Tesla’s highly anticipated foray into the robotaxi market is clouded by unanswered questions, even as reports suggest a launch in Austin this month. As global electric vehicle sales face headwinds, CEO Elon Musk is banking on self-driving taxis to catapult Tesla into a multi-trillion dollar valuation. However, this ambition is met with skepticism and numerous operational and safety concerns that need addressing before the vision can become a reality.
The launch date remains uncertain. While reports indicated a potential launch around June 12th, Tesla has not officially confirmed this date, suggesting only the end of June. This ambiguity adds to the existing concerns about the readiness of the technology and infrastructure supporting the robotaxi service.
The core of the concerns revolves around the safety record of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software. The FSD, an $8,000 add-on, has been linked to multiple accidents, some with fatal consequences. This history casts a shadow over the planned robotaxi service, prompting scrutiny from safety experts and regulators alike.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has formally requested detailed operational information from Tesla, indicating a serious level of regulatory oversight. The NHTSA’s questions cover critical areas such as:
Experts have also voiced concerns about Tesla’s reliance solely on cameras and AI for autonomous driving, contrasting it with the more comprehensive sensor suites used by competitors like Waymo, which incorporate radar and lidar technologies.
| Feature | Tesla FSD | Waymo Driver |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Sensors | Cameras | Cameras, Radar, Lidar |
| AI Training | Neural Networks | Neural Networks |
| Teleoperation | Yes | Yes |
Tesla’s strategy includes hiring teleoperation engineers to remotely control the robotaxis. While remote operation isn’t unique—Waymo also uses remote operators as backups—the extent and nature of Tesla’s teleoperation remain unclear. Key questions persist:
Experts like Missy Cummings emphasize the critical need for extremely low communication latency (under 10 milliseconds) for safe teleoperation, a standard that current technology struggles to meet. Cummings warns that relying on teleoperation could lead to fatal accidents, potentially involving pedestrians or cyclists.
The level of autonomy also remains undefined. It’s unclear whether the robotaxis will meet Level 2, 3, or 4 standards as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). If remote drivers are consistently in control, the system would effectively operate at Level 2, akin to existing ADAS systems like Ford’s BlueCruise or GM’s Super Cruise. True Level 4 autonomy, as pursued by Waymo, requires no human intervention.
Even with geofencing, which restricts the robotaxis to pre-mapped areas, the question of safety remains paramount. The limited initial deployment of vehicles means gathering statistically significant safety data will take considerable time. Furthermore, the lack of transparency regarding the safety record of the current FSD system raises concerns about relying solely on exposure to fewer hazards as a measure of safety.
