Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallShort answer: Judged as a public demonstration of driverless urban transportation, Tesla’s first robotaxi week looked like a troubled public test rather than a polished commercial launch. Between June 22 and 28, 2025, videos from Austin appeared to show Tesla robotaxis choosing an incorrect lane, entering or traveling in an opposing lane, exceeding the speed limit, braking abruptly, and requiring remote support.
That is serious, especially for a company presenting the service as a major step toward scalable autonomous transportation. But “disaster” remains an editorial judgment—not an official finding. The evidence reviewed here does not establish that anyone was injured or that a collision occurred during the launch week, and NHTSA’s response was an information request and later preliminary evaluation, not a final defect determination.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Matchbox Tesla Model 3, White 53/100 | $19.39 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
![DieCast Hot Wheels Tesla Model 3, 174/250 [White] 2019 Green Speed 1/5](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51qraYtcLuL._SL160_.jpg)
|
DieCast Hot Wheels Tesla Model 3, 174/250 [White] 2019 Green Speed 1/5 | $26.79 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What Tesla actually launched on June 22
Tesla began offering its first branded Robotaxi rides in Austin on June 22, 2025. The launch was real, but it was much narrower than the phrase “robotaxi service” might suggest.
The initial riders were invited or vetted customers. The vehicles operated inside a restricted area, and a Tesla employee sat in the front passenger seat as a safety rider or safety monitor. Tesla also had remote-support infrastructure available. Contemporaneous reporting described additional operating limits intended to avoid more difficult conditions, including bad weather and late-night operation. TechCrunch’s launch report documented those restrictions and the unanswered questions surrounding the rollout.
#1 Best Overall
- Theme: Sport
- Toy vehicle form: Car
- Included components: Batteries
- Material: Metal
Tesla’s own second-quarter 2025 update confirms that the Austin service launched with a safety rider. The company described a plan to expand the vehicle count and coverage before eventually removing that rider. In other words, Tesla itself characterized the first phase as a supervised step toward a less restricted service, not as the final form of its robotaxi network. Tesla’s Q2 2025 update is the clearest primary-source description of that rollout.
There was no person in the driver’s seat, which is why Tesla called the rides robotaxi trips. But a safety monitor in the cabin, remote assistance, a limited service zone, selected riders, and restrictions on operating conditions made this a supervised pilot. It was not equivalent to a mature, broadly available, fully driverless Level 4 ride-hailing network.
What went wrong during the first few days
Within the first day and during the next several days, early riders and observers posted videos of behavior that appeared inconsistent with the confidence expected from a public autonomous-vehicle launch. The most widely reported examples included:
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →- Improper lane choice: A robotaxi appeared to enter an intersection from a left-turn-only lane while continuing through the intersection rather than making the required turn.
- Opposing-lane travel: Another vehicle appeared to cross into or travel in a lane intended for oncoming traffic.
- Apparent speeding: Videos appeared to show a robotaxi exceeding the posted speed limit.
- Abrupt braking: One vehicle reportedly braked hard or unexpectedly, including while passing stationary police vehicles with their emergency lights activated.
- Remote-support involvement: At least one ride generated a report that remote support became involved, highlighting the role of off-vehicle human assistance in the pilot.
Bloomberg’s reporting covered videos showing apparent speeding and wrong-lane behavior, including clips posted by early riders and Tesla commentator Rob Maurer. TechCrunch separately reported on abrupt-braking footage recorded by Ed Niedermeyer.
Those clips should be described carefully. A video can show what a car did without proving exactly why the autonomy system did it, whether a traffic rule was legally violated in every circumstance, or whether an apparent maneuver was caused by a perception error, mapping issue, human intervention, or an unusual road layout. The responsible description is that the vehicles appeared to make these maneuvers and that observers reported them—not that every clip is a final engineering diagnosis.
Why these were more than ordinary awkward-driving videos
Autonomous vehicles will occasionally encounter confusing road markings, temporary construction, emergency scenes, and ambiguous human behavior. A single awkward maneuver does not by itself prove that an entire autonomy program is unsafe.
The context made Tesla’s videos more damaging, however. Tesla was not merely showing another consumer driver-assistance feature. It was using related Full Self-Driving technology in a service configuration where the normal driver’s position was empty and a passenger was expected to ride in the vehicle. The central public promise was that the car could handle ordinary urban driving on its own.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsWrong-lane behavior, proceeding from a lane reserved for turning, apparent speeding, and unexplained braking are therefore not cosmetic defects. They go directly to the basic questions a rider must ask:
- Will the vehicle obey lane markings and traffic controls?
- Will it maintain a safe and predictable speed?
- Will it react appropriately to police vehicles and unusual roadside situations?
- Can it handle a trip without a human needing to intervene or provide remote assistance?
The safety rider reduced the immediate risk to passengers. That safeguard was important. It also exposed the gap between the public image of a driverless taxi and the safeguards Tesla actually needed at launch. A service that requires a trained employee in the cabin is safer than an unsupervised experiment, but it is not yet the same product as a rider-only autonomous taxi.
The regulatory consequence: NHTSA contacted Tesla
The videos did not remain only a social-media controversy. NHTSA contacted Tesla after reviewing online footage that appeared to show a robotaxi using the wrong lane and another vehicle speeding. Reuters and Bloomberg reporting, reproduced by Investing.com, described the agency’s request for information.
That distinction matters. An agency contacting a manufacturer or requesting information is not the same as announcing that a defect exists, finding that Tesla violated the law, or determining that every Austin video represented a system failure. It does show that the launch behavior was serious enough to attract federal safety scrutiny.
NHTSA later opened a preliminary evaluation on October 7, 2025. The evaluation examined allegations involving Tesla vehicles operating with FSD-branded systems, including claims that vehicles proceeded against red signals, entered opposing lanes, attempted wrong-way turns, or used lanes improperly at intersections. NHTSA’s preliminary-evaluation document is broader than the Austin robotaxi launch and should not be presented as a final finding about every video from June 22 through June 28.
NHTSA’s documentation also emphasizes an important technical and regulatory distinction: Tesla’s consumer FSD system is characterized as Level 2 partial automation, meaning an attentive driver remains responsible for supervising the vehicle. The Austin robotaxi pilot used related technology in a different operating arrangement, with a safety monitor in the passenger seat and remote support rather than a conventional driver behind the wheel. That difference is central to understanding both Tesla’s ambition and the risk of the launch.
Rank #2
- Hot Wheels Tesla Model 3, 174/250 [White] 2019 Green Speed 1/5
What the first week proves—and what it does not
| Supported by the available evidence | Not established by the available evidence |
|---|---|
| Tesla launched an invite-only Austin robotaxi pilot on June 22, 2025. | That a passenger was injured during June 22–28. |
| The pilot used a front-seat safety rider, remote support, a restricted area, and operating limitations. | That a collision occurred during the launch week. |
| Videos appeared to show wrong-lane behavior, improper lane selection, apparent speeding, and abrupt braking. | That every reported video represented an autonomous-system failure or a violation of a specific traffic law. |
| NHTSA contacted Tesla after reviewing videos posted online. | That NHTSA had already determined a defect or violation during launch week. |
| The debut looked less mature than Tesla’s long-standing robotaxi promises. | That Tesla can never develop a viable robotaxi business. |
There is also a chronology trap. Later reporting discussed additional Tesla robotaxi incidents and crash totals. Those reports should not be folded into the June 22–28 launch-week account unless their dates are separately established. CBS News’ later reporting is an example of why the timeline matters: subsequent incidents are relevant to the wider safety story, but they do not prove that a passenger crash occurred during the first week.
Why the Waymo comparison hurt Tesla
Tesla’s Austin debut was judged against a competitor that had already made rider-only autonomous trips part of its operating model. Waymo’s official FAQ describes its public service as fully autonomous, with no human driver in the front seat, and identifies Austin as a market served through its partnership with Uber. Waymo’s FAQ provides the company’s description of that service.
Recommended Free Tools
Contemporaneous reporting described Waymo as providing substantially more rides and operating with a broader or more established Austin footprint than Tesla’s invite-only pilot. That did not mean Tesla had to match Waymo’s accumulated mileage or operating history on its first day. The fair comparison is launch maturity:
- Tesla: a small, tightly bounded rollout with invited riders, a safety monitor in the front passenger seat, remote support, and restrictions designed to avoid difficult conditions.
- Waymo: an established rider-only service model in Austin, operated through Uber, with no human driver in the front seat according to Waymo’s own description.
The contrast made Tesla’s visible errors more consequential. Tesla had spent years making ambitious claims about autonomy and robotaxis, so a debut that still required substantial human oversight—and then produced conspicuous lane, speed, and braking concerns—looked less like a leapfrog moment and more like an early public test that had arrived before it was ready for broad scrutiny.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What would show that the launch problems were temporary?
The first week alone cannot settle Tesla’s long-term autonomy strategy. A better test is whether the company can demonstrate measurable improvement while reducing the safeguards that made the pilot viable.
- Fewer interventions and remote-assistance events: Tesla would need to disclose meaningful safety data, not only selected successful rides. The important trend is whether human intervention becomes less necessary as coverage expands.
- Safe removal of the cabin monitor: Tesla’s own update described the safety-rider phase as preceding eventual removal. Removing the monitor would be meaningful only if the service remains safe across a representative range of routes and conditions.
- Broader operating conditions: A system that works only inside a carefully selected zone and avoids bad weather or late-night trips has not yet demonstrated general urban autonomy. Expansion should be judged by performance in the conditions the service claims to handle.
- Repeatable traffic-law compliance: Lane selection, speed control, traffic signals, emergency vehicles, construction zones, and unprotected turns matter more than a highlight reel of smooth rides.
- Transparent regulatory outcomes: NHTSA’s information requests and preliminary evaluation should be distinguished from a final finding, but any eventual conclusions, recalls, software changes, or safety restrictions would materially change the assessment.
This framework also avoids the two easiest mistakes: treating every unusual clip as proof that autonomous driving is impossible, or treating a limited number of successful rides as proof that the system is ready for unrestricted commercial use.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →So, was the first week a disaster?
As a mature commercial launch, it was a bad debut. Tesla’s first robotaxi week exposed visible driving errors, restrictive operating conditions, reliance on human safety oversight, and enough concern to draw NHTSA’s attention. Those facts justify calling the rollout troubled and embarrassing relative to Tesla’s promises.
But the strongest accurate conclusion is narrower than the headline. The week did not establish a passenger injury, a launch-week collision, a final NHTSA defect finding, or the impossibility of Tesla eventually building a functioning robotaxi network. It showed that Tesla’s public-facing robotaxi ambition had arrived in Austin as a supervised pilot with conspicuous shortcomings—not as the polished, scalable driverless service its marketing narrative had led many people to expect.
Sources and timeline
- Tesla Q2 2025 Update — Tesla’s description of the Austin launch, safety rider, and planned expansion.
- TechCrunch’s June 22 launch report — rollout restrictions, safety arrangements, and braking reports.
- Bloomberg’s video reporting — apparent speeding, wrong-lane behavior, and early rider footage.
- NHTSA Preliminary Evaluation PE25012 — the later, broader FSD-related evaluation opened October 7, 2025.
- Waymo FAQ — Waymo’s description of its fully autonomous Austin service through Uber.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was Tesla’s Austin robotaxi service fully driverless?
There was no person in the driver’s seat, but the June 2025 pilot used a Tesla employee in the front passenger seat as a safety rider and also had remote-support infrastructure. It was therefore a supervised pilot, not the same operating model as a mature rider-only autonomous network.
Did a Tesla robotaxi crash or injure a passenger during the first week?
The evidence reviewed for June 22–28, 2025 does not establish a passenger injury or a confirmed collision. Later reports discussed additional incidents, but those should not be attributed to the launch week without separate date verification.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Did NHTSA declare Tesla’s robotaxi system defective?
No. NHTSA contacted Tesla after reviewing online videos, which is a regulatory response but not a final defect finding. The agency later opened a broader preliminary evaluation involving allegations about FSD-related traffic-law violations.
How was Tesla’s launch different from Waymo’s Austin service?
Tesla began with invited riders, a restricted service area, a front-seat safety monitor, remote support, and additional operating limitations. Waymo describes its Austin service through Uber as fully autonomous with no human driver in the front seat. The comparison is primarily about operational maturity, not a claim that the two companies use identical technology.
The Bottom Line
Bottom line: Tesla’s June 22–28 Austin robotaxi debut was a troubled public test, and the visible lane, speed, braking, and oversight issues made the “disaster” label understandable. The evidence supports a harsh assessment of the launch—not a claim that Tesla caused a launch-week injury or crash, nor a final verdict on whether its long-term robotaxi strategy can succeed.
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.
