This is an example of ongoing failure in the crash “avoidance” technology promoted since 2016 by the Tesla CEO.
The incident, which happened at 7:58 p.m., occurred at 532 U.S 65 and resulted in the death of Michael A. Dickey, 51, of Greenbrier.
According to the report, two cars — including Dickey in a 2023 Ford — were travelling north on U.S. 65. Dickey was driving in the No. 1 traffic lane, and a 2023 Tesla was in the No. 2 traffic lane, Arkansas State Police said. Dickey’s Ford entered the No. 2 lane and struck the right side of the Tesla, the report stated.
Following the collision, the Ford rotated counterclockwise and crossed over the center turn lane into the southbound lanes, according to the report.
Dickey was killed because of the Tesla crash, which begs the obvious question why it wasn’t avoided as marketed.
Thank you for highlighting this tragic incident and keeping us focused on the important questions Tesla raises by trying to censor regulators. The stark contrast between marketing claims and real-world performance of crash avoidance technology deserves serious scrutiny.
Your reference to the 2016 marketing claims is particularly relevant. As documented in social media Tesla’s CEO explicitly stated that “Autopilot would have prevented this cyclist from being killed” and argued it would be “Wrong to exclude non-occupant deaths” from safety metrics. Yet here we are in 2024, with another preventable tragedy despite eight years of supposed technological advancement.
The timeline is telling:
2016: Bold claims about crash prevention capabilities while asking the Whitehouse occupant to shut down NHTSA reporting.
2021: New elections, new Whitehouse, new appointments, NHTSA implements mandatory crash reporting requirements
2023-2024: Push to take over Whitehouse again and eliminate crash reporting requirements while incidents continue to grow in frequency and severity
The NHTSA data tells an important story since of the 45 fatal crashes reported through October 15, 2024, 40 involved Tesla vehicles. This statistic alone highlights the huge gap between marketing promises and reality. Tesla said they’d lead safety statistics and yet in reality they are the laggard, worst danger on roads.
What makes this Arkansas incident particularly troubling is that lane-change collision avoidance was one of the earliest features promoted!
Basic safety functions like preventing lane intrusion crashes should be well-refined after nearly a decade of real-world deployment and data collection, but it seems Tesla is getting worse not better.
Instead of working to eliminate crash reporting requirements, manufacturers should be doubling down on transparency and using this valuable data to improve safety systems. As you note, the fundamental question remains, why wasn’t this crash avoided as marketed? The answer likely lies in the data that some are now trying to hide from public view.
For the sake of Michael Dickey and all others lost in preventable accidents, we must demand both accountability and transparency in automotive safety technology.
Safety technology accountability requires consistent and clear reporting of crash data, especially fatalities. I appreciate your work here and acknowledge how hard it must be given Tesla has a habit of shaming anyone reporting on the people they have killed. Anyone telling you such crucial reporting is “deceptive” or “distressing” fundamentally misunderstands both journalism’s purpose and public safety obligations.
When manufacturers explicitly market crash “avoidance” technology, each failure demands careful analysis. This isn’t about targeting any particular company, it’s about whether safety systems perform as advertised. The manufacturer’s own statements established this standard, arguing forcefully against excluding any deaths while promising their technology would prevent any and all such tragic losses.
The facts here are straightforward: a fatal crash occurred involving crash avoidance technology. Examining such incidents helps prevent future tragedies through:
* Evidence-based safety improvements
* Validation of marketing claims
* Identification of systemic issues
* Appropriate regulatory oversight
NHTSA data shows concerning patterns that deserve public attention. This is exactly why mandatory crash reporting requirements exist. They provide crucial transparency for consumer safety. The current push to eliminate these requirements makes accurate incident reporting even more vital.
The most profound disrespect to victims and their families would be allowing preventable deaths to go unreported and unexamined. Safety improvements come from rigorous analysis and accountability, not silence. When companies promise to prevent deaths through technology, they must expect and welcome scrutiny of those claims.
We honor those lost by ensuring their deaths drive meaningful safety improvements. This requires honest reporting, thorough investigation, and unwavering commitment to transparency, especially when the findings are uncomfortable.
Thank you for your service and dedication. Hope to see you in Arkansas again soon.