What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Videos posted after Tesla’s limited Austin robotaxi launch in June 2025 appeared to show one Model Y entering an opposing lane during a left turn, while separate footage prompted claims that other robotaxis exceeded posted speed limits. NHTSA said it was in contact with Tesla and gathering information—but that initial response was not, by itself, a formal investigation. In December 2025, the agency opened a broader Preliminary Evaluation into alleged traffic violations by Tesla vehicles using Full Self-Driving (FSD), including improper lane use.
What the Austin videos appeared to show
Tesla began offering limited, invite-only paid robotaxi rides in Austin on June 22, 2025. The initial service used Model Y vehicles in a restricted area, with safety monitors reportedly seated in the front passenger seat. The videos that drew attention the next day involved separate rides and should not be treated as one continuous incident.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
![Matchbox Tesla Model Y, 70 Years 89/100 [White]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51XQmx0TiDL._SL160_.jpg)
|
Matchbox Tesla Model Y, 70 Years 89/100 [White] | $13.99 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
An apparent wrong-lane maneuver during a left turn
A video recorded by Tesla investor and former Tesla podcast host Rob Maurer appeared to show a Model Y entering an intersection from a left-turn-only lane, hesitating, then moving into an unoccupied lane intended for oncoming traffic. The vehicle crossed back over a double-yellow line into its proper lane; a horn could be heard during the maneuver. Contemporaneous reporting on the footage described the sequence.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsThe footage raises a concrete road-safety concern: entering an opposing lane can put a vehicle in the path of oncoming traffic or force other road users to react. But a clip alone does not establish the vehicle’s internal system state, what its sensors or maps registered, whether a monitor intervened, or whether the maneuver caused a near-collision. It is more accurate to say the video appeared to show an improper lane maneuver than to treat it as a complete technical diagnosis or a final legal finding.
#1 Best Overall
- Toy Vehicle Form: Car
- Theme: Car
Separate videos prompted speeding claims
Other online clips and rider accounts appeared to show robotaxis traveling above posted speed limits. Those were separate reports, not evidence that the car in Maurer’s video also sped. Available footage and contemporaneous coverage did not establish a reliably verified speed for every vehicle. A passenger’s claim, a speed displayed on a screen, or a comparison with nearby traffic may be suggestive, but an exact conclusion also depends on the accuracy of the measurement, the location and applicable limit, and whether the footage captures the relevant signs and conditions. Reporting on the speed allegations and NHTSA’s response described them as issues raised by online videos.
Some contemporaneous accounts also mentioned abrupt braking or other unusual behavior. Those reports add context, but they do not establish that all the clips involved the same vehicle, a single fault, or a collision.
What NHTSA did—and what “inquiry” means here
On June 23, 2025, NHTSA said it was aware of the incidents and in contact with Tesla to gather information. That was regulatory scrutiny, but it should not be confused with a formal defect finding or with the later Preliminary Evaluation. An agency can contact a manufacturer and request information without having concluded that a defect exists or opened a formal investigation. Bloomberg Law’s contemporaneous account noted that the initial discussions could stop short of a formal investigation.
The follow-up developed over time. NHTSA had already sent Tesla a May 8, 2025 information request about its planned automated-driving technology and Austin operations, including how the system would be evaluated and respond to reduced roadway visibility. After the launch, the agency’s Office of Defects Investigation sought further information in a July 1 letter. Bloomberg reported in August that Tesla had responded in meetings and requested confidential treatment of its response; the substantive response was not publicly available in the cited reporting. These steps show that federal questions about the service predated the viral clips and continued afterward. They do not establish what Tesla told regulators or whether the agency accepted its explanations.
The later formal case: NHTSA Preliminary Evaluation PE25012
On December 3, 2025, NHTSA opened Preliminary Evaluation PE25012, a formal inquiry into allegations involving Tesla vehicles with FSD engaged. The agency’s information request describes alleged conduct that includes proceeding or attempting to proceed through red traffic signals; entering or attempting to enter opposing lanes; attempting to enter roads in the wrong direction; using lanes improperly in intersections; going straight from marked turn-only lanes; turning from marked through-only lanes; and failing to provide drivers accurate, conspicuous, timely warnings about intended system behavior.
NHTSA cited 62 complaints, four media reports and 14 Standing General Order reports in the evaluation. Those figures concern the broader PE25012 matter—not just the June Austin robotaxi videos. The agency document does not, on its own, establish that the specific clips were individually verified or that they caused the later evaluation. The overlap is that both the early videos and the later inquiry raised questions about lane choice and compliance with traffic controls.
A Preliminary Evaluation is not a final conclusion that a safety defect exists. NHTSA may seek more information, take no further action, or escalate its review; a recall or other remedy would require further action and findings. PE25012 should therefore be described as an open regulatory evaluation unless and until NHTSA publishes a disposition.
Robotaxi, FSD and “driverless” are not interchangeable
The initial Austin rides took place with safety monitors reportedly aboard. That is different from a vehicle operating with no human safety personnel, and it matters when assessing what an error could mean in practice. A monitor may be able to intervene, but their presence does not prove that a vehicle is safe or that every mistake can be prevented.
It is also important not to collapse Tesla’s product and operating terms:
- FSD Supervised is described by Tesla as requiring active driver supervision; the name does not mean the vehicle is autonomous.
- Robotaxi service refers to Tesla’s fleet operation, which has a different operating context from a customer using a driver-assistance feature.
- Driverless describes whether a human is present to supervise or intervene in a particular operation. It does not, by itself, settle how a system is classified under every legal framework.
Tesla’s January 2026 filing said it began driverless robotaxi testing in Austin in December 2025 and began removing safety monitors from some customer rides on a limited basis in January 2026. That marks a later phase than the monitored June launch; it does not answer what caused the earlier maneuvers or demonstrate that the underlying safety questions were resolved. Tesla’s filing describes the company’s account of that operational transition.
Why the lane and speed questions matter
Safe driving depends on more than recognizing a road or following a route. A vehicle must interpret lane markings and signs, select a legal path through intersections, control speed as limits change, and communicate or hand off control appropriately where a human supervisor is part of the operation. A move across a double-yellow line or a turn from the wrong lane can expose a weakness in one or more parts of that chain—but a short video cannot identify which part failed.
Recommended Free Tools
One clip cannot prove a system-wide defect. A broader pattern of independently documented incidents would be more informative, which is why PE25012’s wider collection of complaints and reports matters. Even then, complaints and reports are allegations and evidence for an investigation, not final findings. NHTSA’s job is to assess the evidence and determine whether further action is warranted.
What is still not established publicly
- The exact speed of each vehicle in the online clips, and whether any speed display or estimate was independently validated.
- The vehicles’ relevant software, sensor and operating logs, and how those records compare with the videos.
- Whether a safety monitor intervened during the apparent wrong-lane maneuver or the other reported events.
- Whether NHTSA specifically linked the June Austin videos to PE25012, which covers a broader set of FSD-related allegations.
- The technical explanation Tesla gave in its nonpublic response to the July 2025 information request.
- The eventual outcome of PE25012, including whether it leads to further action, a recall or no further action.
As of August 18, 2026, the cited record establishes the initial information gathering, the later broader Preliminary Evaluation and Tesla’s reported move toward limited driverless operations in Austin. It does not establish a final NHTSA finding about the videos or a public resolution of PE25012. NHTSA’s July 2026 automated-vehicle policy announcement provides broader regulatory context, but it is not a disposition of this case. See the agency’s July 30, 2026 announcement.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
