It's an insane reversal of roles. In a standard level 2 ADAS, the system detects a pending collision the driver has not responded to and pumps the breaks. Tesla FSD does the reverse: it detects a pending collision that it has not responded to, and shuts itself off instead of pumping the breaks. It's pure insanity.

Also, Tesla routinely claims that "FSD was not active at the time of the crash" in such cases, and they own and control the data, so it's the driver's word against theirs. They most recently used this claim for the person who almost flew off an overpass in Houston because FSD deactivated itself 4 seconds before impact[1]. They used it unironically as an excuse why FSD is not at fault, despite the fact that FSD created the situation in the first place.

[1] https://electrek.co/2026/03/18/tesla-cybertruck-fsd-crash-vi...

This is a policy that Tesla put in place, period. Handling control to driver suddenly in a weird moment can make the whole situation even more dangerous as the driver is not primed to handle it on the spot, it’s all too unexpected.

IDK, this has the same unethical energy as police turning off body cameras.

in the BEST CASE, this is a confluence of coincidences. Engineering knows about this and leaves it "low prio wont fix" because its advantageous for metrics.

In the worst case, this is intentional.

In any case, the "right thing to do" is NOT turn off the cameras just before a collision, and yet it happens.

This is also Safety Critical Engineering 101. Like.... this would be one of the first scenarios covered in the safety analysis. Someone approved this behavior, either intentionally, or through an intentional omission.

The few Tesla post-mortems I’ve read early on stated that FSD turned off before impact and used this as a defence to their system. If they shared that this happened 1 second before impact (so far too late for a human to respond), I’d have sympathy. I have never read a Tesla statement that contained this information.

For normal incidents, 2 seconds is taken as a response time to be added for corrective action to take effect (avoidance, braking). I’d expand this for FSD because it implies a lower level of engagement, so you need more time to reengage with the car.

This is reasonable, and you have to imagine many collisions involve the driver taking control at the last second causing the software to deactivate. That being said, this becomes a matter of defining a self-driving collision as one in which self-driving contributed materially to the event rather than requiring self-driving be activated at the exact moment of impact.

So, the car puts itself in a situation it can't resolve, then just abdicates responsibility at the last moment.

That's still not a good look.

And it does mean that FSD isn't to be as trusted as it is because if the car is putting itself in unresolvable situations, that's still a problem with FSD even if it isn't in direct control at the moment of impact.