Tesla Robotaxis have been in multiple dangerous incidents and harrowing near misses, in the first hours of “launching” 10 of them despite human oversight. Here’s another example.

On the right side of this screenshot you see the human oversight. Let’s be honest, it’s a driver in the wrong seat.

There are a million reasons NOT to put the driver in the wrong seat. And the only reason to put them there is… propaganda.

The driver’s hand in this case is being put on the console because they are trying to stop their Tesla from crashing into the back of a BIG brown truck.

Perhaps most notably you can see the human driver recognize the problem and begin moving towards taking control for five very long seconds (count them out 1…2…3…4…5…) before punching the emergency touchscreen.

Now imagine the touchscreen doesn’t respond or fails.

Even a very slow moving disaster in the most obvious location on the clearest day with bright markings is still far to much for Tesla engineers to handle.

And when you listen to the tone-deaf dialogue, the Tesla driver pushes into a known dangerous blind spot of the BIG truck and says “UPS car is very close to us” instead of admitting cause:

The Tesla Robotaxi algorithm strongly displays reckless driving charges under Section 545.401, which prohibits “willful or wanton disregard for safety.”

Key evidence:

1. 5-second observation period – proves awareness of the backing truck
2. Deliberate swerving to the right into path of truck – shows conscious choice to disregard obvious risk
3. Interference with backing vehicle – violates right-of-way requirements

I am told this is a $200 fine and 30 days in jail for reckless driving, plus additional charges for failure to yield.

Arguably having ten of these dangerous Tesla on the road with the same criminal software suggests a multiple. Could Texas impose $2,000 and 300 days in jail since all the cars have the same flaw?

Civil Liability Analysis

Texas uses comparative negligence with a 51% bar rule. The UPS truck fulfilled a duty to back safely, so the Tesla driver would likely bear majority fault (70-80%):

1. Extended five second observation period proving awareness
2. Deliberate interference with properly signaled backing maneuver
3. Violation of general duty to maintain safe following distance, as admitted by the Tesla “too close” comment

Responsibilities

UPS Truck duties	Ensure backing can be completed safely, maintain proper signals, yield right-of-way to through traffic when necessary
Tesla duties	Maintain assured clear distance, exercise reasonable care, yield to vehicles already occupying parking spaces

It is that excruciatingly long five second observation period that is crucial evidence that transforms this from a typical backing accident into potential criminal conduct by Tesla.

While backing vehicles bear a primary responsibility under Texas law, the Tesla algorithm making a deliberate swerve into a truck’s path after observing the truck creates both criminal reckless driving liability and substantial civil fault.

Tesla should thus face criminal charges and majority civil liability, because of how it behaved after clearlt observing a UPS truck fulfilling it’s technical duty to back safely.