Marketdash
Back to News

Personal Injury Lawyer Questions Tesla's Self-Driving Safety Amid Political Pushback on Vehicle Protections

MarketDash Editorial Team
6 hours ago
Attorney John Carpenter warns that Tesla's Full Self-Driving system remains prone to serious mistakes while criticizing efforts to roll back proven safety features, arguing transparency is essential as robotaxis expand across the U.S.

The conversation around self-driving cars just got more complicated. As Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) leads a Senate committee hearing questioning vehicle safety mandates, and companies like Tesla Inc. (TSLA) and Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL) (GOOG) subsidiary Waymo push ahead with autonomous vehicles, one personal injury attorney is raising pointed concerns about where this is all headed.

John Carpenter, Co-Founder of Carpenter & Zuckerman, recently sat down with MarketDash to discuss the intersection of autonomous vehicle technology, safety regulations, and legal liability. His take? We're moving in some worrying directions.

Rolling Back Safety Features Sends the Wrong Message

The Cruz-led Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is holding hearings on vehicle safety features including Autonomous Emergency Braking and rear seat occupant alerts. Carpenter doesn't mince words about this approach: pushing back on "proven safety features is the wrong direction." These features, he argues, prevent tragedies.

But there's a broader concern here. Carpenter warns that questioning established safety measures could damage public perception of emerging autonomous driving technology like Tesla's Full Self-Driving system. "Public confidence in this technology is still fragile," he explained. When these debates get "framed politically," people either lose trust entirely or place too much faith in systems that aren't ready for it. Neither outcome is good.

The Promise and Reality of Robotaxis

Carpenter sees genuine potential in robotaxis when they're deployed safely. They could increase accessibility for people with disabilities, senior citizens, and "anyone who needs reliable transportation without relying on family or public transit." There's also the last-mile problem to solve. "Most streets aren't walkable, and robotaxis could extend the reach of public transit," he noted.

Here's where things get messy, though. The data and incident reporting from both Waymo and Tesla remain limited. These companies are operating brand-new vehicles on "cherry-picked roads," which doesn't reflect real-world conditions. "To move forward safely, companies need to be fully transparent about incidents," Carpenter emphasized, calling for "fast, complete reporting" about accidents involving autonomous vehicles.

On Tesla's FSD system specifically, Carpenter was blunt: the system is prone to mistakes, and those mistakes "can be severe." The problem isn't just that the technology fails sometimes. It's that when you're in an autonomous vehicle, you expect the system to "see the same hazards" you do. When it doesn't, "you are reacting to the car's failure to react." That delayed response can be dangerous and even "catastrophic." Still, Carpenter believes autonomy could ultimately save lives if implemented correctly.

A Patchwork of Legal Standards

The legal framework surrounding autonomous vehicles and robotaxis varies dramatically depending on where you are. States like California have stricter rules and reporting requirements that "make accountability easier by forcing disclosure" and establishing a "legal paper trail."

Texas takes a different approach with relatively relaxed regulations, but the state "make it clear that when there's no human behind the wheel, the company is legally responsible for the vehicle's actions." Carpenter stressed again that transparency is crucial. When crashes happen, that data should be accessible to the public.

Data Is the New Witness

Carpenter highlighted a unique challenge facing robotaxi operators as they expand into new states: "The legal landscape is a patchwork, and scaling across it can be complicated." Different regulations in different jurisdictions create significant operational headaches.

But the bigger issue is accessing crash data, which is notoriously difficult to obtain, particularly from companies like Tesla. This data becomes absolutely critical because there's no human driver to question after an incident. In autonomous vehicle crashes, the data becomes the "witness."

Carpenter's final point cuts to the heart of the matter: "If they want the upside of a profitable robotaxi business, they have to accept the full legal responsibility of all that comes with it." In other words, AV companies can't hide data and expect the public's trust. Transparency isn't optional if this technology is going to work.

Back to News

Personal Injury Lawyer Questions Tesla's Self-Driving Safety Amid Political Pushback on Vehicle Protections

MarketDash Editorial Team
6 hours ago
Attorney John Carpenter warns that Tesla's Full Self-Driving system remains prone to serious mistakes while criticizing efforts to roll back proven safety features, arguing transparency is essential as robotaxis expand across the U.S.

The conversation around self-driving cars just got more complicated. As Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) leads a Senate committee hearing questioning vehicle safety mandates, and companies like Tesla Inc. (TSLA) and Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL) (GOOG) subsidiary Waymo push ahead with autonomous vehicles, one personal injury attorney is raising pointed concerns about where this is all headed.

John Carpenter, Co-Founder of Carpenter & Zuckerman, recently sat down with MarketDash to discuss the intersection of autonomous vehicle technology, safety regulations, and legal liability. His take? We're moving in some worrying directions.

Rolling Back Safety Features Sends the Wrong Message

The Cruz-led Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is holding hearings on vehicle safety features including Autonomous Emergency Braking and rear seat occupant alerts. Carpenter doesn't mince words about this approach: pushing back on "proven safety features is the wrong direction." These features, he argues, prevent tragedies.

But there's a broader concern here. Carpenter warns that questioning established safety measures could damage public perception of emerging autonomous driving technology like Tesla's Full Self-Driving system. "Public confidence in this technology is still fragile," he explained. When these debates get "framed politically," people either lose trust entirely or place too much faith in systems that aren't ready for it. Neither outcome is good.

The Promise and Reality of Robotaxis

Carpenter sees genuine potential in robotaxis when they're deployed safely. They could increase accessibility for people with disabilities, senior citizens, and "anyone who needs reliable transportation without relying on family or public transit." There's also the last-mile problem to solve. "Most streets aren't walkable, and robotaxis could extend the reach of public transit," he noted.

Here's where things get messy, though. The data and incident reporting from both Waymo and Tesla remain limited. These companies are operating brand-new vehicles on "cherry-picked roads," which doesn't reflect real-world conditions. "To move forward safely, companies need to be fully transparent about incidents," Carpenter emphasized, calling for "fast, complete reporting" about accidents involving autonomous vehicles.

On Tesla's FSD system specifically, Carpenter was blunt: the system is prone to mistakes, and those mistakes "can be severe." The problem isn't just that the technology fails sometimes. It's that when you're in an autonomous vehicle, you expect the system to "see the same hazards" you do. When it doesn't, "you are reacting to the car's failure to react." That delayed response can be dangerous and even "catastrophic." Still, Carpenter believes autonomy could ultimately save lives if implemented correctly.

A Patchwork of Legal Standards

The legal framework surrounding autonomous vehicles and robotaxis varies dramatically depending on where you are. States like California have stricter rules and reporting requirements that "make accountability easier by forcing disclosure" and establishing a "legal paper trail."

Texas takes a different approach with relatively relaxed regulations, but the state "make it clear that when there's no human behind the wheel, the company is legally responsible for the vehicle's actions." Carpenter stressed again that transparency is crucial. When crashes happen, that data should be accessible to the public.

Data Is the New Witness

Carpenter highlighted a unique challenge facing robotaxi operators as they expand into new states: "The legal landscape is a patchwork, and scaling across it can be complicated." Different regulations in different jurisdictions create significant operational headaches.

But the bigger issue is accessing crash data, which is notoriously difficult to obtain, particularly from companies like Tesla. This data becomes absolutely critical because there's no human driver to question after an incident. In autonomous vehicle crashes, the data becomes the "witness."

Carpenter's final point cuts to the heart of the matter: "If they want the upside of a profitable robotaxi business, they have to accept the full legal responsibility of all that comes with it." In other words, AV companies can't hide data and expect the public's trust. Transparency isn't optional if this technology is going to work.