The detail that might stop you cold: before allegedly letting his Tesla drive itself through a residential neighborhood at 73 miles per hour, the driver had been Googling why the car wasn't aggressive enough.
Michael Butler, 44, was arrested this week on manslaughter charges following a June crash in Katy, Texas, that killed 76-year-old Martha Avila inside her own home. According to an arrest affidavit, Butler told paramedics his Model 3 was on autopilot at the time, and that he had been making DoorDash deliveries, changing music, and checking navigation before the car plowed through Avila's front wall. He also told hospital staff he passed out — though toxicology screens came back clean for alcohol and drugs.
Here is where the story gets complicated. Tesla's AI head Ashok Elluswamy was quick to post publicly that the driver had manually overridden the Full Self-Driving system by flooring the accelerator pedal. The vehicle's black box data backs that up — logs show the pedal going from zero to 100 percent in roughly six seconds, pushing the car past 73 mph on a street with a 35 mph limit. The brake was never touched in the final minute before impact.
But the phone data introduces a different kind of problem for everyone involved. Investigators found a string of searches on Butler's device from May 2026 — all variations of the same complaint that Tesla's FSD was too cautious, too timid, not aggressive enough for city driving. Whether those searches reflect simple curiosity or a driver who was actively trying to work around the system's built-in caution is something prosecutors will almost certainly argue at length.
This case sits at an uncomfortable intersection that the auto industry has been quietly dreading. Automated driving systems are sold on the promise of safety, but they come with a mountain of fine print about driver responsibility. When something goes catastrophically wrong, the question of who was actually in control — the human, the software, or some murky combination of both — becomes a legal and moral knot that courts are only beginning to untangle.
The NHTSA and the NTSB have both opened investigations. Avila's family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit naming both Butler and Tesla as defendants.
For Tesla, the timing is awkward. The company has been pushing FSD as its marquee product and a cornerstone of its robotaxi ambitions. A high-profile manslaughter case — even one where the data suggests the human overrode the system — keeps the spotlight on what happens when drivers misunderstand, misuse, or simply don't trust the technology they are supposed to be supervising. That trust gap, it turns out, can be fatal.
POLICY
FAA May Finally Allow Supersonic Passenger Flights Over US Cities
For 53 years, it has been illegal to fly a commercial supersonic aircraft over the continental United States. That rule, born from the public outcry of Cold War-era military tests that rattled windows and terrified residents from Oklahoma City to St. Louis, may finally be on its way out.
The FAA published a proposed new rule on June 30 that would scrap the 1973 overland supersonic ban and replace it with a noise-based certification standard. Under the proposal, any aircraft would need to keep its sonic boom overpressure at ground level below 0.11 pounds per square foot. To put that number in context, the Concorde — which flew transatlantic routes until 2003 — generated overpressure of nearly 1.94 pounds per square foot at cruising speed. The gap between those two figures is enormous.
The proposed standard is directly tied to test results from Boom Supersonic, a Colorado startup developing a commercial supersonic airliner called Overture. Boom's smaller experimental aircraft, the XB-1, demonstrated what engineers call a Mach cutoff flight — flying just above the speed of sound at high altitude under specific atmospheric conditions so that the resulting shockwaves bend upward into the atmosphere rather than traveling down to the ground. No boom reaches the surface. At least in theory.
The rule follows an executive order President Trump signed in June 2025 directing the FAA to clear a path for supersonic commercial aviation. Congress has also been moving on the Supersonic Aviation Modernization Act, which passed the House in March and is waiting on a Senate vote. The political momentum is real, and the industry has clearly gotten the message.
Not everyone is convinced the FAA has set the bar in the right place, though. Critics argue that overpressure alone is a blunt instrument for measuring whether passengers on the ground will find the experience tolerable. A senior director at the International Council on Clean Transportation pointed out that United Nations aviation experts actually rejected overpressure as the primary metric back in 2014, precisely because it does not reliably capture loudness or annoyance. His read on the proposed rule was not charitable.
NASA is pursuing a parallel path with the X-59, a needle-nosed research aircraft built by Lockheed Martin specifically designed to reshape the sonic boom into something softer — closer to a distant thump than a jarring crack. The X-59 represents a more conservative, research-first approach compared to the FAA's proposed standard, which is essentially built around what one startup has already demonstrated.
The commercial stakes are significant. If supersonic overland flights become legal, coast-to-coast travel times could be cut roughly in half. Whether the business case pencils out — and whether anyone living under those flight paths agrees the trade-off is worth it — remains very much an open question.
Source: Ars Technica
The FAA published a proposed new rule on June 30 that would scrap the 1973 overland supersonic ban and replace it with a noise-based certification standard. Under the proposal, any aircraft would need to keep its sonic boom overpressure at ground level below 0.11 pounds per square foot. To put that number in context, the Concorde — which flew transatlantic routes until 2003 — generated overpressure of nearly 1.94 pounds per square foot at cruising speed. The gap between those two figures is enormous.
The proposed standard is directly tied to test results from Boom Supersonic, a Colorado startup developing a commercial supersonic airliner called Overture. Boom's smaller experimental aircraft, the XB-1, demonstrated what engineers call a Mach cutoff flight — flying just above the speed of sound at high altitude under specific atmospheric conditions so that the resulting shockwaves bend upward into the atmosphere rather than traveling down to the ground. No boom reaches the surface. At least in theory.
The rule follows an executive order President Trump signed in June 2025 directing the FAA to clear a path for supersonic commercial aviation. Congress has also been moving on the Supersonic Aviation Modernization Act, which passed the House in March and is waiting on a Senate vote. The political momentum is real, and the industry has clearly gotten the message.
Not everyone is convinced the FAA has set the bar in the right place, though. Critics argue that overpressure alone is a blunt instrument for measuring whether passengers on the ground will find the experience tolerable. A senior director at the International Council on Clean Transportation pointed out that United Nations aviation experts actually rejected overpressure as the primary metric back in 2014, precisely because it does not reliably capture loudness or annoyance. His read on the proposed rule was not charitable.
NASA is pursuing a parallel path with the X-59, a needle-nosed research aircraft built by Lockheed Martin specifically designed to reshape the sonic boom into something softer — closer to a distant thump than a jarring crack. The X-59 represents a more conservative, research-first approach compared to the FAA's proposed standard, which is essentially built around what one startup has already demonstrated.
The commercial stakes are significant. If supersonic overland flights become legal, coast-to-coast travel times could be cut roughly in half. Whether the business case pencils out — and whether anyone living under those flight paths agrees the trade-off is worth it — remains very much an open question.
Enjoyed this?
Get stories like this delivered every Tuesday — free.