sex that had never been tracked previously, “Other (e.g., “X”, Non-Binary, Not Specified, etc.).”

NHTSA has not directly confirmed if the dataset is being changed to remove this data or if other “minor corrections” were needed. More will be revealed once the dataset comes back online, supposedly within the next few days.

Karl Brauer, an executive analyst for iSeeCars.com, which offers a car search engine and uses FARS data to help buyers steer clear of the “most dangerous” vehicles on US roads, told Ars that NHTSA’s public silence on the missing data means industry stakeholders don’t really know right now how FARS data might be changing.

“We can only speculate regarding NHTSA curtailing access to FARS data, but it’s disappointing given FARS’ value as a reference point for vehicle safety,” Brauer said. “Hopefully, this is a temporary situation that will be resolved shortly and not an indication that NHTSA no longer plans to compile this data. Consumers should be able to review all aspects of a vehicle’s safety, including how many fatalities it has been involved in.”

Trump targeting car crash data

Among the most dangerous cars on the road last year, iSeeCars flagged the Hyundai Venue, Chevrolet Corvette, Mitsubishi Mirage, Porsche 911, and Honda CR-V Hybrid as the “top five most dangerous cars.” Those cars had “fatal accident rates nearly five times higher than the average vehicle” from 2018 to 2022, their report said.

And “despite Tesla’s advanced driver-assist technology,” the Model Y and Model S both made the list, too, with Tesla maintaining “the highest fatal accident rate by brand.”

Back in December, when Trump was preparing to take office, a document seen by Reuters reportedly showed that his transition team was angling to “drop a car-crash reporting requirement opposed by Elon Musk’s Tesla.”

This car crash data, which is compiled due to a mandatory reporting requirement from carmakers, is different from FARS data, which comes from police reports. But a source told Reuters that Musk maintains that the mandatory reporting rule is “unfair” to Tesla because Musk “believes” Tesla reports “better data” than other car brands. That “makes it look like Tesla is responsible for an outsized number of crashes involving advanced driver-assistance systems,” the source told Reuters.

Trump reportedly tasked his transition team with coming up with a 100-day strategy to kill off the reporting requirement. That move seemingly would make FARS data even more important to safety organizations and government officials that would otherwise lose data that helps track vehicle safety concerns, particularly with innovative automated-driving systems.

The University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute houses the Center for the Management of Information for Safe and Sustainable Transportation (CMISST), which also regularly analyzes car crash data. A CMISST spokesperson told Ars that NHTSA has also removed Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) data from 2022. Even temporary removals make it harder for outside researchers to get a clear picture of road safety, the spokesperson told Ars.

“These datasets are world-leading in their scale and completeness, with FARS a complete census of fatal crashes involving someone who died within 30 days as a result of a crash on public roads,” CMISST’s spokesperson said. “CRSS is in some ways even more world-leading because it is a well-designed complex probability survey of police-reported crashes across the US, which allows us to have nationally representative estimates of the incidence of such crashes, including many key characteristics of the circumstances, the vehicles, and the people involved.”

Joseph Young, director of media relations for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), told Ars that, like many others, his organization had “previously downloaded the dataset and continues to use it for analysis, so this removal doesn’t cause any immediate issues for our team.” But Young agreed that “it does complicate others’ ability to access the full dataset.”

Currently, the official FARS query tool still shows 2022 data, Young noted, but an Ars review confirmed that the tracking of “other” sexes is not available through that interface. So the only way to see changes once NHTSA uploads the new file will be to consult the archived dataset.

FARS saves lives, experts say

FARS data is released as soon as it’s available to try to prevent as many vehicle fatalities as possible. The version of the 2022 data that is missing from NHTSA’s site today is not the final draft, which is expected to be published in the spring. Around the same time, the first draft of the 2023 data should be available, CMISST’s spokesperson told Ars, as long as the Trump administration doesn’t de-prioritize sharing the data. Young told Ars that IIHS’ “bigger concern” than the missing 2022 data is whether there will be delays in posting new data.

“The latest FARS data is used extensively for research purposes and also for informing the public and decision makers about important trends in traffic safety, so it’s important that it be available as soon as possible,” Young told Ars.

Peter Kurdock, general counsel for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, told Ars that the key government datasets that his organization relies on to monitor highway safety do not currently appear to be at risk. But those reports are frequently updated, and any potential delays could make it harder to answer granular data-driven questions like “What type of pedestrians are being hit?” or “What time of day are they being hit?”

“All that stuff’s very important to the policy we develop, and we have to answer questions from policymakers as well,” Kurdock told Ars.

Advocates’ senior research director, Shaun Kildare, added that carmakers shouldn’t want this dataset to be messed with any more than outside safety researchers, because otherwise they would have to rely on spotty customer reports to monitor issues with their vehicles.

“In the past 50 years, [there were] 860,000 lives saved [and] nearly 50 million people that avoided injury,” Kildare said, citing NHTSA data. “I think the overall benefits [of collecting FARS and other crash data to set Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards] were somewhere in the $17 trillion range in terms of benefits and cost savings to the US,” he added.

A CMISST spokesperson told Ars that there remains a critical need to closely track car crash fatalities, which, despite safety stakeholders’ best efforts, reportedly continue to rise in the US.

“Given that fatalities have been going in the wrong direction over the last approximately 15 years, these data are critical to knowing where we are at with fatal (and non-fatal) crashes and which groups of crashes (e.g., pedestrians at night) are particularly on the rise,” CMISST’s spokesperson said.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Queer-friendly data on car crash deaths removed from NHTSA website Read More »

tesla-fsd-crashes-in-fog,-sun-glare—feds-open-new-safety-investigation

Tesla FSD crashes in fog, sun glare—Feds open new safety investigation

Today, federal safety investigators opened a new investigation aimed at Tesla’s electric vehicles. This is now the 14th investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and one of several currently open. This time, it’s the automaker’s highly controversial “full self-driving” feature that’s in the crosshairs—NHTSA says it now has four reports of Teslas using FSD and then crashing after the camera-only system encountered fog, sun glare, or airborne dust.

Of the four crashes that sparked this investigation, one caused the death of a pedestrian when a Model Y crashed into them in Rimrock, Arizona, in November 2023.

NHTSA has a standing general order that requires it to be told if a car crashes while operating under partial or full automation. Fully automated or autonomous means cars might be termed “actually self-driving,” such as the Waymos and Zooxes that clutter up the streets of San Francisco. Festooned with dozens of exterior sensors, these four-wheel testbeds drive around—mostly empty of passengers—gathering data to train themselves with later, with no human supervision. (This is also known as SAE level 4 automation.)

But the systems that come in cars that you or I could buy are far less sophisticated. Sometimes called “level 2+,” these systems (which include Tesla Autopilot, Tesla FSD, GM’s Super Cruise, BMW Highway Assistant, and Ford BlueCruise, among others) are partially automated, not autonomous. They will steer, accelerate, and brake for the driver, and they may even change lanes without explicit instruction, but the human behind the wheel is always meant to be in charge, even if the car is operating in a hands-free mode.

Tesla FSD crashes in fog, sun glare—Feds open new safety investigation Read More »

the-cruise-origin-driverless-pod-is-dead,-gm-tells-investors

The Cruise Origin driverless pod is dead, GM tells investors

nobody take the wheel —

The driverless Origin is dead; instead, Cruise will use next-generation Bolt EVs.

a rendering of a Cruise Origin picking up passengers in the Castro district in San Francisco

Enlarge / As Cruise ramps up its robotaxi service, it won’t be in these cool-looking driverless pods.

Cruise

The Cruise Origin was definitely the least conventional of all the myriad vehicles that General Motors planned to build using its new Ultium battery platform. For starters, it wasn’t a pickup truck or SUV, unlike all the Ultium-based electric vehicles that have gone into production thus far. Instead, the Origin—meant for Cruise, GM’s robotaxi startup—was a true driverless pod design, a box on wheels with the front and rear seats facing each other and no steering wheel at all. But now the Origin is dead, GM said in a letter to investors today.

We saw the Origin in person in January 2020 at a flashy reveal event that was light on the details. At the time, Cruise was targeting early 2022 to begin deploying Origins, a timeline that accounted for neither pandemic nor the difficulty in actually developing autonomous vehicles.

By early 2022, Cruise was ready to petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, asking permission to begin using Origins on the road. But 2023 was a bad year for the autonomous vehicle company, which had its operations in California suspended after a Cruise robotaxi ran over and then dragged a pedestrian in San Francisco.

The challenge of convincing NHTSA that such a radically different design should be given the OK proved too much for GM to bear, it told investors.

Instead of using Origins, Cruise will turn its attention to the next-generation Chevrolet Bolt, which will cost less per unit than the Origin, helpfully. The next-gen Bolt is a revamp of Chevy’s popular compact EV that will move over to the cheaper Ultium battery platform. The Bolt was GM’s bestselling EV but went out of production last year at the Orion Assembly plant in Michigan, which the automaker wanted to repurpose so it could build electric pickup trucks.

Those electric pickups are now on hold, postponed until mid-2026 GM says. Like Ford, it appears that GM miscalculated the appeal of expensive electric trucks, and as a result the company will not meet its originally stated ambition of building a million EVs in 2025.

The Cruise Origin driverless pod is dead, GM tells investors Read More »

phantom-braking-lands-troubled-ev-maker-fisker-in-feds’-crosshairs

Phantom braking lands troubled EV-maker Fisker in feds’ crosshairs

eek —

This makes four open federal safety investigations for the Fisker Ocean.

A 2023 Fisker Ocean One sports utility vehicle (SUV) during the Montreal Electric Vehicle Show in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Friday, April 19, 2024

Graham Hughes/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The federal government is looking at a phantom braking problem that appears to be affecting the Fisker Ocean electric crossover. Earlier this week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Defects Investigation opened a safety probe into the electric vehicle—its fourth so far. Open investigations are also examining whether the doors can fail to open, in addition to problems with shifting into or out of park and issues with partial braking loss over low-grip surfaces.

The newest preliminary investigation was opened by NHTSA’s ODI after the regulator received eight complaints of alleged inappropriate automatic emergency braking. AEB is one of the more effective new active driver safety systems. NHTSA added it to its list of recommended safety features almost a decade ago, and last month, it published industry standards that will make the feature mandatory on all new cars and trucks, although not until September 2029.

But not every AEB implementation is equal. Both Tesla‘s and Honda‘s systems have suffered from too many false positives, also known as phantom braking, triggering the feature inappropriately, sometimes resulting in that car being crashed into from behind.

NHTSA’s report makes it clear that’s what’s happening here:

The complaints allege the activation of AEB, without an apparent roadway obstruction in the vehicle’s forward path, resulting in sudden vehicle deceleration. This occurs without adequate warning or input from the driver. The braking applications range from momentary, partial application resulting in rapid loss of speed to full application, which brings the vehicle to a complete stop in the travel lane. Three of the complaints alleged an injury.

Last August, Fisker held an event in California to debut an entire range of EVs, including one meant to sell for less than $30,000. Now, less than a year later, it’s unclear how much longer the company will survive. At the end of February, its share price tumbled when it issued a going concern warning, saying that it would not survive the next 12 months without fresh investment.

The startup automaker was in talks with Nissan that would have led to a partnership as well as an infusion of funds for Fisker. But Nissan walked away in March, devaluing Fisker’s stock price even further in the process. Earlier this week, Fisker filed for bankruptcy for its Austrian division.

Phantom braking lands troubled EV-maker Fisker in feds’ crosshairs Read More »