The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has identified a significant increase in reported incidents where Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software allegedly violated traffic laws, specifically by running red lights and deviating into incorrect lanes. This development comes as the federal agency deepens its investigation into the advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS), underscoring persistent concerns about its real-world operational safety.

According to a recent letter dispatched to the electric vehicle manufacturer, NHTSA has amassed at least 80 distinct reports detailing these potentially hazardous behaviors. This compilation includes 62 complaints directly from Tesla owners, 14 incident reports submitted by Tesla itself, and an additional four instances highlighted in media coverage. This marks a notable escalation from the approximately 50 violations the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), a branch of NHTSA, cited when it initially launched its probe into these specific behaviors in October. The agency has given Tesla a deadline of January 19, 2026, to provide comprehensive responses to its inquiries.

Mounting Federal Scrutiny

The expanded inquiry by the federal safety agency’s ODI aims to ascertain whether Tesla’s driver assistance software possesses the capability to accurately detect and appropriately respond to critical traffic elements, including signals, signs, and lane markings. Furthermore, the investigation is evaluating the adequacy of warnings provided to drivers when the software encounters challenging or potentially unsafe situations. The regulatory spotlight on Tesla’s FSD system is not new, but the increasing volume of complaints signals a heightened level of concern within federal oversight bodies.

This latest surge in reported incidents is particularly noteworthy given that the initial batch of violations, which prompted the investigation in October, included multiple reports stemming from a single intersection in Joppa, Maryland. Tesla had previously informed the agency that it had "taken action to address the issue at this intersection." However, NHTSA’s recent communication did not specify the geographical locations of the newly reported incidents, making it difficult to ascertain if they represent new problem areas or recurring issues. Tesla’s submissions to the agency are frequently heavily redacted, limiting public access to specific details regarding incidents.

The timing of this communication from NHTSA also coincides with a controversial statement made by Tesla CEO Elon Musk. In a post on X (formerly Twitter) the same week, Musk asserted that the newest iteration of FSD would enable drivers to text while operating the vehicle under the software’s guidance. This claim immediately sparked widespread concern, as texting while driving is illegal in nearly every state across the United States due to the severe safety risks it poses. NHTSA has, to date, not issued a public comment regarding Musk’s statement, but it highlights a broader tension between the company’s ambitious technological claims and established road safety regulations.

The Evolution of "Self-Driving"

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system, despite its name, is classified by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) as a Level 2 advanced driver-assistance system. This means it offers partial automation, where the vehicle can assist with steering, acceleration, and braking, but requires continuous and active supervision from a human driver who must be prepared to intervene at any moment. This distinction is crucial, as true Level 5 full autonomy, where a vehicle can operate completely without human intervention under all conditions, remains a distant goal for the automotive industry.

The journey towards automated driving has been incremental. Tesla introduced its Autopilot system in 2014, offering features like adaptive cruise control and lane keeping. Over the years, Autopilot evolved, and in 2020, Tesla rolled out its "Full Self-Driving Beta" program to a limited number of customers, gradually expanding access. This program promised more advanced capabilities, including navigation on city streets, automatic lane changes, and traffic light and stop sign control. The "supervised" designation added later by Tesla itself reflects a growing industry and regulatory understanding of the necessity for active human engagement.

The allure of "self-driving" technology has profoundly impacted the automotive market, creating a new benchmark for innovation and attracting significant investment. Tesla’s aggressive marketing and ambitious timelines have pushed competitors to accelerate their own ADAS development, fostering a competitive landscape focused on advanced driver assistance. However, this rapid pace has also brought challenges, particularly concerning safety and public perception. The terminology itself—"Full Self-Driving"—has been a point of contention, with critics arguing it misleads consumers about the system’s actual capabilities and the level of human supervision still required.

Technical Challenges and Human Factors

Developing ADAS capable of navigating the unpredictable complexities of real-world driving environments presents immense technical hurdles. Traffic signals, for instance, can be obscured, partially visible, or vary significantly in design and placement. Lane markings can be faded, temporary, or inconsistent, especially in construction zones. The ability of a vision-based system, which FSD heavily relies upon, to accurately interpret these nuanced and dynamic conditions is a monumental engineering challenge. Factors like adverse weather (rain, snow, fog), extreme sunlight, and even common road debris can further complicate sensor perception and software decision-making.

The human element is equally critical. Even with advanced systems, driver attentiveness remains paramount. The investigation’s focus on whether Tesla’s software provides "sufficient warnings to drivers" highlights the delicate balance between automation and human responsibility. Drivers can become complacent when relying on ADAS, leading to delayed reactions or a failure to intervene when the system encounters a situation beyond its capabilities. This phenomenon, known as automation complacency, is a significant safety concern for Level 2 systems. Regulators and safety advocates stress the importance of robust driver monitoring systems to ensure that human operators remain engaged and ready to take control.

Regulatory Landscape and Industry Implications

NHTSA’s current letter marks the commencement of a formal discovery process, allowing the agency to gather comprehensive information from Tesla. The agency’s requests are extensive, seeking data on the total number of Tesla vehicles equipped with FSD, the frequency of its engagement, and all customer complaints related to the specific issues under investigation. This includes reports from fleet operators, as well as details from any lawsuits or third-party arbitration proceedings involving FSD-related incidents. This data will be critical for NHTSA to assess the scope and severity of the potential defects and determine appropriate next steps, which could range from mandating software updates to initiating a recall.

This is not the first time NHTSA has opened an investigation into Tesla’s FSD software. In October 2024, the agency initiated a separate probe into how FSD performs in low-visibility conditions, such as fog or extreme sunlight. These parallel investigations underscore a systematic effort by federal regulators to thoroughly evaluate the safety performance of Tesla’s advanced driver-assistance systems across a range of operational scenarios.

The increased federal oversight of Tesla’s FSD carries significant implications not only for the company but for the entire autonomous vehicle industry. It sets a precedent for how nascent, complex technologies will be regulated and scrutinized. For Tesla, these investigations can impact consumer confidence, potentially leading to slower adoption rates or calls for more conservative rollouts of new features. The company has invested heavily in FSD, positioning it as a key differentiator and a future revenue stream, making regulatory decisions particularly impactful on its business strategy and valuation.

More broadly, this enhanced scrutiny serves as a reminder to all manufacturers developing ADAS that robust safety validation, transparent communication, and adherence to regulatory standards are paramount. It emphasizes that the journey towards fully autonomous vehicles must prioritize safety above all else, requiring a collaborative effort between innovators, regulators, and the public to build trust and ensure responsible technological advancement.

Looking Ahead

As Tesla prepares its responses to NHTSA’s detailed requests, the outcomes of these investigations will undoubtedly shape the future trajectory of advanced driver-assistance systems. The agency’s findings could lead to new requirements for ADAS testing, design, and deployment across the industry. For consumers, the ongoing dialogue around FSD’s safety performance highlights the critical importance of understanding the limitations of current ADAS technologies and the continued necessity of attentive human supervision. The path to a truly self-driving future is paved with technological innovation, but also with rigorous safety assessments and a clear understanding of human factors and regulatory responsibilities.