Hacker's intervention exposes Tesla crash records, shifts legal precedent

[Skye Jacobs]

In a nutshell: An independent hacker recovered a crucial cache of crash data from a 2019 Tesla accident in Florida. The case offered new insight into Tesla's handling of driver-assistance technology and highlighted the challenges of retrieving computer records after a fatal collision.

On the night of April 25, 2019, a Tesla traveling through Key Largo struck 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, resulting in one death and serious injuries. Police and attorneys quickly realized that understanding the crash required accessing a specific set of electronic records – the collision snapshot – from the car's Autopilot computer. Court filings show that when the vehicle crashed, Tesla's servers automatically received the key data and confirmed receipt with the vehicle. However, the local copy in the car was then marked for deletion – a standard protocol for crash events in Tesla vehicles.

Months of attempts by Florida law enforcement and the plaintiffs' legal team to retrieve the data came up empty. At a Tesla service center, a technician focused on the navigation unit instead of the Autopilot computer that held the snapshot, providing investigators with what he called "corrupted" files before any analysis. Expert witnesses and internal Tesla testimony noted that powering up the Autopilot unit could trigger software updates that might erase stored evidence.

With litigation looming and technical barriers mounting, the plaintiffs recruited a pseudonymous hacker known as "greentheonly," an expert in reverse-engineering Tesla driver-assist computers. The hacker warned the legal team against simply powering on the units.

"Exactly the advice I would give if I wanted to destroy evidence," greentheonly testified.

Eventually, the plaintiffs recovered the original hardware from the Florida Highway Patrol and arranged for the hacker to analyze it under carefully controlled conditions.

Hacker greentheonly's workspace.

Working at a Starbucks in Miami, the expert hacker plugged in a forensic copy of the Autopilot unit's contents. Within minutes, he located the elusive collision data, marked for deletion but never entirely lost. The discovery not only showed the system registering the pedestrians in the crash moments, but also confirmed that Tesla had received the snapshot almost immediately after the accident. In the following days, a video reconstruction based on the retrieved data was prepared, visually displaying what the Tesla saw approaching the impact – including pedestrian detection at precise distances.

At trial, the technical evidence was central, with Tesla's attorney Joel Smith describing the company's handling of the data as "clumsy" but denying any intentional impropriety.

"We didn't think we had it, and we found out we did," Smith commented.

Tesla asserted that the crash resulted from "a distracted driver," not technological failure, and maintained in court that its systems warn drivers to pay attention and do not replace human oversight. The company also denied intentionally suppressing data, insisting it could not locate the collision snapshot until the hacker intervened.

Plaintiffs' attorneys viewed the events differently, arguing that Tesla's failure to recover crucial data suggested more than routine error and highlighted systemic flaws in both the technology and corporate transparency. Brett Schreiber, lead attorney for the plaintiff, emphasized in court filings the challenges of extracting timely information and years of "deceiving investigators," noting that Tesla's internal systems had the electronic snapshot almost immediately after the crash but did not provide it.

The jury found Tesla 33 percent responsible for the crash. It awarded $243 million in damages – a significant setback for a company that has long argued driving decisions rest solely with the human operator. Federal District Judge Beth Bloom found no evidence that Tesla intentionally withheld data, but ordered the company to cover the plaintiffs' retrieval costs due to the unnecessary difficulty.

Tesla filed post-trial motions to reduce or overturn the award, arguing that disputes over data relevance unduly influenced the outcome. Industry observers and legal experts say the verdict is fueling momentum in other pending cases, including a high-profile California trial this fall and a recent Texas shareholder suit alleging Tesla misrepresented its Autopilot features.

However, greentheonly, whose intervention proved decisive, now faces higher hurdles as Tesla tightens digital access.

"If an accident happened today like this, I won't be able to extract the data," he said.

Image credit: The Washington Post

Permalink to story:

Hacker's intervention exposes Tesla crash records, shifts legal precedent

 

[SRB]

This reminds me of the plastic fuel can debate. Everyone knows gasoline is flammable and can ignite near a heat source. Everyone knows it is a liquid and can spill if not handled carefully. Yet, somebody that ignored all of the information, and caught himself or his house on fire, sues the fuel can company and puts them out of business. Not the Chinese make the fuel cans with contraptions on them that make it difficult to get the fuel out of the can into the car, lawn mower, chain saw, etc.

Every car since cruise control and lane keeping tells you that you have to babysit the system because it's not perfect. Some fool ignores the warnings, take a nap, gets in the passenger seat, gets in the back seat, starts chatting on the phone, etc. and then blames whoever made the system because their lack of attention caused an accident, injury, or death. Who's fault is it? Tesla, of course. They made the system work so well that the ***** driving it believed he could ignore the warnings and do as he pleases. How does that work? Simple, it's called Autopilot, so he can be excused for not reading the owner's manual, ignoring the disclaimers, and ignoring the warnings from the system.

Monetary civil suits are no longer about the law and holding negligent companies responsible, they've become lotteries for negligent buffoons to soak wealthy companies. With the occasional negligent company having enough money getting let off the hook when the actual responsible citizen gets shafted because he/she does not have enough money for an outstanding attorney choosing the best venue in the country to win the suit.

 

[Revolution 11]

The jury went pretty lenient on Tesla here. Deliberately withholding evidence is an action that should be a crime of its own. Ideally someone should be going to jail for this.

If Tesla's lame defense to avoid a charge of deliberate intent to withhold evidence is that they didn't know about the data snapshot or didn't know how to handle crash-related data, then they don't have the competence to be allowed to operate self-driving cars on public roads.

 

[bviktor]

This reminds me of the plastic fuel can debate. Everyone knows gasoline is flammable and can ignite near a heat source. Everyone knows it is a liquid and can spill if not handled carefully. Yet, somebody that ignored all of the information, and caught himself or his house on fire, sues the fuel can company and puts them out of business. Not the Chinese make the fuel cans with contraptions on them that make it difficult to get the fuel out of the can into the car, lawn mower, chain saw, etc.

<endless apologism abot tesla>

It is called Full Self Driving, not just simply Autopilot.

For half a decade they sold it like something that will perfectly drive your car. Musk also reiterated over and over how mindblowingly great it is getting. Currently they're selling it (for an arm and a leg) like:

Full Self-Driving*

* not full self-driving

Precisely because of lawsuits like this. But yeah, next time maybe don't call it something that it isn't. China didn't even let them use this name there, precisely because it's a LIE. Misleading marketing is not the customer's fault.

Btw that manual starts with:

Depending on market region, vehicle configuration, options purchased, and software version, your vehicle may not be equipped with Full Self-Driving (Supervised) , or the feature may not operate exactly as described.

Another wonderul "may or may not". That helps a lot, doesn't it?

As for your ridiculous analogy, I doubt the gas can maker called it inflammable can, and I also doubt they systematically and deliberately withheld evidence about the flammability of plastic cans.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

The jury went pretty lenient on Tesla here. Deliberately withholding evidence is an action that should be a crime of its own. Ideally someone should be going to jail for this.

If Tesla's lame defense to avoid a charge of deliberate intent to withhold evidence is that they didn't know about the data snapshot or didn't know how to handle crash-related data, then they don't have the competence to be allowed to operate self-driving cars on public roads.

The article says the judge “found no evidence that Tesla intentionally withheld data”. The charged language that Tesla withheld evidence came from the plaintiffs’ lawyers no doubt.

It is called Full Self Driving, not just simply Autopilot.

For half a decade they sold it like something that will perfectly drive your car. Musk also reiterated over and over how mindblowingly great it is getting. Currently they're selling it (for an arm and a leg) like:



Precisely because of lawsuits like this. But yeah, next time maybe don't call it something that it isn't. China didn't even let them use this name there, precisely because it's a LIE. Misleading marketing is not the customer's fault.

The customer knew damn well that the vehicle couldn’t drive itself. No customer had access to FSD in 2019. Even so, Tesla has never sold simply “full self-driving” as you say; they’ve always labeled it as supervised full self-driving. Stop lying. In 2019, this is the massive disclaimer shown on the option whether you selected it or not:

The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.

But sure, the driver who was already successfully prosecuted isn’t at fault—he didn’t know.

 

[NumberNine]

People who buy a car and then pay extra to not drive it must be the same people who pay monthly for MMORPGs and then pay extra to be alone in private player housing.

Tesla loves to brag, so I will too: Humans have yet invent a machine or slip of code that can match my skills or my endurance behind the wheel. They have managed to legislate the ability to lie about that though. I have the luxury of honesty because I can afford it. All they can make is money.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

That's one shyster of a Judge that could rule "Tesla did not intentionally hide the data". What a simply outrageous ruling.

 

[mbk34]

I don't understand why the local copy in the car was marked for deletion and a standard protocol for crash events in Tesla vehicles. Surely this data should be kept at all costs?

Is it full self driving when it drives as well as an average human or do people expect it to faultlessly? Records show that accidents are far fewer when FSD is engaged than when it's not (15%). Personally I hate long drives on the motorway/freeway and would actually trust a decent FSD (whether Tesla or other) to do a better job than me.

 

[Dr Roboto]

Two things can be true at the same time: 1) Tesla is a terrible company that purposely tried to hide a failure on their part based on an over-promised and under-performing self driving capability, and 2) the human driver is at fault for not paying attention.

Everything from the Tesla side is basic deflect and deny with a heaping helping of deliberately withholding evidence. I can't believe that people buy these cars. Everything about this company is cringe and I don't even want to start on Elon.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Even so, Tesla has never sold simply “full self-driving” as you say; they’ve always labeled it as supervised full self-driving.

Gotta love the weasel word marketing here where the words completely contradict each other. Don't label it as self driving, let along FULL self driving, if it needs supervision. It obviously can't drive itself if it needs humans to drive it.

A little kid who needs "supervision" is not independent.

Next someone will be selling a drug that is a cancer-cure all pancea that cant actually treat cancer without chemo and surgery, or selling a nonflammable flammable inflammable insulation material for your house.


And supervision is a light way to put it - it needs a human hands on the steering wheel and eyes on the road at almost all times...basically requiring a person spend almost as much effort as if he was actually driving.

 

[Nictron]

"The jury found Tesla 33 percent responsible for the crash. It awarded $243 million in damages"

So who is responsible for the other 67% and is the penalties equal percentage wise? There seems to be a lot of biases in this judgment against Tesla's "Supervised FSD"

The problem here is not Tesla it is US law and how juries approach judgement penalties. Even though I do not like how Tesla acted in this process, I do however have sympathy because any transparency is severely exploitable by lawyers. Proven in this case as Tesla is deemed 33% liable but will probably carry 99.5% of the financial penalties.

 

[Nictron]

This reminds me of the plastic fuel can debate. Everyone knows gasoline is flammable and can ignite near a heat source. Everyone knows it is a liquid and can spill if not handled carefully. Yet, somebody that ignored all of the information, and caught himself or his house on fire, sues the fuel can company and puts them out of business. Not the Chinese make the fuel cans with contraptions on them that make it difficult to get the fuel out of the can into the car, lawn mower, chain saw, etc.

Every car since cruise control and lane keeping tells you that you have to babysit the system because it's not perfect. Some fool ignores the warnings, take a nap, gets in the passenger seat, gets in the back seat, starts chatting on the phone, etc. and then blames whoever made the system because their lack of attention caused an accident, injury, or death. Who's fault is it? Tesla, of course. They made the system work so well that the ***** driving it believed he could ignore the warnings and do as he pleases. How does that work? Simple, it's called Autopilot, so he can be excused for not reading the owner's manual, ignoring the disclaimers, and ignoring the warnings from the system.

Monetary civil suits are no longer about the law and holding negligent companies responsible, they've become lotteries for negligent buffoons to soak wealthy companies. With the occasional negligent company having enough money getting let off the hook when the actual responsible citizen gets shafted because he/she does not have enough money for an outstanding attorney choosing the best venue in the country to win the suit.

Agree the legal exploitation is at another level in the US and it leads to this type of non-transparent behavior by companies as any weakness is exploited to the maximum degree,

 

[Nictron]

I don't understand why the local copy in the car was marked for deletion and a standard protocol for crash events in Tesla vehicles. Surely this data should be kept at all costs?

Is it full self driving when it drives as well as an average human or do people expect it to faultlessly? Records show that accidents are far fewer when FSD is engaged than when it's not (15%). Personally I hate long drives on the motorway/freeway and would actually trust a decent FSD (whether Tesla or other) to do a better job than me.

Due to US legal processes, the default position is always share as little as possible and only reveal via litigation.

 

[Nictron]

Two things can be true at the same time: 1) Tesla is a terrible company that purposely tried to hide a failure on their part based on an over-promised and under-performing self driving capability, and 2) the human driver is at fault for not paying attention.

Everything from the Tesla side is basic deflect and deny with a heaping helping of deliberately withholding evidence. I can't believe that people buy these cars. Everything about this company is cringe and I don't even want to start on Elon.

This "deflect and deny with a heaping helping of deliberately withholding evidence" is normal legal precedence in the US. You do not disclose more than what is needed as your jury system has subjective influence compared to other jurisdictions with stronger objective legal frameworks.

In Canada this would be, You drove the car with "Supervised FSD", "Think supervised learner driver", The owner of the vehicle will be held fully responsible when dropping their phone & taking their eyes of the road for an extended time. I still find the driver's story a bit weird.

 

[Che Cazzo]

Please stop calling that guy a "hacker". That's the term TS and (definitely) Tesla 's legal Dept. would use because it will have negative legal connotations.

He is literally a technical software expert who retrieved relevant data Tesla was unwilling to provide. Period.

 

[OortCloud]

Surely Tesla should be obligated by law to keep crash data not destroy it?

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Gotta love the weasel word marketing here where the words completely contradict each other. Don't label it as self driving, let along FULL self driving, if it needs supervision. It obviously can't drive itself if it needs humans to drive it.

A little kid who needs "supervision" is not independent.

Next someone will be selling a drug that is a cancer-cure all pancea that cant actually treat cancer without chemo and surgery, or selling a nonflammable flammable inflammable insulation material for your house.


And supervision is a light way to put it - it needs a human hands on the steering wheel and eyes on the road at almost all times...basically requiring a person spend almost as much effort as if he was actually driving.

You clearly have never looked into it. They have robotaxis today with no one behind the wheel. When they started selling it, it had no features for customers, it had an appropriate name for the package, and it was priced at a lower cost option. Would I buy it then? Absolutely not. But it was clearly indicated back then that it depended on future software updates. No one buying it is as stupid as you make them out to be to jump to conclusions with a feature that they’ve never used before.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

You clearly have never looked into it. They have robotaxis today with no one behind the wheel. When they started selling it, it had no features for customers, it had an appropriate name for the package, and it was priced at a lower cost option. Would I buy it then? Absolutely not. But it was clearly indicated back then that it depended on future software updates. No one buying it is as stupid as you make them out to be to jump to conclusions with a feature that they’ve never used before.

The point is clearly flying over your head.

Robotaxis being self sufficient today does not justify Tesla marketing BS from several years ago where they called it self driving and even full self driving when it was neither.

Even today, I know someone who bought a Tesla in the year 2025 and they have to pay 8k for software for self driving that isnt actually self driving because it still needs constant human supervision or they violate their warranty/terms of service.

It is not self driving or full self driving if it cant actually drive itself and needs constant human supervision.

People can justify all the fine print and disclaimers from Tesla all they like, but that does not change the fact it was weasel marketing that promised things in laymen terminology that it couldn't actually do.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

The point is clearly flying over your head.

Robotaxis being self sufficient today does not justify Tesla marketing BS from several years ago where they called it self driving and even full self driving when it was neither.

Even today, I know someone who bought a Tesla in the year 2025 and they have to pay 8k for software for self driving that isnt actually self driving because it still needs constant human supervision or they violate their warranty/terms of service.

It is not self driving or full self driving if it cant actually drive itself and needs constant human supervision.

People can justify all the fine print and disclaimers from Tesla all they like, but that does not change the fact it was weasel marketing that promised things in laymen terminology that it couldn't actually do.

You clearly haven’t looked at Tesla’s marketing. The feature is not called “full self-driving“, it is called “full self-driving (supervised)”. The fact that it needs supervision while driving itself is literally part of the name of the feature, not the fine print. Go see for yourself: https://www.tesla.com/fsd

And if you think Tesla put the disclaimer in fine print years ago, look again. Go to archive.org and go to the purchase page to check. It was part of the product description, and again the title was not simply “full self-driving” back then either. Even if that wasn’t true, this was never a feature you could buy before so anyone would look to learn what exactly they were paying $8k for before buying something optional lol. In addition, all active steering assistance features from Tesla have always been disabled by default with instructions before you could enable it.

Before you complain further about Teslas prior or current marketing, please provide an actual example linked to Tesla’s website (current or former) or I will not reply to you. So far, you’ve only been wrong and this is a waste of my time.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

You clearly haven’t looked at Tesla’s marketing. The feature is not called “full self-driving“, it is called “full self-driving (supervised)”. The fact that it needs supervision while driving itself is literally part of the name of the feature, not the fine print. Go see for yourself: https://www.tesla.com/fsd

And if you think Tesla put the disclaimer in fine print years ago, look again. Go to archive.org and go to the purchase page to check. It was part of the product description, and again the title was not simply “full self-driving” back then either. Even if that wasn’t true, this was never a feature you could buy before so anyone would look to learn what exactly they were paying $8k for before buying something optional lol. In addition, all active steering assistance features from Tesla have always been disabled by default with instructions before you could enable it.

Before you complain further about Teslas prior or current marketing, please provide an actual example linked to Tesla’s website (current or former) or I will not reply to you. So far, you’ve only been wrong and this is a waste of my time.

You clearly haven't actually looked into what Tesla and Musk have said and showed in the past. It is very telling that you only cite the CURRENT scrubbed and sanitized version of Tesla's website.

Luckily, Tesla posted a video on youtube 6 years ago that they couldnt delete titled "full self driving" that doesnt mention supervised/supervised anywhere in the title, and shows a person using the autopilot feature who doesnt put his hands on the wheel or control the car...which is a violation of the current FSD rules that will void your warranty and possibly insurance.

Again, Tesla called it Full Self Driving without mentioning supervision IN THE VIDEO TITLE and shows no supervision in the video.

Furthermore, Elon Musk literally said they had self driving cars that didnt need humans back in 2019.

Tesla's website released marketing videos that mentioned full self driving WITHOUT the human supervision part several years ago and had a video showing self driving without humans:

https://twitter.com/x/status/789019145853513729

"Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Teslas"

https://www.tesla.com/videos/full-self-driving-hardware-all-teslas

Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Teslas

All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

web.archive.org

This turned out to be false and it actually had human operation after all.

Tesla has been working to scrub the internet of their previous bogus marketing claims....something you seem to ignore or be unaware of.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1827105729859473773

Lawsuits are moving forward over Teslas' misleading and contradictory marketing claims.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/tesla-drivers-can-pursue-class-action-over-self-driving-claims-judge-rules-2025-08-19/

It seems clear you only have researched Tesla's current sanitized claims where they worked hard to erase their previous marketing BS. And even then, their current marketing is like selling "unflammable house insulation (actually inflammable or flammable)".

 

[Bluescreendeath]

You clearly haven't actually looked into what Tesla and Musk have said and showed in the past. It is very telling that you only cite the CURRENT scrubbed and sanitized version of Tesla's website.

Luckily, Tesla posted a video on youtube 6 years ago that they couldnt delete titled "full self driving" that doesnt mention supervised/supervised anywhere in the title, and shows a person using the autopilot feature who doesnt put his hands on the wheel or control the car...which is a violation of the current FSD rules that will void your warranty and possibly insurance.

Again, Tesla called it Full Self Driving without mentioning supervision IN THE VIDEO TITLE and shows no supervision in the video.

Furthermore, Elon Musk literally said they had self driving cars that didnt need humans back in 2019.

Tesla's website released marketing videos that mentioned full self driving WITHOUT the human supervision part several years ago and had a video showing self driving without humans:

https://twitter.com/x/status/789019145853513729

"Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Teslas"

https://www.tesla.com/videos/full-self-driving-hardware-all-teslas

Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Teslas

All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

web.archive.org

This turned out to be false and it actually had human operation after all.

Tesla has been working to scrub the internet of their previous bogus marketing claims....something you seem to ignore or be unaware of.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1827105729859473773

Lawsuits are moving forward over Teslas' misleading and contradictory marketing claims.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/tesla-drivers-can-pursue-class-action-over-self-driving-claims-judge-rules-2025-08-19/

It seems clear you only have researched Tesla's current sanitized claims where they worked hard to erase their previous marketing BS. And even then, their current marketing is like selling "unflammable house insulation (actually inflammable or flammable)".

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

You clearly haven't actually looked into what Tesla and Musk have said and showed in the past. It is very telling that you only cite the CURRENT scrubbed and sanitized version of Tesla's website.

I have looked at their website in the past lol. Like I said, use archive.org and freely look at past versions of their website to show me where they sold simply full self-driving (since that seems to be what you’re complaining about). You still haven’t done that and are misrepresenting the past.

All you’ve shown are examples of Tesla showing a preview of what FSD will look like but removed from context and claiming Tesla was selling that, and not features Tesla offered at the time. Tesla did indeed include the hardware they believed would be capable of FSD, and if you originally purchased the software package and they later needed to update the hardware to support FSD, then they did that for customers for free.

Here’s another example of Tesla using the description of “Full Self-Driving Capability” in 2019 to accurately describe what it offers (no fine print or gotchas like you suggest lmao): https://web.archive.org/web/20191008022841/http://www.tesla.com/autopilot

All new Tesla cars have the hardware needed in the future for full self-driving in almost all circumstances. The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.
[…]
The future use of these features without supervision is dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving capabilities are introduced, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.

And if you look at the purchase page for the option, it talks about supervision being required there at the time too. I chose 2019 considering that’s when the lawsuit of this article is about.

 

[Angga B]

I agree that Tesla has been using totally misleading term of "autopilot" or "fully-self-driving" or whatnots. Total lie and BS.

However I also agree that human who let his/her fate (safety) fully on the hand of machines, even in the case when they were being lied to, are not the best human to keep into the future. They rightfully deserve their Darwin Award with full distinction and honor.

 

[Soaptrail]

Surely Tesla should be obligated by law to keep crash data not destroy it?

Not only keep it but share it with the government and the owner. I agree it is truly bizarre to auto delete it on the car.

 

[dmatheson]

The article says the judge “found no evidence that Tesla intentionally withheld data”. The charged language that Tesla withheld evidence came from the plaintiffs’ lawyers no doubt.
The customer knew damn well that the vehicle couldn’t drive itself. No customer had access to FSD in 2019. Even so, Tesla has never sold simply “full self-driving” as you say; they’ve always labeled it as supervised full self-driving. Stop lying. In 2019, this is the massive disclaimer shown on the option whether you selected it or not:

But sure, the driver who was already successfully prosecuted isn’t at fault—he didn’t know.

There may not have been any "evidence," but that is a legal finding, not a common-sense finding. A hacker should NOT be able to get at information that its own software engineers can not. The plaintiff would have needed a whistleblower to corroborate that evidence was withheld. And again, the company can choose to delete incriminating evidence as a policy, but that doesn't make it OK. An article certainly can't get into the weeds, but I would have had them defend policies that do not support evidence of device failures, including hitting a couple of pedestrians. HOW can the product get better without that analysis? I would have asked about their in-house failure analysis procedure. And if they didn't have one that was adequate, I would have sued them for that. Every car that has self-driving features should have a "black-box". How can our government properly regulate self-driving features without all of the information? For instance, I would want to know how much self-driving features lead to distracted driving as compared to conventional automobiles. When a plane crashes, they sift through the gravel to figure out why, so they can build better airplanes and create better SOPs. Why are cars any different? They maim and kill fewer people at a time, but they make up for it in volume. Logic would lead one to believe that cars should be subject to more stringent study and regulation than airplanes.