Security

CA Tesla Kills One on Hwy 17

Leave a comment

A CHP officer in Santa Cruz has posted this to his Instagram account.

On June 14, 2025, at approximately 9:55 p.m., California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers responded to a crash involving both the northbound and southbound lanes of State Route 17 at Sugarloaf Road. A 78-year-old Santa Cruz man was stopped in an orange 2003 Honda Element east of State Route 17, facing westbound. A red 2022 Tesla Model Y, driven by a 19-year-old male from Antioch, was followed by a black 2024 Honda Accord driven by a 24-year-old male from Daly City; both vehicles were traveling northbound on State Route 17 in the left lane. For unknown reasons, the driver of the Honda Element proceeded westbound directly into the path of oncoming traffic. A collision occurred on the northbound side of State Route 17 between the Honda Element and the Tesla. Immediately following the initial impact, the Tesla was hit from the rear by the Honda Accord. As a result of the crash, the driver of the Honda Element was declared deceased…

And now (as a long time local resident) let me explain what the CHP report tries to hide

Highway 17 at Sugarloaf Road is one of California’s most notorious crash zones. The above report, potentially about a 19 and 24 year old racing high speed into the notorious Sugarloaf blind curve, needs far more context.

The stretch of mountain highway known as “Killer 17” and “Blood Alley” has seen crashes more than quadruple in the last decade – from 420 crashes in 2013 to 983 crashes in 2016. Just weeks before this fatal collision, the exact same location saw a big rig overturn and a separate school bus crash on the same day. The spot isn’t just a regular intersection it’s a potential death trap if northbound traffic is speeding and not reacting.

Missing details, potential deception

The CHP report states the cause was “unknown reasons” for a Honda Element leaving a parking area and entering the road with oncoming traffic. But conspicuously absent from this preliminary report are standard investigative findings that typically emerge within 24-48 hours of fatal crashes:

  • Speed determination for any of the three vehicles involved (100% likely Tesla was speeding into Sugarloaf with a tailgating or racing Honda)
  • Road conditions given Highway 17’s known visibility and design problems
  • Secondary collision related to local culture of inadequate following distance

Investigative shortcuts may be related

This isn’t just about one crash report. Recent investigations have revealed systematic problems in CHP crash investigations that should concern anyone on Highway 17:

The Margaret Bengs Case: Two former CHP Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team supervisors reviewed a CHP report involving a Sacramento County judge and found the investigation “thin” and “not supported by facts or law.” The CHP initially blamed the cyclist victim despite physical evidence suggesting otherwise.

Blame the victim. That pattern seems strangely common in CHP reports.

Former MAIT head Bob Koetting identified a “CHP culture that favors quick investigations and prioritizes clearing of crash scenes to keep [shorter work times]” over thorough investigation, exactly what we might expect on a high-traffic corridor like Highway 17.

Numbers don’t lie on accountability

Court records reveal troubling patterns of misconduct and investigation failures:

  • $25 million in settlements involving 51 CHP officers statewide between 2006-2015
  • 54 CHP officers criminally charged in 2022 for systematic overtime fraud
  • Studies show 66.6% of serious injury crashes were misclassified in severity assessments
  • Independent experts frequently reach different conclusions than CHP investigators

Highway 17 calls for outside independent CHP scrutiny

Highway 17 has been identified as a high collision corridor since 1998. The “Safe on 17” Task Force receives $50,000 annually for enhanced CHP enforcement. Yet despite decades of safety concerns, no independent audits of CHP investigation quality on Highway 17 were found in public records.

No independent audits, on top of blame the victim.

The road’s design creates perfect conditions that the CHP knows complicates investigations:

  • Sharp blind curves limiting visibility
  • Sudden speed changes
  • Dense traffic with aggressive drivers
  • Narrow shoulders complicating evidence collection

What this means for families and victims.

When crashes occur on Highway 17, the quality of the initial CHP investigation can determine:

  • Insurance claim outcomes
  • Legal liability determinations
  • Whether safety improvements get implemented
  • Whether families get accurate answers about what happened

The current system appears designed more for CHP hidden power over lives, dispensing favors to family and friends, than service and truth-finding.

Questions every Highway 17 crash victim should ask:

  1. Was speed properly investigated using objective measurement tools?
  2. Were all physical evidence and skid marks documented before cleanup?
  3. Was road design considered as a contributing factor?
  4. Were witness statements thoroughly collected and reconciled?
  5. Was the investigation conducted by MAIT specialists or standard patrol officers?

The bigger picture.

This isn’t about blaming individual CHP officers, many of whom work dangerous conditions trying to keep Highway 17 safe. It’s about systematic problems that compromise investigation quality when families most need accurate answers.

Recent incidents show CHP officers themselves are being injured in Highway 17 operations, suggesting operational challenges that could affect investigation thoroughness.

What you can do.

If you or someone you know is involved in a Highway 17 crash:

  1. Request independent accident reconstruction when significant injuries or disputed fault occur
  2. Document everything yourself before leaving the scene if possible
  3. File Public Records Act requests for complete CHP investigation files
  4. Contact experienced traffic accident attorneys familiar with challenging CHP investigations
  5. Petition Santa Cruz County Grand Jury to investigate local CHP practices

The Highway 17 corridor deserves better.

With more than two crashes per day on this deadly stretch of highway, families deserve investigations focused on finding truth, not just clearing traffic. Until systematic reforms address the documented patterns of investigative shortcuts and accountability gaps, every Highway 17 crash report should be viewed with appropriate skepticism.

The victims of Highway 17’s dangers – and their friends and families – deserve nothing less than the full truth about what happened and why.

History, Security

Sweden Dumps $1.4 Billion of Tesla Stock, Citing Abuse of Workers

Leave a comment

Tesla is the only American car maker to deny people their right to organize, even for reasons of health and safety.

Swedish pension fund AP7 said on Friday it has blocklisted and sold all its shares in U.S. electric vehicle maker Tesla, citing violations of union rights in the United States. […] An AP7 spokesperson said the fund’s stake in Tesla was, when it was sold in late May, worth around 13 billion crowns ($1.36 billion).

AP7 admits they knew about Tesla labor violations for a very long time, but were slow to act on them, as they admit with a “we had dialogue” narrative.

Despite several years of dialogue with Tesla, including shareholder proposals in collaboration with other investors, the company has not taken sufficient measures to address the issues.

Sweden’s financial management team is basically saying they pulled a 1938 Munich Agreement, and should we believe that they expected it would work this time?

Let’s go back for a minute to 2017 headlines when Sweden would have been reading that the Tesla CEO only agrees to address serious complaints about worker safety if his workers did not organize their complaints.

In a June 2017 meeting with Tesla employees, CEO Elon Musk solicited their complaints about safety issues and promised to address their concerns, so long as they refrained from trying to organize a union, the National Labor Relations Board alleges.

That’s like Britain hearing in 1938 that Hitler will only address complaints about invading his neighbors if those neighbors refrain from organizing to defend against blatant law violations.

Tesla blatantly violated [labor] laws—and on Friday, [September 2019] Amita Baman Tracy, an administrative law judge in California, agreed.

You may be thinking what does 1938 have to do with Swedish leaders in 2019 shrugging at Tesla crimes. In fact, the comparison is more relevant than you might imagine. Hitler’s violence against organized opposition in 1938 didn’t deny Henry Ford’s suppression of American labor was an inspiration.

Hitler mentioned only one American in his biography, Henry Ford, and kept a photo of him in his Nazi HQ.

That Ford/Hitler alignment meant that American labor was under direct and coordinated attack by militant fascism. Take Ford’s big 1937 Battle of the Overpass, for example.

The “Battle of the Overpass” is one of the most famous events in the history of the American labor movement. The national attention garnered by the photographs and the subsequent hearings provided damning evidence of the methods utilized by Ford and other companies to fight unionism.

I’m sure if you are an American you’ve never heard of this “most famous event” in American history. Amiright? Not a single American gets taught this history, because it inconveniently lays bare Henry Ford and Hitler conspiring in a way that America should have been at war against both.

If you are from Sweden, the chances you know anything about American fascist history… forgettaboutit.

[Ford] security men began to tear notebooks from reporters’ hands. Others went after the photographers, confiscating film and smashing cameras to the ground. They chased one fleeing photographer for five miles, until he ducked into a police station for safety. […] Ford workers testified that if their superiors suspected them of showing interest in the UAW, Ford Service Department men would pull them from the assembly lines and escort them to the gate as they were fired on the spot, often without explanation.

And yet, the 1937 Ford/Hitler news should sound very familiar to anyone reading the 2017 Tesla news of journalists threatened and workers fired for showing interest in a union.

Tesla’s “total recordable incidence rate” was 8.8 percent (8.8 injuries per 100 workers) in 2015, the last full-year that data is available for. That’s 31 percent more than the 6.7 percent total recordable incidence rate for the automobile industry as a whole…

Tesla very clearly and intentionally returned to 1930s Ford/Hitler management theory with predictable results, killing workers when they aren’t being injured and abused.

American autoworkers and their children in 1941 protest Ford’s relationship with Hitler. Source: Wayne State

By 2019 headlines had made this all abundantly clear as a court ruled without question that Tesla broke labor laws, like Ford in 1937, not to mention the hate crimes while building the “Swasticar“.


It sure took a while for the Swedes to dialogue their way to a divestment from American fascism. It almost seems like they flipped, suddenly remembering which side won both WWI and WWII. Should we be surprised Sweden went for Tesla in the first place, when Swedes seemed to be flirting with their flavor of Nazism during the exact time Tesla increasingly was exposed for Nazism?

The recent electoral success of a party with Nazi origins must be understood as part of the long history of white Swedes’ desire for racial homogeneity.

So, the real question here, given Tesla has been a toxic Nazi dumpster fire since Elon Musk abruptly seized control from its founders, is what Swedes should do now after admitting they never should have touched such an inhumane company to start with.

…as reported by Reuters, Sweden takes the prize for most dramatic plunge: sales dropped 80.7 percent…

Not buying cars, not buying stock, neither seems to go far enough. Perhaps their AP7 should donate all profits made from holding Swasticar stock to the anti-racist and anti-fascist organizations that serve public interests like protecting against armies of killer robots?

Swasticars: Remote-controlled explosive devices stockpiled by Musk for deployment into major cities around the world.
History, Security

Austin Tesla Robotaxi Runs Over Children, Fails 8 out of 8 Safety Tests

Leave a comment

1973 poster by Charles Boost: “Hunting small game all year round. Stop killing children”
1985 poster: “What about me? Stop murdering children”

Tesla’s attempts to make a road robot for over a decade has apparently failed to see children in 2025 Austin, violently running them over as if their lives don’t matter.

In all eight tests, the self-driving Tesla did not slow as it approached the bus, struck the child-sized dummy and continued driving.

To be fair, Tesla engineers apparently have leaked that they never intended to avoid hitting children.

Self-driving Teslas only gained the ability to recognize school bus signs a few months ago, in December 2024.

Let THAT sink in for a second.

Teslas started driving themselves on American roads in October 2015.

After Vic Langenhoff’s daughter was killed, he wrote the dramatic headline ‘Stop de Kindermoord’ (Stop the Child Murder) and called for public protection. Within months of protests in 1978, the Amsterdam city council voted 38 to 7 to enhance its roads by restricting automobiles.

Here’s a chilling detail, about how Tesla’s newest hardware and software reacted to failing a basic child safety test:

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software did not disengage or even alert the driver to the fact there had been a collision on any of the test runs.

Keep that in mind any time Tesla tries to claim that they have no evidence their car has been killing, or will kill even more, children. Of course they can say that, given how they reportedly bury data faster than anyone can bury the dead children.

New report reveals Tesla officials’ efforts to hide potentially damaging data: ‘Would suffer financial and economic harm’