Warnings problems of the 2024 Tesla Model 3

Incident description (in my own words): this incident occurred in the parking lot of the [xxx] in bretton woods, new hampshire. It was evening after sunset. The parking lot was dark but illuminated by overhead parking lights. My Tesla Model 3 headlights and vehicle lights were fully on. I was reversing slowly out of a tight parking space, traveling approximately 2–3 miles per hour. I was intentionally moving cautiously. My attention at the time was focused on the front right corner of the vehicle, as clearance there was tight. While reversing, the rear of my vehicle struck a parked truck behind me. The truck was relatively high (its headlights were positioned high on the vehicle). Neither I nor my passenger heard any rear collision warning, cross-traffic warning, or parking alert prior to impact. The vehicle also did not apply automatic braking. The contact occurred at very low speed and resulted in only minor cosmetic damage (a small dimple/deformation), but I was surprised that no warning or braking intervention occurred. Based on prior experience driving this vehicle, the collision and parking warning systems are typically configured to warn early, and I had confidence that a warning or automatic braking would activate in this scenario. Following the incident, I conducted a simple test by placing cones in front of the vehicle to see whether forward collision warnings would activate. They did not. While I understand cones may not trigger frontal collision alerts, this further contributed to my concern about object detection reliability in low-speed scenarios. The vehicle’s cameras were clean and unobstructed. I regularly clean the camera lenses. I am filing this complaint because my confidence in the vehicle’s collision warning and automatic braking systems has been shaken. I recently submitted a similar complaint regarding a collision involving our Tesla model y, and these two incidents—on two different Tesla vehicles—raise concerns for me information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act.

In early 2025, while reversing the vehicle, the backup camera proximity alert system failed to provide audible warnings of an obstacle. The visual display worked, but the system provided no beeping or audible alerts as I reversed toward a pole in the vehicle's blind spot, even though I was within the range where warnings should have been activated resulting in over $4k in damages. The same alert failure happened on 10/23/25 as I backed out of a parking space. I no longer live in the local area, but reported the safety issue in person during a visit on August 27, 2025. The acting service manager told me to expect a response in 10-14 days. After not hearing back, I followed up via the app on September 28, 2025. When I received a response on October 2, 2025, I was told my request is beyond the timeframe of when this could be inspected (30 days). The vehicle is covered under Tesla's 4-year/50,000-mile new vehicle limited warranty, which covers defects in materials and workmanship. A failed backup camera system is precisely such a defect. California song-beverly act: California's lemon law (civ. Code § 1790 et seq. ) requires manufacturers to repair defects covered by warranty. There is no 30-day reporting requirement under CA law. Federal safety standards: the backup camera is required safety equipment under 49 cfr 571. 111. A malfunctioning backup camera renders the vehicle non-compliant with federal safety standards. Presumption of manufacturing defect: under California law, defects occurring within 18 months/18,000 miles are presumed to be manufacturing defects (civ. Code § 1793. 2(d)(2)). This accident was well within that window. When I reported this defect to Tesla, they initially refused conduct a safety inspection of the proximity alert/parking sensor system retrieve diagnostic data or video footage to verify the system failure test or repair the defective equipment under warranty as of 10/30/25, the local dealer agreed to a vehicle inspection.