Engineer CEO Runs for Senate on a Platform to Ban Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” Feature

By B.N. Frank

Tesla vehicles continue to be associated with accidents where drivers lose control of the car often while using self-driving features (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). In fact, one driver operating his Tesla on Autopilot is scheduled to stand trial for two counts of vehicular manslaughter. Nevertheless, Tesla and other automakers are still hell-bent on creating self-driving software for their vehicles. Of course, it’s one thing to create it and test it where it can’t hurt anybody. It’s another to install it in vehicles for testing on public roads. Now one Californian is running for Senate to protect Americans from some of this insanity.

From Ars Technica:

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving made this man so mad he’s running for Senate

Dan O’Dowd is unhappy that Tesla’s beta software is being tested on public roads.

Jonathan M. Gitlin

Single-issue candidates for the US Senate aren’t the usual fodder for Ars’ car coverage, but it seems like an exception might exist for Dan O’Dowd. O’Dowd, an engineer and CEO of a software company, is running for one of California’s Senate seats on a platform to ban Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” feature.

Tesla’s stratospheric valuation owes a fair amount to the company’s futuristic-sounding FSD feature, which promises a truly autonomous car that could even work the streets while its owner sleeps. But the company’s progress has been rocky, switching compute platforms and ditching sensors while trying to match the functionality of older Teslas built with simpler but more robust advanced driving assistance systems.

FSD is an important money-maker for Tesla, however. In January Tesla CEO Elon Musk told investors that “full-self-driving will become the most important source of profitability for Tesla.” And the company has repeatedly raised the price for the feature—what started as a $6,000 option in 2019 is now a $12,000 option.

But the bit that apparently galled O’Dowd into action is the fact that Tesla owners are testing beta versions of the FSD software on public roads.

O’Dowd’s campaign page even makes the distinction between Tesla Autopilot with FSD, stating that “this experimental Beta software relies on external cameras and sensors in an attempt to detect obstacles, vehicles, road markings and most crucially, pedestrians, rather than the judgment of its driver. Most decisions, such as controlling speed, are made by the vehicle’s computer, without the driver’s input.”

According to his campaign materials, O’Dowd’s background is in developing secure software for weapons systems like the B-1B, and he claims to have recently built an unhackable laptop for the FBI. He also founded the Dawn Project, which advocates for replacing all critical infrastructure with software that cannot fail and can never be hacked—a worthy if perhaps Sisyphean goal.

O’Dowd and the Dawn Project claim that every eight minutes, a Tesla running FSD commits a critical driving error—making contact with an object, disobeying traffic signs or signals, disobeying safety personnel or vehicles, or making dangerous maneuvers that cause others to have to take evasive action. O’Dowd’s campaign also claims that safety defects in FSD cause malfunctions about once every 36 minutes in city driving.

Rather than leaving it up to journalists to make parallels with Ralph Nader’s 1965 safety campaign to fix the handling problems with the Chevrolet Corvair, O’Dowd’s campaign is doing it explicitly with an advertisement called Unsafe at Any Speed. And the ad—which includes a compilation of FSD’s more embarrassing moments from YouTube—will even air nationally. O’Dowd is buying airtime in 36 states, even though only Californian voters have the option of ticking his box.

Of course, there have been numerous complaints made about Tesla vehicles in addition to ones related to self-driving fiascos. Teslas have also been associated with battery fires, fires that are difficult to extinguish, high costs, high levels of harmful radiation emissions, federal investigations and violations, lawsuits, mechanical issues, security issues, recalls, and other problems (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). You would think that some if not all of this would be enough to deter people from buying these cars.

Of course, battery fires, fires that are difficult to extinguish, and high levels of harmful radiation emissions have been reported with other company’s Electric Vehicles (EVs) as well (see 1, 2, 3, 4).

Activist Post reports regularly about Teslas, autonomous vehicles (AVs), EVs, and unsafe technology. For more information, visit our archives and the following websites:

Become a Patron!
Or support us at SubscribeStar
Donate cryptocurrency HERE

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on SoMee, Telegram, HIVE, Flote, Minds, MeWe, Twitter, Gab, What Really Happened and GETTR.