New Jersey Poised to Ban Self-Driving Tesla Robotaxis ⁠56%

By Victor Tangermann⁠83%

7/9/2026, 3:43:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 37.1% saturation with 219 hits. Analysis detected 1,396 faulty-reasoning hits from 591 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (9,727 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.60% of the article peer group.

For many years, Tesla CEO Elon Musk has sworn up and down that the use of radar and lidar sensors for autonomous driving is a waste of time. 
His counterargument has been that cameras and powerful AI-powered hardware are all you need for safe self-driving, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. 
That decision is now risking a major roadblocks for the company in New Jersey. 
As The Verge reports , a bill that’s coming up for a vote this year would require fully autonomous vehicles to use both cameras and at least two other sensing technologies — in most cases, lidar and radar. 
If the bill were enacted, it would effectively banning Tesla’s fully autonomous fleet of Robotaxis. 
Other states could soon follow — including New York, which is pondering a similar bill — in a domino effect that could completely derail the automaker’s current trajectory. 
“This is not anti-Tesla,” bill sponsor and senator Andrew Zwicker (D-NJ) told The Verge . 
“I’m pro-New Jersey safety.” 
Zwicker argued that there isn’t enough evidence to suggest that a single sensor, plus software “can handle situations that humans can.” 
“Can we get there? 
Maybe,” he told the publication. 
“But we’re not there yet.” 
Relying entirely on cameras that can be blinded by the Sun, fog, or heavy rain is part of Musk’s major bet on AI. 
He has argued that adding extra sensors may end up being less safe thanks to what he called “sensor contention” in a tweet last year. 
“We turned off the radars in Teslas to increase safety,” he wrote . 
“Cameras [for the win].” 
However, Musk is largely alone in that belief. 
Competitors, most notably Waymo, have made major headway by relying on both cameras and other sensor tech, such as lidar and radar, which perform far better in inclement weather and the dark. 
“To run 24/7 across the majority of public roads in New Jersey today, it needs lidar,” Carnegie Mellon professor and autonomous vehicle expert Philip Koopman told The Verge . 
“It’s pretty clear that today camera-only technology is not up to the challenge.” 
Tesla’s current fleet of 42 fully autonomous Robotaxis on public Texas roads is still dwarfed by Waymo’s, which has 577 authorized robotaxis in the state, in addition to several thousand more spread across ten US metropolitan areas. 
That’s despite Musk promising Tesla’s fleet would grow to hundreds of thousands by the end of this year , a characteristically brazen prediction with little bearing on reality. 
The company’s slow rollout has been mired by setbacks , which Musk has rationalized is the result of Tesla being “paranoid about safety.” 
The EV maker has gone to great lengths to censor the circumstances surrounding the Robotaxi crashes it has reported to regulators so far. 
Unsurprisingly, Tesla is already lobbying to fight the New Jersey bill. 
Zwicker told The Verge that company representatives are discussing the subject with lawmakers. 
The EV maker has also turned to New Jersey residents, telling its customers in the state in a message that they should “contact members of the New Jersey legislature” to oppose the bill. 
It’s a precarious situation, especially considering the complete lack of comprehensive federal laws providing oversight over the rollout of autonomous vehicles. 
Each state has been left to fend for itself, a legal patchwork that’s allowing Tesla to push forward despite safety concerns. 
More on Tesla’s robotaxis: Tesla’s Robotaxis Are a Complete Disaster 
The post New Jersey Poised to Ban Self-Driving Tesla Robotaxis appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.9%Victor Tangermann: 6.3%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.6%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Victor Tangermann: 5.5%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic11.7%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.4%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.7%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias4.7%This article: 3.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias3.0%This article: 9.5%Victor Tangermann: 11.3%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect9.5%This article: 2.5%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion2.5%This article: 3.6%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.8%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Victor Tangermann: 6.1%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias11.5%This article: 37.1%Victor Tangermann: 23.7%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias37.1%This article: 4.6%Victor Tangermann: 2.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias4.6%This article: 3.9%Victor Tangermann: 0.7%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error3.9%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect6.6%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem8.6%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.6%Victor Tangermann: 7.8%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority18.6%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 7.3%Victor Tangermann: 3.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope7.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.5%Victor Tangermann: 10.0%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization11.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.4%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon1.4%This article: 8.1%Victor Tangermann: 8.8%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion8.1%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.6%Victor Tangermann: 3.9%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.6%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.3%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof9.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.3%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division6.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.8%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 1.9%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman1.9%This article: 9.8%Victor Tangermann: 3.1%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.7%Victor Tangermann: 4.1%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote4.7%This article: 9.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection9.0%This article: 17.3%Victor Tangermann: 21.7%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice17.3%This article: 1.7%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination1.7%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.2%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Victor Tangermann: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.3%

591 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers28%attributed speech427writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageThe Verge • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Zwicker • 15 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Zwicker • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Zwicker • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Zwicker • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Zwicker • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Zwicker • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageElon Musk • 13 words • 0.0% coverageElon Musk • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coveragePhilip Koopman • 29 words • 0.0% coveragePhilip Koopman • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Zwicker • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Philip Koopman

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words26% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.9 ptsWriter: 23.9%Philip Koopman: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.7 ptsWriter: 15.7%Philip Koopman: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Philip Koopman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.