Tesla blows past stopped school bus and hits kid-sized dummies in FSD tests
Independent testers report that Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software failed to stop for a school bus with an extended stop sign and then struck child-sized dummies, raising concerns about basic safety behavior such as obeying traffic laws and slowing for obstructed views. Commenters debate whether such tests are credible given they were organized by a long‑time FSD opponent, but many argue that potential bias doesn’t negate the need for transparent, reproducible safety data. The thread broadens into criticism of weak or politically compromised U.S. regulators and calls for independent, standardized certification of self-driving systems before they are deployed on public roads.
Scope of the Failure
- Core issue highlighted: FSD fails to stop for a school bus with flashing red lights and extended stop sign on the opposite side of an undivided road, then hits child-sized dummies and continues driving.
- Many commenters say this is not an edge case but a basic, legally mandated behavior every minimally competent human driver handles.
- Several note that the real test isn’t “detecting the kid” but obeying the bus stop signal and slowing/stopping when visibility is obstructed.
Driver Responsibility vs. System Behavior
- Some argue Tesla’s disclaimers (“requires fully attentive driver”) legally shift responsibility to humans.
- Others counter: at the speeds shown, there is little realistic time for human recovery; if the system is marketed as “Full Self Driving,” it must be judged as such.
- Clarification from users: Tesla has separate “pay attention” nags vs. collision warnings and automatic emergency braking; the concern is that neither appeared to prevent this scenario.
Regulation, Testing, and Accountability
- Broad agreement that the U.S. lacks a dedicated safety certification regime for self‑driving systems; current crash testing focuses mostly on occupants, not AV behavior toward pedestrians.
- Debate over who should test:
- One camp: manufacturers test, regulators “trust but verify.”
- Strong opposing camp: history shows companies routinely hide safety problems; independent, pre‑market testing by public agencies is necessary, with severe penalties for deceit.
- Some argue regulation will only arrive after many deaths; others call this unacceptable and point to prior creation of agencies like FDA/EPA as proof independent oversight is essential.
Role and Credibility of Anti‑Tesla Testers
- Skeptics say the Dawn Project and similar groups have strong anti‑Tesla and commercial incentives, produce non‑reproducible “gotcha” videos, and thus require independent validation.
- Defenders reply that consumer and activist groups historically forced auto safety reforms; bias doesn’t automatically invalidate the results, especially when regulators are weakened or politically interfered with.
- Several criticize Tesla’s repeated appeal to “the next version” of FSD; they see a pattern where present failures are excused by hypothetical future improvements without transparent data.
Technical and Design Questions
- Discussion of how FSD may be trained on human driving habits (e.g., rolling stops) vs. explicit rule encoding.
- Many argue self‑driving should at minimum:
- Always stop for active school bus signals on undivided roads.
- Slow to a crawl or stop whenever visibility is obstructed by large vehicles.
- Use sensors and planning to ensure it never drives faster than it can safely stop within visible distance.
- Some suggest Tesla’s camera‑only approach makes such scenarios harder than for systems using lidar/radar, though whether that’s the root cause is unclear.