NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
10 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Jul 28, 2026
Forward Collision AvoidanceVehicle Speed Control
The Full Self Driving software does not allow the user to limit the maximum speed of the vehicle while in use. The car frequently drives 15-20 MPH over the actual limits in typical driving modes with no ability for the user to safely and precisely restrict its speed to a more safe and appropriate level. The car may begin a journ…
Read full complaint
The Full Self Driving software does not allow the user to limit the maximum speed of the vehicle while in use. The car frequently drives 15-20 MPH over the actual limits in typical driving modes with no ability for the user to safely and precisely restrict its speed to a more safe and appropriate level. The car may begin a journey at an appropriate speed, and continue at that speed for miles, but for no reason that is apparent to the user, the system may begin to accelerate beyond a safe limit. This makes the driving experience while using this software less predictable and compromises the safety of the user and others on the road. The user controlled speed limiting feature was previously available, and worked well, but was removed as part of an update to version 14.x of the software. An alternative that is being used, which is much less safe, is that users can restrict the speed of the entire vehicle such that its speed may never pass a certain level, under any circumstance, even if the accelerator is fully depressed (by the user). Once enabled, this feature cannot be adjusted or disabled while driving. Users are using this vehicle speed restriction feature to more precisely restrict the excessive and unpredictable speeding of the automated system because they are not given the ability to do so safely and precisely via other means.
NHTSA ODI #11753209
Mileage unknown · Jun 14, 2026
Forward Collision AvoidanceUnknown Or OtherVehicle Speed Control
Component/Issue Description: Following a recent over-the-air (OTA) software update to the vehicle's Full Self-Driving system, a dangerous user interface defect was introduced. Immediately upon an FSD disengagement—the critical transition window where the operator must resume manual driving control—the center touchscreen populate…
Read full complaint
Component/Issue Description: Following a recent over-the-air (OTA) software update to the vehicle's Full Self-Driving system, a dangerous user interface defect was introduced. Immediately upon an FSD disengagement—the critical transition window where the operator must resume manual driving control—the center touchscreen populates a mandatory, invasive feedback popup menu. This menu causes a severe driver distraction and creates an immediate safety hazard. The popup blocks vital driving visualizations and navigation data on the screen at a high-stress moment. Furthermore, the UI creates a functional touchscreen lockout, demanding manual and visual interaction from the driver to clear the box while the vehicle is actively in motion. Forcing a driver to divert their eyes from the roadway to navigate a touchscreen menu immediately following a system intervention creates an unreasonable and systemic risk of collision. The manufacturer has provided no setting to disable this dangerous distraction.
NHTSA ODI #11743977
Mileage unknown · Apr 7, 2026
Service BrakesVehicle Speed ControlCrash
I was at full stop on [XXX] facing [XXX] at a red traffic signal at intersection. Then while still at light which was red the vehicle unexpectedly accelerated toward [XXX] on its even with feet on brake, I attempted to maneuver to avoid colliding with vehicles traveling on [XXX] , then made a sharp right turn on sidewalk of […
Read full complaint
I was at full stop on [XXX] facing [XXX] at a red traffic signal at intersection. Then while still at light which was red the vehicle unexpectedly accelerated toward [XXX] on its even with feet on brake, I attempted to maneuver to avoid colliding with vehicles traveling on [XXX] , then made a sharp right turn on sidewalk of [XXX] drove striking a "Bee Line Bus" sign located in front of [XXX] . I was able to maneuver not hitting any pedestrians and crashing vehicle out a brush on sidewalk without putting passengers/family in car at risk of injury INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11729802
Mileage unknown · Feb 12, 2026
Back Over PreventionForward Collision AvoidanceVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
On February 11, 2026, the 2025 Tesla Model Y "Vision AutoPark" system initiated an uncommanded high-speed reverse acceleration into a stationary yellow concrete bollard in a parking lot. The vehicle's vision-only parking assist hardware failed to detect a clearly visible, fixed obstruction and displayed a clear path on the syste…
Read full complaint
On February 11, 2026, the 2025 Tesla Model Y "Vision AutoPark" system initiated an uncommanded high-speed reverse acceleration into a stationary yellow concrete bollard in a parking lot. The vehicle's vision-only parking assist hardware failed to detect a clearly visible, fixed obstruction and displayed a clear path on the system interface immediately before impact. No warning lamps, chimes, messages, or other alerts preceded the failure. The system provided zero indication of the imminent collision. The vehicle closed the distance to the bollard in under one second, exceeding human reaction time and making manual braking intervention impossible before impact. This failure mode — autonomous acceleration toward a stationary object without detection or warning — creates a severe crush hazard for pedestrians and property. The vehicle and its onboard data logs are available for inspection upon request. High-definition video evidence of the failure has been preserved showing the system ignoring the visible obstacle. The problem has not been confirmed by a dealer. The manufacturer's service center refused to inspect the vehicle or review data logs on the date of the incident despite an immediate in-person request. The vehicle has not yet been inspected by insurance, police, or the manufacturer. The failed component is the Tesla Vision-only AutoPark system, including its camera-based object detection and autonomous vehicle control software.
NHTSA ODI #11717443
Mileage unknown · Jan 15, 2026
Forward Collision AvoidanceVehicle Speed Control
Tesla Supervised Self Driving (FSSD) update 14 removed the ability for the vehicle operator to set speed targets. Additionally, their system is unable to accurately determine speed limits for many roadways. The discrepancy between FSSDs perceived speed limit and actual speed limit can be as much at +/- 25mph. The discrepancy can…
Read full complaint
Tesla Supervised Self Driving (FSSD) update 14 removed the ability for the vehicle operator to set speed targets. Additionally, their system is unable to accurately determine speed limits for many roadways. The discrepancy between FSSDs perceived speed limit and actual speed limit can be as much at +/- 25mph. The discrepancy can occur suddenly and at any time during a drive, even on stretches of road with a consistent speed limit. This results in moments of dangerous acceleration and/or deceleration that is not requested by the vehicle operator or can be reasonably anticipated. This causes erratic driving behavior to both the Tesla and to other motorist in the vicinity. Erratic, unpredictable driving is a major cause of traffic accidents that can lead to serious damage, injury, or death. Prior versions allowed the operator to set a speed target, similar to standard cruise control, that the vehicle attempted to maintain and would not exceed. FSSD v14 does not allow the vehicle operator to have any control over the speed of the vehicle to any degree that meaningfully contributes towards safe, legal driving.
NHTSA ODI #11711074
7,213 miles · Dec 15, 2025
Service BrakesVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
The contact owned a 2025 Tesla Model Y. The contact stated that while the vehicle was parked in a school zone area, and while engaging the brake pedal, the vehicle unexpectedly lunged forward with no warning light illuminated. The contact stated that after lifting their foot from the brake pedal, they heard a hissing sound and t…
Read full complaint
The contact owned a 2025 Tesla Model Y. The contact stated that while the vehicle was parked in a school zone area, and while engaging the brake pedal, the vehicle unexpectedly lunged forward with no warning light illuminated. The contact stated that after lifting their foot from the brake pedal, they heard a hissing sound and the vehicle accelerated. The contact attempted to avoid a collision by making a left turn; however, the vehicle traveled into a bushy area and rolled down a hill. The contact sustained injuries, including head, neck, and back injuries, and received medical attention at a local emergency room. The contact stated that the air bags deployed during the incident. A police report was filed. The vehicle was towed and deemed a total loss. The dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 7,213.
NHTSA ODI #11705090
Mileage unknown · Dec 13, 2025
Forward Collision AvoidanceSteeringVehicle Speed ControlCrash
The vehicle was in supervised full self driving on the turnpike, when all of a sudden it darted out of the lane into th grass hitting a guard rail.
NHTSA ODI #11704831
Mileage unknown · May 22, 2025
Vehicle Speed Control
Both my wife and I accidentally used the right side stalk to signal for a turn. Our mistake, except the car responded by suddenly accelerating. Fortunately we were both able to put on the brake. In the wrong situation this could be very dangerous.
NHTSA ODI #11662637
Mileage unknown · Jan 29, 2025
Forward Collision AvoidanceFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed ControlCrash
I was trying to reverse the car from my Garage. I turned on the Engine and put the vehicle in Reverse Gear. The vehicle just zoomed out of the driveway leaving me without the ability to control it and hit a tree on a neighbor's house and stopped. Then I tried to bring the Car into the Garage by engaging the Drive Gear. Again, t…
Read full complaint
I was trying to reverse the car from my Garage. I turned on the Engine and put the vehicle in Reverse Gear. The vehicle just zoomed out of the driveway leaving me without the ability to control it and hit a tree on a neighbor's house and stopped. Then I tried to bring the Car into the Garage by engaging the Drive Gear. Again, the vehicle zoomed into the Garage, hit a few objects in the garage and stopped. At that point I just turned off power and walked out. I took pictures of the damaged parts. At that time, I only noticed damage to the Rear on the Driver Side and the front on the Driver Side. When a tow-truck came a couple of days later, I noticed damage on the Front on the Passenger side also. When the incident happened , the street was empty and luckily no one (including me) was hurt n
NHTSA ODI #11639475
Mileage unknown · Jan 6, 2025
Back Over PreventionForward Collision AvoidanceVehicle Speed Control
2025 Tesla model Y cameras and sensors all stopped working within 700 miles driven from brand new. Affected systems included all cameras, including backup camera, as well as GPS navigation, with the GPS system believing the vehicle to be static at a Tesla facility in California. This not only prevented the self-driving and navig…
Read full complaint
2025 Tesla model Y cameras and sensors all stopped working within 700 miles driven from brand new. Affected systems included all cameras, including backup camera, as well as GPS navigation, with the GPS system believing the vehicle to be static at a Tesla facility in California. This not only prevented the self-driving and navigation from functioning, it caused numerous safety features to be disabled including (mandatory) backup cameras, collision-avoidance system, lane-departure warning system, cross-traffic alert system, rear collision avoidance system, and automatic safety braking. Upon reporting to Tesla, was told a "new component" was required, which later was told was a new computer. The manufacturer initially set a date 2 weeks in the future for a repair; then they pushed it a month; then tried to push it another month before I pushed back. This resulted in it being taken in earlier than the repair date. The vehicle is still awaiting repair. There were no warnings of this failure, it simply all happened at once. Upon confronting Tesla service with this being a known issue [XXX] ) and requesting a loaner for the meantime, they eventually found one, but only after great protestation and pushback, with eventual threats of legal action leading to a more personal touch. This is clearly a known issue which they are downplaying. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11634420
NHTSA investigations
4EA26002 · Fsd Collisions In Reduced Roadway Visibility Conditions
Opened Mar 18, 2026 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:adas
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is opening this Engineering Analysis to evaluate Tesla’s Full Self Driving Beta and Full Self Driving (Supervised) (collectively, FSD) degradation detection system. The focus of this investigation will be to assess the system’s ability, when encountering reduced roadway visibility conditions, to detect degradation and alert the driver with sufficient time to respond. ODI will evaluate the performance of FSD in degraded roadway conditions and the updates or modifications by Tesla to the degradation detection system, including the timing, purpose, and capabilities of the updates, and Tesla’s assessment of their safety impact. Tesla’s FSD is an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) that relies exclusively on vision-based cameras and the related FSD software to detect and respond to the roadway ahead, projecting a path forward based on traffic control devices, vehicles, pedestrians, and the roadway itself. When Tesla began transitioning away from using both cameras and radars to an exclusively camera-based approach, known as Tesla Vision, in mid-2021, it developed and implemented a degradation detection system that it deployed by a software update to existing and new Tesla vehicles. On June 28, 2024, the day after Tesla submitted the SGO report of the November 28, 2023 fatal crash listed in this document, Tesla began developing an update to the degradation detection system. At this time, ODI does not have information on when the update was deployed and which vehicles have the updated system. ODI discussed individual incidents and its initial findings during the PE phase of its investigation with Tesla. As part of those discussions, Tesla’s post-incident analysis indicated that the update to the degradation detection system, had it been installed on the vehicles at the time, may have affected 3 of the 9 incidents identified by ODI. Tesla also described internal data and labeling limitations that prevented a uniform identification and analysis of crash events with the subject system engaged. ODI believes this limitation could have led to under-reporting of subject crashes over portions of the defined time-period. Available incident data raise concerns that Tesla’s degradation detection system, both as originally deployed and later updated, fails to detect and/or warn the driver appropriately under degraded visibility conditions such as glare and airborne obscurants. In the crashes that ODI has reviewed, the system did not detect common roadway conditions that impaired camera visibility and/or provide alerts when camera performance had deteriorated until immediately before the crash occurred. Review of Tesla’s responses revealed additional crashes that occurred in similar environments and where the system either did not detect a degraded state, and/or it did not present the driver with an alert with adequate time for the driver to react. In each of these crashes, FSD also lost track of or never detected a lead vehicle in its path. In upgrading PE24031 to an Engineering Analysis (EA), ODI will gather further information on the updated degradation detection system, including the status of updating vehicles and scope of compatible vehicles, the system’s visibility degradation detection capability, and alerts or warnings to the driver. Lastly, ODI will conduct analysis on six recent potentially related incidents. These incidents can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-11937, 13781-13211, 13781-13569, 13781-13633, 13781-13693, 13781-13788. The crashes included in the failure report summary can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-8004, 13781-7181, 13781-7381, 13781-7767, 13781-7964, 13781-8977, 13781-9267.
PE25012 · Traffic Safety Violations While Full Self Driving ("fsd") Is Engaged
Opened Oct 7, 2025 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:adas
The Office of Defects Investigation (“ODI”) is opening this Preliminary Evaluation (PE) to assess the scope, frequency, and potential safety consequences of FSD executing driving maneuvers that constitute traffic safety violations. This investigation concerns versions of FSD that Tesla has labeled as "FSD (Supervised)" and "FSD (Beta)." Tesla characterizes FSD as an SAE Level 2 partial automation system requiring a fully attentive driver who is engaged in the driving task at all times. Level 2 partial automation systems are designed to support and assist the driver in performing certain aspects of the driving task, requiring a driver to supervise and intervene as necessary. The driver remains fully responsible at all times for driving the vehicle, including complying with applicable traffic laws. ODI’s investigation will therefore focus, in particular, on whether certain driving inputs within the control authority of FSD forestall the driver’s supervision when they are unexpectedly performed. ODI has identified a number of incidents in which the inputs to the dynamic driving task commanded by FSD induced vehicle behavior that violated traffic safety laws. Although reports of this nature span a variety of behaviors, the reports appear to most commonly involve two types of scenarios. The first type of scenario involves a vehicle operating with FSD proceeding into an intersection in violation of a red traffic signal. The second type of scenario involves FSD commanding a lane change into an opposing lane of traffic. With respect to the first type of scenario, ODI has identified 18 complaints and 1 media report alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating at an intersection with FSD engaged, failed to remain stopped for the duration of a red traffic signal, failed to stop fully, or failed to accurately detect and display the correct traffic signal state in the vehicle interface. Some complainants also alleged that FSD did not provide warnings of the system's intended behavior as the vehicle was approaching a red traffic signal. ODI has identified six Standing General Order ("SGO") reports in which a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, approached an intersection with a red traffic signal, continued to travel into the intersection against the red light and was subsequently involved in a crash with other motor vehicles in the intersection. Of these incidents, four crashes resulted in one or more reported injuries. At least some of the incidents appeared to involve FSD proceeding into the intersection after coming to a complete stop. ODI's pre-investigative work, including coordination with the Maryland Transportation Authority and State Police, indicated that the problem may be repeatable, given that multiple subject incidents occurred at the same intersection in Joppa, Maryland. NHTSA understands that Tesla has since taken action to address the issue at this intersection. With respect to the second type of scenario, ODI has identified 2 SGO reports, 18 complaints, and 2 media reports alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, entered opposing lanes of travel during or following a turn, crossed double-yellow lane markings while proceeding straight, or attempted to turn onto a road in the wrong direction despite the presence of wrong-way road signs. Likewise, ODI has identified 4 SGO reports, 6 complaints, and 1 media report alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, proceeded straight through an intersection in a turn-only lane or executed a turn at an intersection in a through lane despite the presence of lane markings or signals. Complaints also alleged that FSD did not provide warnings of the system's intended behavior. Some complaints alleged that more than one of these failures occurred and, as such, the numbers are not cumulative. Some of the reported incidents appeared to involve FSD executing a lane change into an opposing lane of travel with little notice to a driver or opportunity to intervene. ODI’s review will assess whether there was prior warning or adequate time for the driver to respond to the unexpected behavior or to safely supervise the automated driving task. This review will assess any warnings to the driver about the system's impending behavior; the time given to drivers to respond; the capability of FSD to detect, display to the driver, and respond appropriately to traffic signals; and the capability of FSD to detect and respond to lane markings and wrong-way signage. NHTSA's review will also consider any updates or modifications to the system(s) that may affect the performance of FSD with respect to obeying traffic safety laws and signals. This assessment will focus, in particular, on the types of traffic safety violations described above, as most reports identified thus far have centered around those behaviors. While the behaviors under investigation appear to occur most frequently at intersections, NHTSA’s investigation will encompass any other types of situations in which this behavior may arise, such as when traveling adjacent to a lane of opposing traffic or when approaching railroad crossings. If other evidence received during this investigation involve other types of traffic safety violations, those may be considered as part of this assessment as well. To review the ODI reports cited in the Opening Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov. The SGO reports cited in this Resume are listed below by report ID and are available for download at NHTSA.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting. 13781-8739-1, 13781-8995-1, 13781-9623-1, 13781-10333-1, 13781-10872-1, 13781-10930-1, 13781-10939-1, 13781-10941-1, 13781-11069-1, 13781-11305-1, 13781-11579-1 Media reported allegations included as a separate attachment.
AQ25002 · Compliance With Standing General Order 2021-01 Reporting Requirements
Opened Aug 20, 2025 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:adas
The Office of Defects Investigation (“ODI”) has identified numerous incident reports submitted by Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) in response to Standing General Order 2021-01 (the “SGO”), in which the reported crashes occurred several months or more before the dates of the reports. The majority of these reports involved crashes in which the Standing General Order in place at the time required a report to be submitted within one or five days of Tesla receiving notice of the crash. When the reports were submitted, Tesla submitted them in one of two ways. Many of the reports were submitted as part of a single batch, while others were submitted on a rolling basis. Preliminary engagement between ODI and Tesla on the issue indicates that the timing of the reports was due to an issue with Tesla’s data collection, which, according to Tesla, has now been fixed. NHTSA is opening this Audit Query, a standard process for reviewing compliance with legal requirements, to evaluate the cause of the potential delays in reporting, the scope of any such delays, and the mitigations that Tesla has developed to address them. As part of this review, NHTSA will assess whether any reports of prior incidents remain outstanding and whether the reports that were submitted include all of the required and available data. The SGO reports cited in the Opening Resume, can be found at NHTSA.gov/SGOCrashReporting under the following SGO 2021-01 report IDs: 13781-11020-1 13781-10844-1 13781-10843-1 13781-10530-1 13781-10160-1 13781-10159-1 13781-10157-1 13781-10146-1 13781-10122-1 13781-10098-1 13781-10097-1 13781-10096-1 13781-10095-1 13781-10094-1 13781-10093-1 13781-10023-1 13781-10022-1 13781-10021-1 13781-10020-1 13781-10017-1 13781-10016-1 13781-10015-1 13781-10014-1 13781-10013-1 13781-10012-1 13781-6047-1 13781-9930-1 13781-9917-1 13781-9928-1 13781-9925-1 13781-9924-1 13781-9923-1 13781-9922-1 13781-9835-1 13781-9834-1 13781-9833-1 13781-9832-1 13781-9831-1 13781-9830-1 13781-9829-1 13781-9827-1 13781-9818-1 13781-9780-1 13781-9779-1 13781-9778-1 13781-9777-1 13781-9775-1 13781-9774-1 13781-9773-1 13781-9772-1 13781-9771-1 13781-9770-1 13781-9728-1 13781-9688-1 13781-9715-1 13781-9714-1 13781-9713-1 13781-9712-1 13781-9711-1 13781-9710-1 13781-9709-1 13781-9696-1 13781-9695-1 13781-9694-1 13781-9693-1 13781-9692-1 13781-9691-1 13781-9690-1 13781-9687-1 13781-9686-1 13781-9342-1 13781-9319-1 13781-9019-1 13781-8910-1 13781-8732-1 13781-8712-1 13781-8310-1 13781-7897-1 13781-7895-1 13781-7835-1 13781-7798-1 13781-7797-1 13781-7758-1 13781-7757-1 13781-7756-1 13781-7755-1 13781-7667-1 13781-7399-1 13781-7398-1 13781-7397-1 13781-7396-1 13781-7395-1 13781-7394-1 13781-7393-1 13781-7389-1 13781-7388-1 13781-7387-1 13781-7386-1 13781-7385-1 13781-7383-1 13781-7187-1 13781-7186-1 13781-7185-1 13781-7184-1 13781-7181-1 13781-7023-1 13781-6399-1 13781-6389-1 13781-6388-1 13781-6387-1 13781-6386-1 13781-6379-1 13781-6378-1 13781-6377-1 13781-6375-1 13781-6214-1 13781-6172-1 13781-6155-1 13781-6154-1 13781-6122-1 13781-6120-1 13781-6118-1 13781-5800-1
PE24033 · Actually Smart Summon Sessions Resulting In low-speed Impacts.
Opened Jan 6, 2025 · Closed Apr 3, 2026
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:adas:autonomous/self Driving
On January 6, 2025, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation 24003 (PE24033) to investigate Actually Smart Summon (Summon) sessions resulting in crashes during active sessions. According to Tesla, Summon is a short-distance SAE Level 2 system, controlled by the user from a cell phone within a certain distance and intended for use in parking lots and on private property. ODI analyzed complaint data provided by Tesla as well as complaints submitted to ODI from consumers to identify Summon incidents resulting in crashes. ODI's analysis indicates that almost all Summon reported crashes involved minor property damage claims with no reported incidents involving a vulnerable road user, injury, fatality, or major property damage as indicated by an air bag deployment or vehicle tow away. Out of millions of Summon sessions, a fraction of 1% resulted in an incident. Almost all those incidents took place where, typically early in a Summon session, the system or person using the app failed to fully detect or respond appropriately to vehicle surroundings resulting in minor impacts. Incidents took place when app users did not have a complete 360-degree view of the surroundings in the app to assess situational awareness. This limited the app user’s ability to determine whether an impact was imminent during initial vehicle maneuvers such as reversing in close proximity to an obstacle or a curb. ODI found that the impacts most often occurred with parking gates, adjacently parked vehicles, and short parking bollards. During this investigation, ODI identified two Summon crashes related to camera blockages. In both crashes, Summon attempted to navigate a snowy parking lot with snow partially or fully obstructing the forward-facing cameras. Summon did not detect the camera blockage and the vehicles collided with unoccupied parked vehicles while navigating the parking lot. App users in both instances did not command a vehicle stop or pause despite the obstructed camera visible in the camera stream in the app. On January 15, 2025, Tesla released Over-the-Air (OTA) Software (SW) Update Action numbers 578998 and 579185 for vehicles in service to implement a camera blockage detection condition. Both OTAs improve camera blockage detection mechanisms. Additionally, on January 20, 2025, and January 30, 2025, Tesla identified additional system requirements associated with camera visibility checks and released OTA SW-578752 and SW-580322, respectively. These firmware updates reduce false negative camera blockage detections due to snow or condensation. In its investigation, ODI identified one Summon incident where the vehicle did not yield for a gate arm blocking a garage exit lane and the app user did not command a vehicle stop or pause, resulting in an impact. On February 6, 2025, Tesla deployed OTA SW-578839 to improve vehicle reaction to dynamic gates. This OTA update upgraded vehicle perception systems through a high-fidelity occupancy determination network, which uses data from vehicle sensory systems to improve reconstruction of field objects with high accuracy. On November 20, 2025, Tesla further improved vehicle performance by adding object detections from a separate neural network through OTA SW-580514. Owners of the affected vehicles received all six OTA SW updates. Tesla also released these SW updates to production vehicles. See online public file for detailed descriptions of all six OTA SW updates. Due to low incident occurrence and low incident severity, this preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete online public file.
Illustration