Jaguar Land Rover has instructed almost three dozen I-Pace owners in the US to avoid parking their EVs near structures and to limit charging to 80% because incorrectly repaired examples are at risk of catching fire.

This recall follows on from an earlier one impacting 2019 Jaguar I-Pace models. The brand says 34 vehicles in the US have not had software updates correctly installed and have a safety defect that can cause the EVs to catch fire. Impacted models were assembled between February 18, 2018, and March 11, 2019.

Read: Jaguar Is Buying Back 2,760 Faulty I-Pace EVs Over Fire Risk

Jaguar started to audit its previous recall on November 12 and found three vehicles that had not been correctly updated, even though retailers had submitted a claim for the repair to the carmaker. Jaguar has since reviewed the logs across its retail network and found that 34 vehicles continue to represent a safety risk and must be fixed. While there have not been any reports of accidents, injuries, or fires, it’s a fault that owners should take seriously. The recall also comes just a few weeks after Jaguar said it was buying back 2,760 I-Paces in the US that can catch fire.

Dealers will be notified of this latest recall on January 2, while owners will be informed by February 7. Retailers have been instructed to install an interim software update to fix the fault.

Interestingly, JLR first issued this new recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on December 12 and did not tell owners to park their EVs away from structures. However, the recall notice was updated on December 17, warning owners of the dangers.

“In line with recommendations made by manufacturers who have had similar issues and until such time as the safety recall remedy has been completed, retailers and customers should park away from structures,” the recall states. “Where possible, vehicles should be charged outside. Customers should also limit their charge to a maximum of 80% until the recall remedy has been completed. The Owner Manual should be consulted to confirm how to monitor vehicle charge level.”

Imagine getting to work a few days or weeks after buying a brand new Tesla only to realize there are major issues. The cameras aren’t functioning, the GPS still thinks you’re sitting at home, and features like emergency braking don’t work. That’s exactly the type of situation that a number of Tesla owners are dealing with right now.

Several of these drivers claim to have taken delivery within the last month or two. This detail is important not just for the inconvenience it causes, but also because it might point to the root of the problem. These owners report that they all have Tesla’s AP4 or hardware version 4 chipset, which is responsible for the features mentioned above. If it has a problem, those features won’t work, so it could very well be the crux of this whole situation.

Glitches, Delays, and Angry Owners

Over on Reddit, several owners report very similar symptoms. On top of that, they claim that Tesla service centers are routinely scheduling to swap out AP4 hardware and delaying appointment times.

“Happened to me: 2024 Model Y. Navigation shows me at home. All the time. Cameras out. Even the display does not adjust. Auto lights don’t adjust. Appointment on January 13 wayyy delayed,” said one commenter.

More: Trump Might Kill Autonomous Crash Reporting Rules, Handing Tesla Exactly What It Wants

“I was contacted by Tesla today and the tech from my local service center told me that Tesla has told them to stop replacing the computers until they get to the root cause. He said they’re going to try and fix it with a software update and to expect 30 days. I find this mind-blowing because my symptoms started happening on Dec 2 and now my service date has been pushed back to Jan 23, nearly 2 months later,” said another.

There are many more complains on forums, including this one: “After a software update pushed by Tesla, the AP4 computer in my 2024 Tesla Model Y shorted out, causing a complete failure of all systems controlled by this computer.”

So, What’s Actually Wrong?

Electrek reports that sources from inside Tesla say that it’s related to a short circuit: “The cause is still being investigated, but one source told Electrek that one of the possible causes is the low-voltage battery short-circuiting the computer during the camera calibration process.” According to the outlet, one source claimed that Tesla Service has a mandate to “to play down any safety concerns related to this problem to avoid people believing their brand-new cars are not drivable.”

That seems like a tough job for Tesla Service employees considering how much emphasis the brand itself places on touting its safety record and technology. Notably, the NHTSA currently requires cars to have a functional backup camera, so it’s strange no recall related to this issue has been announced. That could change any day, but it’s also possible that Tesla will send an update that will fix the problem remotely, if it’s software related.

We’d ask Tesla, but, well, they don’t have a press department, though it appears that they might’ve recently hired one, as you can see from this Linkedin posting. We’ll keep an eye out to see if they decide to actually say something.

Are you a Tesla owner dealing with this headache? Share your saga in the comments. You can also report the issue to the NHTSA here, or if you’re in Canada, go ahead and do that here

If there’s one thing America loves, it’s a good tug-of-war between corporate power and government oversight, especially when it involves cutting-edge tech, fiery CEOs, and a whole lot of car crashes. Today, any accident involving an automated driving system must be reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), thanks to a Standing General Order issued in June 2021. This rule keeps automakers honest—well, sort of—but now, a newly surfaced document suggests that the Trump administration wants to kill it.

And surprise, surprise: the potential repeal would be a massive win for Elon Musk and Tesla, while also leaving regulators with fewer tools to keep autonomous driving tech in check.

More: See What Happens When Two Cars Hit A Chinese EV At 60KM/H In Triple Crash Test

Reuters reports that it has seen a document that “recommends repealing requirement that companies report automated vehicle crash data.” That’s notable for several reasons, not least of which is one of the requirement’s biggest opponents: Elon Musk. The high-profile CEO, who not only campaigned openly for Donald Trump before the election but also became his largest donor, spending at least $277 million to support him, now stands to benefit in a significant way.

A Rule Tesla Really Hates

Under the current rules, Tesla, like many other companies, must report crashes to the NHTSA under the General Order if they meet two specific criteria. First, the vehicle’s Level 2 autonomous driving system must have been in use within 30 seconds of the accident. Second, the crash must either involve a vulnerable road user (like a pedestrian or cyclist) or result in “a fatality, a vehicle tow-away, an airbag deployment, or any individual being transported to a hospital for medical treatment.”

Musk takes exception to this order for several reasons. To be fair, the NHTSA itself even outlines some of the potential issues with the order on its website. For instance, car companies can only report the accidents that they’re aware of—which isn’t always as straightforward as it sounds.

More: Tesla’s Sub-$30K Model Q And 2025 Product Plans

“For example, some entities may have access to detailed vehicle and crash data immediately after a crash, because the vehicles supply instantaneous telematics, while others may only learn of crashes from consumer complaints submitted days or weeks afterwards and which may include limited crash information,” says NHTSA.

Reuters points out that its analysis of the NHTSA crash data shows Tesla accounted for 40 out of 45 fatal crashes reported to the agency through Oct. 15. It’s plausible that Tesla not only reports more incidents but also that the statistics look tilted against the brand because so many of its cars have Level 2 driving technology and owners use it more.

More: Tesla Shares Soar By 69%, As Musk Becomes First Person To Top $400 Billion Net Worth

Moreover, Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor in the University of South Carolina who focuses on autonomous driving, said Tesla collects real-time crash data that other automakers don’t and, as a result, probably reports a “far greater proportion of their incidents” than its rivals.

Did Tesla Wait This Out? Probably.

To that end, Reuters says a source claims that Tesla executives have wanted to squash the crash reporting for years. The team evidently decided that the only solution was to wait until President Biden, whose administration was supportive of the program, was out of office.

In the meantime, stay tuned—because if this unfolds the way it seems, you’ll probably be hearing about it next time someone’s Tesla decides to “assist” them into a ditch.

The future of autonomous driving is edging closer, but Tesla’s latest plans reveal it may not be as driverless as we’ve been led to believe—at least for now. On December 5, Deutsche Bank hosted an Autonomous Driving Day in New York City, featuring Tesla executive Travis Axelrod.

A private report from the event reveals several details about Tesla’s robotaxi plans for 2025. Perhaps most notably, Tesla envisions using a remote teleoperator as an initial safety measure. That’s right—these “robotaxis” will have a human on standby as a safety backup to take control if needed.

More: Tesla’s Sub-$30K Model Q And 2025 Product Plans: Key Insights From The Deutsche Bank Report

Elon Musk said earlier this year that Tesla would begin testing of Level 5 autonomous robotaxis in 2025. Now, we know more about that plan based on documents from the Deutsche Bank meeting reviewed by Carscoops. According to that report, “Tesla believes it would be reasonable to assume some type of teleoperator would be needed at least initially for safety/redundancy purposes.”

A Practical Reality Check

No doubt, the launch of any robotaxi inevitably demands significant safety considerations. Despite extensive efforts, even geo-fenced Level 5 robotaxis have been involved in dangerous accidents. Having a human remote operator could increase safety but Tesla is coy on the details. For instance, we don’t know how much work the teleoperator will do in the car. We don’t know how much control they’ll have, and we don’t know how long Tesla plans to use them after the launch of robotaxi rides. 

In addition, Tesla reiterated that these robotaxis will be based on existing Model 3 and Model Y vehicles. Whether that means brand-new models or cars returned from leases is unclear (because, let’s be honest, who’s going to pay the absurdly high buyouts Tesla is proposing?). That means in theory, one could be giving up control of their very own vehicle to a Tesla employee during robotaxi rides. Notably, the meeting notes do provide a little more insight into the rollout. 

First, it tells us that these will be paid rides, so don’t expect to go from A to B without throwing some cash at Tesla. Second, it says that the initial roll-out will consist of company-owned vehicles. The automaker will then “eventually dynamically adjust supply based on customer demand/traffic patterns.”

Users will hail a ride via an internally developed ride-share application which, as the report brings out, will enable Tesla to control the “value chain.” Essentially, Tesla gets about as much control (and data) here, from the start of the hailing process to drop off, as it could want. 

Regulatory Hurdles Ahead

Finally, the report also clarifies something else that seems obvious. “Tesla views regulation as the biggest headwind to broad deployment of robotaxi, which the company hopes will be adjusted at the federal level through updating of rules at NHTSA.”

It’s no secret that the NHTSA currently has very strict regulations when it comes to robotaxis in the USA. If those rules don’t change it won’t matter how fast Tesla develops true self-driving because the law doesn’t allow for Tesla to launch a giant fleet. It could, at most, deploy 2,500 cars per year under current rules. 

Whether or not all this comes to pass is about as clear as mud right now though. We’ll know by the start of 2026 if Tesla can hit these targets. Of course, that’s the year it plans on beginning production of its Cybercab, another big maybe in the brand’s future. 

Henrik Fisker’s attempts to establish his own car companies have ended in complete failure. Twice, he has launched his own car company, and twice, those ventures have ended in collapse. Earlier this year, Fisker filed for bankruptcy while attempting to deliver the all-electric Ocean SUV. The fallout has left owners stuck with vehicles that have not only depreciated significantly but are also riddled with a host of frustrating issues.

The most recent—and perhaps most troubling—issue concerned the risk of unexpected rollaway. In early February, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) began investigating unintended vehicle movement in 2023 model-year Fisker Oceans.

Read: Fisker’s Bankruptcy Plan Approved, Owners Won’t Have To Pay For Recall Repairs

The ODI discovered that impacted vehicles contain a logic that prevents the engagement of the park gear when the park gear request is made while the vehicle is moving at low speeds. Put more simply, if a driver tries to turn on the parking brake while the EV is moving, it’ll reject the request and shift into neutral. According to the safety agency, there’s a risk that drivers may not realize the parking brake hasn’t been switched on, and there’s a chance the Ocean could roll away if just left in neutral.

News of the investigation first emerged late last month. On November 15, Fisker issued a recall covering 7,745 Oceans from the 2023 and 2024 model years to address the problem. Following the issuance of this recall, the ODI has been able to close its investigation.

As part of the software update, the Fisker Ocean will automatically slow to a stop if the driver unlatches their seatbelt while traveling at low speeds. Once stopped, the SUV will automatically switch into park gear and enable the parking brake. Fisker has also introduced an Auto Vehicle Hold function, which will hold the SUV in place even after the driver removes their foot from the brake pedal. This is a standard feature on most cars, and, oddly, the Ocean didn’t have it until the introduction of OS 2.0.

Fisker has been forced to launch several other recalls for the Ocean this year, including due to a sudden loss of drive power, an unprompted reduction in regenerative braking, malfunctioning warning lights, and outer door handles that can stick and fail to open.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has confirmed it’s looking into a recent fatal crash involving a Tesla Cybertruck that killed three teenagers in California late last month.

The accident occurred in the early hours of November 27 in Piedmont. Local police officers quickly responded to the scene and found the Cybertruck engulfed in flames. A witness pulled the sole survivor from the truck. All four occupants were 2023 graduates of the Piedmont High School who had returned home to celebrate Thanksgiving.

Watch: Tesla Cybertruck Crash Leaves Three Dead After Catching Fire

While recently speaking with Business Insider, a spokesperson from the NHTSA said the agency “is aware of the crash and is gathering information from the manufacturer and law enforcement.” The official noted that no formal investigation has been launched at this stage.

In the immediate aftermath of the crash, both the Piedmont Police Department and California Highway Patrol said they were looking into the cause of the crash. Piedmont police chief Jeremy Bowers suggested that speed likely played a role.

“It’s safe to say that speed was a factor. Now, are there other factors associated? That is certainly possible, but speed is likely a contributing factor to this collision,” he said. Police added there were no immediate signs that mechanical problems with the Cybertruck had contributed to the crash.

The Tesla caught fire soon after colliding with a cement wall and getting wedged between it and a large tree, but it’s currently unknown whether its high-voltage battery pack was the cause. While Piedmont fire chief Dave Brannigan said that it resembled a “typical car fire”, Bowers commented that it was “too intense” and the police officers, who tried to extinguish it, couldn’t. Eventually, fire crews put out the blaze.

This was the second fatal accident involving a Tesla Cybertruck in the US. The first occurred in early August when a man driving his electric pickup crashed near Beach City in Chambers County, Texas, slamming into a concrete culvert and triggering a fire.

Lead screenshot ABC7/YouTube

School bus crashes are a concerning issue that requires close attention. Statistics show that these types of incidents occur more often than one might expect, with thousands of crashes reported each year across the United States.

Recent statistics compiled from various sources reveal an alarming trend of school bus crashes and school transportation-related traffic incidents over the last decade.

According to an analysis of National Highway Traffic Safety (NHTSA) data, Brumley Law Firm found that approximately 976 fatal school bus crashes led to over 1,000 deaths and around 132,000 injuries, spanning the years 2013 through 2022. States like Texas and Florida emerged as hotspots for these fatalities. Texas reported 75 school transportation-related crashes and 87 resulting fatalities, while Florida reported 74 crashes and 76 fatalities. The top five was rounded out be Georgia, which experienced 65 deaths in 60 crashes, New York with 59 deaths in as many crashes, and Pennsylvania with 59 deaths in 53 crashes.

Harris County, Texas and Kings County, New York experienced the most school-transportation related crashes between 2013-2022 with 11 each. Cook County, Illinois, Los Angeles County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona each had nine crashes.

Approximately 111 people are killed and 13,200 people are injured in school bus incidents each year, according to NHTSA. However, statistics reveal that occupants of other vehicles are more likely to become fatally injured in a school bus crash, rather than the occupants of the school bus. Only 11 fatalities on average occur on the school bus, to students or their driver, compared to about 76 occupants in other vehicles. Of the 111 fatalities in the school bus, the NHTSA data indicates 61 were student passengers and 50 were school bus drivers.

Though the school bus itself provides a reliable, secure way for transporting students, NHTSA says it remains concerned about the lingering problem of illegal school bus passing by motorists, which undermines this safety net and demands concerted efforts.

Last month, NHTSA released its review of state laws on illegal passing. It also offers an online best-practices guide designed to help reduce the number of incidents. The National Association for State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services estimates that 45.2 million illegal passings occurred nationwide last school year.

---

Related: Florida School Bus Crashes After Motorist Runs Stop Sign
Related: West Virginia School Hosts Mock Bus Crash
Related: What Do School Bus Drivers Want to Increase Safety?
Related: North Carolina School Bus Crashes into Home

The post Fatality Data Analysis Indicates School Bus Safety in Comparison to Other Modes appeared first on School Transportation News.

Headlights are one of the most crucial safety features on any vehicle, but when they’re too bright, they can pose just as much risk as being too dim. Newly delivered 2024 and 2025 Porsche Macan Electric models in the US now require repairs because their overly bright headlights exceed safety standards, potentially increasing the risk of a crash.

Modern headlights have come a long way, offering better performance than their predecessors, but sometimes progress overshoots the mark. Porsche discovered that the high beams on affected Macan Electric models were programmed to European Economic Commission (ECE) standards rather than the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) required in the US.

As a result, when the high beams are activated, they exceed the maximum brightness levels allowed stateside—a classic case of technology failing to dim its enthusiasm.

Read: Porsche To Sell ICE Macan In The US “For The Foreseeable Future”

A total of 2,941 Macan Electric SUVs, built between March 15 and November 4, 2024, are part of this recall. Porsche is concerned that the overly bright beams could dazzle oncoming drivers, reducing visibility and increasing crash risks. While the irony of “too much light” causing trouble isn’t lost on us, this is a safety oversight that Porsche aims to fix promptly.

To remedy the issue, Porsche will reprogram the headlight control unit software on all affected vehicles at no cost to owners. Letters will be sent out to notify customers, with the process beginning no later than January 24, 2025.

All Macan Electric models sold in the US come standard with a 100 kWh battery pack and an 800-volt electric architecture. The entry-level all-wheel drive Macan 4 delivers 402 hp and 479 lb-ft (648 Nm) while the Macan Turbo ups the ante with 630 hp and 833 lb-ft (1,128 Nm) of torque, allowing it to hit 60 mph (96 km/h) in 3.1 seconds. This makes it even quicker than a Porsche 911 GT3 off the line. In June, a rear-wheel drive version with 335 hp was added to the Macan Electric family, as was a new 4S with 509 hp.

Interestingly, Porsche also plans to continue selling the Macan in ICE form in the US for the foreseeable future. Porsche had always planned to sell the outgoing ICE version alongside the Macan Electric for at least a couple of years but if demand for the older model is strong enough, it could keep on kicking for longer.

Tesla is recalling approximately two dozen Model Ys built in late October after discovering a seat issue that could increase the risk of injury in a crash, just the latest in a string of quality control hiccups for the EV maker.

Since its debut, the Tesla Model Y has been the top-selling electric vehicle globally, and one might expect that by now, Tesla would have perfected the car’s finer details. However, a small issue has cropped up with Model Ys built between October 28 and October 30, 2024. The problem centers around the seats, specifically the welds attaching the recliner mechanism to the seat back. If the welds are insufficient, it could compromise the seat’s integrity, potentially failing to properly restrain the occupant in the event of a crash.

Read: This Is Everything We Know About The 2025 Tesla Model Y Juniper

Owners of affected Model Ys will likely notice if something’s amiss. Loose or rattling seats, resistance when reclining, or an inability to fully recline could all signal the problem. In total, 27 Model Ys are involved in this recall.

Tesla’s engineers first began investigating a seat recliner failure on October 29 when the factory’s welding equipment generated multiple non-conformances. The carmaker spent the following week investigating the fault and later completed a weld analysis to characterize the condition and identify vehicles that may be impacted. Tesla has not received any warranty claims related to the potentially dodgy seats.

Recall Notifications Begin in January

All Tesla stores and service centers were informed about the recall on November 26, 2024, while owners will be alerted starting January 21, 2025. Owners of impacted models will need to bring their Model Ys to a service center where the seat assembly will be replaced with a certified one, free of charge.

Word of this recall comes just a couple of weeks after Tesla launched the sixth recall involving the all-electric Cybertruck. In that case, vehicles need to be repaired because of a fault that may develop within the drive inverter.

Jaguar is going to extreme lengths to deal with a fire risk problem on its recently-axed I-Pace EV. The British automaker has agreed to buy back 2,760 2019MY examples sold in the US to get the situation resolved, at least in its customers’ eyes.

The problem relates to concerns about batteries overheating and potentially catching fire, something that has been an issue with the I-Pace for several years now. Previous recalls have applied software-based fixes but data revealed that some 2019 cars that have received the remedy are still suffering thermal overloads. To date, three of the 2019MY EVs have caught fire despite receiving a software update.

Related: Jaguar I-Pace Owners Told To Park Outside After 3 Fires Involving Previously Recalled EVs

In August Jag told owners to park outside and away from buildings and announced that another code update would limit the car’s to an 80 percent charge as a temporary fix. A “permanent remedy is under development,” the company said at the time, and this month we learned that the permanent remedy means Jaguar dipping into its pockets to buy back almost 3,000 cars.

The good news for Jag is that the I-Pace has suffered from horrific depreciation, so the bill, while still huge, isn’t going to be as big as it could have been. And we imagine a large proportion of the affected owners will be glad to see the back of their trouble-prone cars, even if they are great to drive and they end up with less to spend on a new car than they were hoping.

Ordinarily, a story about a carmaker having to buy back thousands of six-year-old EVs due to a safety issue would be a PR disaster for the automaker involved. But after having been subjected to a week of ridicule over its attempts to rebrand, Jag execs are probably delighted that an I-Pace recall has nobly offered to deflect some of the attention.

Jaguar is relaunching itself as an electric-only Porsche and Bentley rival and will show a concept version of the first of three new models on December 2. To underline the shift, Jag has killed off its entire current model line and come up with new logos and branding that were met with derision and confusion online.

Fisker may have gone bankrupt, but its products are still out there, keeping their owners on their toes. The latest twist? Yet another recall for the all-electric Ocean SUV, this time targeting 7,745 vehicles. While Ocean owners might be experiencing a strong sense of déjà vu, this isn’t just another footnote, it’s a serious safety concern that can’t be ignored.

While the recall was only recently published by the NHTSA, Fisker has known about the issue for quite some time and first introduced an over-the-air software update to rectify it back in March. However, it’s clear that not every owner may have been aware of this fix. If you’re one of them, consider this your gentle nudge: check your vehicle for the latest update.

Read: Fisker Wants Owners To Pay Recall Labor, DOJ Says No Way

At the core of the recall is a fault in the transmission that may prevent the vehicle from shifting into the selected gear. As a result, the SUV could to roll away while in Drive or Reverse. According to the NHTSA’s National Center of Statistics and Analysis, vehicle rollaways lead to an average of 144 deaths and approximately 1,900 injuries annually in the United States. For something as seemingly minor as a software glitch, the implications are anything but trivial.

A Troubled Year for Fisker

This latest recall is just the tip of the iceberg for Fisker, which spent much of 2024 firefighting one issue after another. The company, already grappling with financial woes that culminated in bankruptcy, has issued no fewer than five recalls for the Ocean this year alone. Among them are defects involving a sudden loss of drive power, malfunctioning warning lights, and an unprompted reduction in regenerative braking—none of which inspire confidence for current or prospective owners.

Other recalls have focused on more mechanical problems, such as outer door handles that stick and fail to open, and a water pump prone to failure, potentially causing a total loss of drive power. If the Ocean was meant to make waves, these issues are definitely not the kind Fisker had in mind.

Earlier this year, Fisker added insult to injury when it announced that owners would have to cover labor costs for certain recalls, including the door handle and water pump fixes. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened, pointing out that this move would be illegal. As part of its bankruptcy restructuring plan, Fisker has since committed to covering all recall-related costs—a small but critical concession to owners already feeling the brunt of these missteps.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a 190-page report that reviews laws across the U.S. detailing motorist requirements when passing stopped school buses.

State Laws on School Bus Passing was released as a Congress directive to NHTSA as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and researched laws in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This followed results earlier this year from the annual National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) illegal passing survey, which estimated over 43.5 million illegal school bus passes occurred during the 2022-2023 school year, prompting further review of state laws.

“Illegal passings of stopped school buses loading and unloading students in violation of these laws are frequent and can lead to serious pedestrian-involved crashes resulting in injury or death,” the report states.

The findings of the report included variability in state laws regarding illegal passing, different penalties for offenders, challenges in enforcement, as well as best practices and recommendations.

The report also detailed the history of illegal passing related legislation, which dates back 90 years. A section of the Uniform Vehicle Code was added in 1934 that required motorists to slow to “a speed which is reasonable and prudent … and in no event in excess of 10 miles per hour” when passing a stopped school bus. That law was modified several times and resulted in today’s general nationwide requirement across all states that flashing yellow or amber lights signals motorists of an upcoming stop while flashing red lights and an extended stop arm indicate that motorists make a full stop and remain stopped until the red lights cease and the stop arm folds and returns to the side of the bus.

NHTSA stated that recent changes in various state laws about whether motorists should stop for a school bus on the other side of a divided highway can cause issues. “Unfortunately, the lack of clarity and consistency in the presentation of these laws, particularly the provisions related to divided highways and the need to stop for a school bus on school property can be confusing,” the report stated.

Following research of state laws, NHTSA said it found that all U.S. jurisdictions “require a motorist to stop while overtaking from behind a stopped school bus regardless of the road type (undivided or divided).” The differing requirements were in cases where a motorist is approaching the stopped school bus from the front, with 42 states requiring motorists should also stop if approaching from the front on an undivided highway. Some states require a stop only if the undivided highway has a certain number of lanes, which continues to add to the lack of clarity and cohesiveness between states.

The effectiveness of illegal passing laws is discussed in depth in the NHTSA’s Reducing the Illegal Passing of School Buses: Best Practices Guide, which was referenced multiple times in the report. Findings from that guide included permitting citizen reports of violations, although this could lead to inaccurate reporting. Illegal passing incidents can be difficult to track for other reasons, including a lack of police presence in high violation areas, insufficient evidence, and issues with camera placement and operating.

Only 24 states or territories currently allow the use of cameras to enforce illegal passing, and of those 24 there are varying criteria about whether the driver’s face must be identifiable in the violation footage.

“While it is theoretically possible a wide variety of laws in a given state could impact stop-arm camera effectiveness, this study did not identify any documented evidence that other laws (i.e., statutes/legal code outside the VTL (Vehicle Traffic Law) pertaining directly to passing of stopped school buses) were impacting stop-arm camera effectiveness,” stated the report. “As the installation of stop-arm camera systems increases across the country, this situation could change.”

There are also differences regarding if a law enforcement officer must witness the violation, whether in person or via review of video footage. Many states were unclear whether direct law enforcement confirmation was required, while others permitted student transportation professionals or software technicians to witnesses. Only 24 state laws specify that a private citizen such as a school bus driver can be a suitable witness to a violation, resulting in enforcement.

Reiterating the importance of clear and unanimous requirements was the recurring theme of the report. “The lack of clarity in drafting the passing law provisions themselves, further compromises the ability of anyone, particularly the typical motorist, to understand these legal requirements,” NHTSA states.

Penalties for motorists convicted of illegally passing a school bus are also widely variable and are not always mandatory. In some states, the report notes, it is up to judicial distraction if the motorist will be penalized. The penalties can range from fines to misdemeanor charges, community service to driver improvement courses, license suspension to jail time. In some states, the violation could also be escalated to a felony if the incident results in serious injury or death. The report says that 26 jurisdictions have increased fines for illegal passing violations. Again, it was noted that there are specific regulations in each state that vary based on repeat violations, injuries, or worse.

NHTSA provided an individual report on each of the 54 U.S. jurisdictions that outlined what constitutes an illegal passing, how a violation can be reported and enforced and possible penalties for the motorists.

“As with many parts of the legal code, finding ways to standardize language and requirements across States could be beneficial to improve motorist understanding and possibly compliance with laws surrounding illegal passing of stopped school buses,” the report recommends.

The NHTSA guide looked at data from different states and territories, and it found that addressing illegal passing needs to be a “two-pronged” effort which brings together education of drivers, students and motorists along with effective, consistent enforcement of laws.

The NHTSA guide was encouraged as a resource that outlines program ideas to reduce illegal passing incidents, including strategies such as educational programs, high visibility enforcement and frequent, ongoing evaluations & research to find if current practices are “actually effective for reducing illegal passing of stopped school buses and the best methods to implement such programs.”

---

Related: NHTSA Releases Estimates on Traffic Fatalities
Related: Addy’s Law in Georgia, Targets Illegal Passers of School Buses
Related: 6 Student Deaths Reported in Latest School Bus Loading, Unloading Survey

The post NHTSA Releases Report on Nationwide Illegal School Bus Passing Laws appeared first on School Transportation News.

A next-generation Chevrolet Bolt is on the horizon, but GM can’t seem to escape the shadow of its troubled past with the model. The automaker has just issued yet another recall for the older Bolt, a reminder that the headaches of its earlier EV experiment are far from over.

You’ll no doubt remember that three years ago, GM recalled more than 140,000 Bolts across the United States because there was a risk they could catch fire. The issue was traced back to a problem with the battery pack, which was sourced from LG. Now, GM has revealed that some of the 2020-2022 Bolt EV and Bolt EUV models repaired under the previous recall are still at risk of catching fire.

Read: Chevy Bolt Owners Could Be Compensated Up To $1,400 For Battery Fires

As part of a prior recall, GM dealers were instructed to install advanced diagnostic software that alerts drivers to faults within the battery. However, it’s been revealed that in some Bolts, this software was not properly installed, and the vehicle may fail to identify defective battery modules that require replacement. GM says this increases the risk of a vehicle fire.

This is bad news for GM, which has already been severely embarrassed by previous Bolt issues. Fortunately, this latest fault is not widespread and impacts just 107 vehicles in the US. These consist of 2020-2022 Bolt EV models manufactured from November 8, 2019, to May 19, 2021, and 2022 Bolt EUV models built between March 30, 2021, and July 23, 2021.

The carmaker became aware of the issue on July 23, 2024, after a brand quality manager discovered an incorrect software update had limited a customer’s Bolt EUV to 80% state of charge, despite exceeding the prescribed ~6,200 mile (~10,000 km) evaluation period.

GM will notify owners by December 16, 2024, and instruct them to take their EVs to a dealer where the diagnostic software will be installed correctly. In the interim, GM is asking owners to set a 90% charge limitation on their vehicles, encouraging them to charge more frequently and to avoid draining the battery to below 70 miles (113 km) of remaining range. Additionally, owners should park their vehicles outside immediately after charging and should not leave them charging indoors overnight.

Ford has issued two new recalls in the United States, impacting the 2021 Mustang Mach-E and the 2024 Maverick. Fortunately for the car manufacturer, one of the recalls only impacts 50 vehicles, while the other is limited to just 6 units.

The largest of the two recalls impacts the Mustang Mach-E. Ford has revealed an over-the-air update rolled out to the anti-lock braking system calibration file can cause the ABS to switch to its default configuration. If this happens, the brake system will not provide brake power assist, meaning customers may notice longer pedal travel, higher pedal efforts, and experience reduced braking response.

Read: Ford Bronco And Ranger Recalled Over Loose And Missing Nuts

This isn’t the only thing owners of certain Mustang Mach-E models have to worry about. In addition to causing the brake power assist system to stop functioning, the over-the-air update also disables the ABS, electronic stability control, traction control, hill start assist, and pre-collision assist systems. It also reduces the capabilities of the regenerative braking system.

Owners of impacted models may notice several ABS-related warning lights and text on the instrument cluster at start-up. All 50 Mustang-Mach E models being recalled were built between August 28, 2020, and September 24, 2021.

Dealers will rectify the issue by updating the ABS calibration. Owners will be alerted of the recall from November 4.

The second recall involves six examples of the 2024 Ford Maverick. In this case, the second-row child seat tether anchors have been installed with below-average thread-forming torque. If the thread does not completely engage, vehicles may not meet the strength requirements for child restraint anchorage systems and fall foul of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Ford has blamed the issue on unauthorized rework at a supplier facility in Mexico.

All impacted Mavericks were built on August 28, 2024. Ford will inform owners of the fault by December 2 and instruct them to take vehicles to a Ford or Lincoln dealership, where the tether anchorage points will be repaired free of charge.

When unveiling the Tesla Cybercab late last week, Elon Musk promised that it would be produced in “very high” numbers. Bold words, but there are still plenty of pesky regulatory hurdles for Tesla to clear before this fully autonomous vehicle even sniffs a production line—let alone starts rolling out in serious volume.

Like Tesla’s other models, the Cybercab relies on the company’s vision-only autonomous driving tech, but with a twist: no steering wheel, no pedals, no controls whatsoever. While this makes sense for a vehicle that can drive itself 100% of the time without any human intervention, actually getting approval to roll out such a vehicle onto public roads isn’t easy.

Read: Tesla Cybercab Is A $30,000 Robotaxi Without A Steering Wheel Or Pedals

For any automaker looking to launch a vehicle without standard driving controls must be granted permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to do so. GM attempted to get an exemption to roll out a robotaxi without normal controls back in 2022 but, after two years, abandoned the request after it went unanswered.

If Tesla does manage to get the NHTSA’s approval to introduce the Cybercab, current regulations would only permit it to deploy 2,500 vehicles per year without a steering wheel and pedals, Bloomberg reports. That would not be enough to achieve Musk’s aim of operating a huge fleet of robotaxis across the United States. According to University of South Carolina law professor and autonomous vehicle expert, Bryant Walker, “exemptions aren’t a viable route for a mass manufacturer,” unless “Congress increases this limit.”

Musk insists Tesla will start building the Cybercab before 2027, though they haven’t even filed for the necessary NHTSA exemption yet. Maybe they’re holding off for dramatic effect, or maybe it’s just business as usual at Tesla, where deadlines seem more like suggestions.

On top of all this, Tesla has state-level regulations to contend with. Tesla doesn’t have a driverless testing or deployment permit in California and is likely years away from obtaining one. It will also need to provide the state with comprehensive testing data. It might be a bit easier to get the Cybercab on the road in states like Texas, but even there, Tesla faces the uphill battle of proving that this tech is ready for prime time.

Hundreds of 2025 Chevrolet Blazer, Blazer EV, and Equinox EV models a part of a recall across the U.S. over a critical safety issue: doors that could unexpectedly open while driving or during a crash. Safe to say, having your doors swing open mid-commute isn’t exactly a feature anyone’s asking for. The good news? GM reports that none of these vehicles have left dealership lots yet.

GM has confirmed that the vehicles in question were fitted with door strikers sourced from Brano Group A.S., which were not properly heat-treated to meet the carmaker’s hardness specifications. The result? These strikers could crack under pressure, allowing the doors to swing open when you least expect it, significantly raising the risk of injury to anyone inside.

Read: 2024 Chevy Blazer EV And Other GM SUVs Recalled Over Unexpected Door Openings

A total of 731 vehicles in the U.S. are affected by the recall. That breaks down to 513 Blazers built between August 30, 2024, and September 6, 2024, 215 Blazer EV models from the same production window, and 3 Equinox EVs manufactured between September 4, 2024, and September 5, 2024. If you’ve got one of these on order, you might want to double-check that delivery date.

Chevrolet was first alerted to a potential issue on September 6, 2024, when a quality engineer at GM’s Ramos Arizpe plant in Mexico saw a door striker fracture during routine side door adjustment.

This isn’t GM’s first rodeo with faulty door strikers on these models. Back in late December 2023, the Blazer, Blazer EV, and Equinox EV were also recalled over the same issue. At the time, GM thought that it had purged all of the faulty door strikers from their supply. However, it turns out not all of the suspect stock was removed from a warehouse used by the Mexican plant, leading to the installation of several hundred faulty strikers in new vehicles.

Fortunately, GM is not aware of any field incidents related to the defect. None of the 731 affected vehicles in the U.S.—nor the additional 124 units in Canada and Mexico—have been delivered to customers yet. Dealers have been instructed to replace all four side door strikers and attaching bolts with new properly treated parts before these vehicles ever reach showrooms.

Porsche only just rolled out the refreshed 2025 Taycan, and guess what? It’s already facing its first recall in the United States. The culprit? A glitch in the rear-view camera system. And while recalls are rarely welcome news for owners, this one is relatively minor, impacting fewer than 200 cars across the country.

According to the automaker, if the new Taycan detects an object in front of it, the visual park assist function will be automatically enabled. However, if this system is triggered and the reverse gear is engaged shortly after, the rear-view camera may not activate within the time required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, boosting the risk of a fender bender.

Read: US Porsche Taycans Were Sold With EU Headlight Software

A total of 183 Taycans, all built between March 27, 2024, and August 19, 2024, are affected by this snafu. According to Porsche, a software programming bug is the root of the problem. Yep, it’s always the software, isn’t it?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) filed the recall notice after the issue popped up during a function endurance test in August. So, they’re on it, and now Porsche has to play clean-up.

Porsche will notify owners of 2025 Taycans about the recall via mail by November 29, instructing them to take their vehicle to a dealer where the central computer will be programmed with an updated data set that ensures the rear-view camera functions as designed.

While this is the first recall for the 2025 Taycan, it’s not the only one to impact Porsche’s flagship EV. Earlier this month, Porsche announced it was recalling 27,720 examples of the 2020-2024MY Taycan due to the potential of the high-voltage battery pack developing a short circuit. These models have batteries sourced from LG Energy Solution, and while Porsche is developing an onboard diagnostics system to detect battery anomalies, it won’t be ready until the first quarter of 2025. Until then, affected Taycan owners are being told to limit charging to 80% capacity—a band-aid fix for a bigger problem.

Almost 1,000 new BMW 5-Series and 7-Series models are being recalled in the United States due to an issue with the steering spindle.

BMW believes that roughly 1% of the 982 vehicles involved in the recall are impacted. It says that the specifications of the spindle’s double universal joint may not have been “appropriate for the application,” and as such, the swivel socket could get damaged during certain steering maneuvers. If it breaks, this means it would require more effort from the driver to steer the car. The recall notice says this increases the risk of a crash.

Review: The BMW i7 M70 xDrive Is Electric Excellence

The recall impacts 2024-2025 530i xDrive and 540i xDrive models built between June 17, 2024, and July 17, 2024, 2024-2025 i5 eDrive40, i5 xDrive40, and i5 M60 models manufactured from June 17, 2024, to July 18, 2024, 2024 740i xDrive and 760i xDrives assembled from June 17, 2024, to July 16, 2024, 2024 750e xDrives made from June 18, 2024, and July 1, 2024, as well as 2024 i7 eDrive50, i7 xDrive60, and i7 M70 models made between June 18, 2024, and July 3, 2024.

The car manufacturer first became aware of a potential issue on June 26, 2024, when a damaged steering spindle was noticed at one of BMW’s assembly plants. An investigation quickly followed, and additional damaged steering spindles were found. A decision to issue a recall was made on September 18, 2024.

BMW isn’t aware of any warranty claims, customer complaints, or field reports that could be related to the issue, nor does it know of any accidents or injuries.

Dealers were alerted to the recall on September 25 and owners will be notified by First Class mail from November 15. Authorized BMW centers have been instructed to replace the steering spindle’s double universal joint free of charge.

Bankrupt electric automaker Fisker has put forward a controversial proposal to force owners to shoulder labor costs for several recall-related repairs. However, the U.S. Department of Justice, speaking on behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has stated that such a move would be illegal under federal law.

In mid-September, Fisker revealed that owners would need to pay for labor costs related to two ongoing recalls for the Ocean. The first is related to faulty door handles, and the second is for a faulty water pump which can trigger a loss of power. The EV startup briefly reversed this decision but then did another 180, confirming that owners would indeed need to pay.

According to the NHTSA, this is forbidden by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which all car manufacturers must comply with.

Read: Fisker Flip Flops Again, Requires Owners To Pay For Recall Repairs, But Feds Beg To Differ

Under this act, manufacturers must remedy all vehicle defects or areas of noncompliance without charge to the customer. Fisker’s liquidation plan wants to establish a fund to pay for recall-related parts, but only if such recalls don’t cost more than $750,000 in parts.

It also specifically states that vehicle owners must cover labor expenses and may only be reimbursed at a later date through the Fisker Owners Association, which could receive funds in future litigation against Fisker’s parts suppliers. There are no guarantees, however, that these funds will be recovered and owners will be reimbursed.

The US Department of Justice filed its objection to the plan in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, stating that “The Safety Act is clear that all costs associated with remedying defective and noncompliant vehicles must be covered by the manufacturer; the Act makes no distinction between parts and labor.” The NHTSA adds that it “may have a priority claim against the Estate” of Fisker if it fails to comply with the Safety Act.

“The United States requests the Amended DS and Plan either be revised so that it complies with the Safety Act, or otherwise rejected; (2) the Plan’s confirmation order includes language preserving the United States’ federal interests; and (3) any and further relief as the Court deems necessary and just,” the court filing adds.

As of now, Fisker has not yet responded to the Department of Justice’s objection to its recall plan.