Tesla has done it again. The company is stirring up conversation, and this time it involves a Cybertruck buyer, a failing eyesight, and the promise of Full Self-Driving. Yes, that same Full Self-Driving system that makes headlines for legal investigations, software quirks, and ambitious promises.

The story begins with a video Tesla shared on its official North America X (formerly Twitter) account. In it, a new Cybertruck owner explains why he decided to buy the futuristic truck. His reason? He is losing his eyesight, and his ophthalmologist supposedly suggested that driving a Tesla equipped with Full Self-Driving could help him stay on the road safely.

The buyer says the car drove itself for over an hour and a half during a test drive and that he never touched the wheel. That experience convinced him to place his order. Nice.

The Reality of Full Self-Driving

Now, let’s pause and unpack that. Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) is a Level 2 driver-assist system. That means it can steer, accelerate, and brake on its own under certain conditions, but it still requires an attentive human behind the wheel. In fact, they have a system built in that’s designed to stop the car if it detects you’re sleeping or not paying attention.

The driver must supervise the autonomy at all times. In short, FSD does not make the car autonomous, no matter what Tesla’s marketing might imply.

This is where the story gets tricky. If someone is already losing their eyesight, it stands to reason that they may not legally or safely be able to supervise a Level 2 system. The system cannot replace a human driver. Showcasing it as a potential solution for someone with failing vision just shows Tesla’s fearless stare-down on the law.

It is misleading at best, and potentially dangerous at worst. Critics and safety advocates are already raising splitting hairs over the matter.

Electrek, for instance, points out that the timing is especially sensitive. Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system is under expanded investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The probe looks into how drivers interact with the system, accidents allegedly linked to FSD, and whether Tesla’s marketing overstates the system’s capabilities.

This means that every public story like this one adds fuel to ongoing debates about safety, oversight, and accountability. But it seems Tesla’s leadership can’t care less, or why would even CEO Elon Musk engage with the post?

The Viral Fallout

Granted, the story of a visually impaired driver whose doctor (ophthalmologist) recommended a FSD-enabled Cybertruck was originally shared in a video post by content creator Captain Eli on March 28, 2026. Shortly after, Tesla’s official account reposted the story with a quote, ultimately amplifying it widely. At press time, the original post boasts 1.4 million views.

Of course, this is Tesla we are talking about. Stirring the pot is part of the game. Cybertruck owners and Tesla fans are no strangers to viral videos, unconventional promotions, and marketing that blurs the line between aspiration and reality. Still, some safety experts are not amused.

They argue that promoting a vehicle’s capabilities in a situation where a driver cannot meet the system’s safety requirements crosses a line.

The video sparked widespread conversation online. Some chose to focus on the inspiring story about innovation helping people maintain independence. Others couldn’t shake the marketing stunt that could encourage unsafe behavior.

Consequently, social media reactions range from “This is amazing, Tesla is life-changing” to “This is reckless and irresponsible.” The divide mirrors much of the broader debate around Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system.

Where We Stand

So, where does that leave us Tesla and non-Tesla fans? Full Self-Driving is impressive, but it is not a substitute for a driver. It can help with traffic, maintain lane position, and assist in certain maneuvers, but it cannot replace human attention. At least, certainly not yet.

If your vision is failing, relying on FSD to keep you safe is risky. It can work like it worked for Ricky for an hour, but it may not always work. The shortest margin of error in this context is enough to warrant treading with caution and even be outrage by Tesla’s decision to “encourage” such risks.

Adding a disclaimer like “FSD remains a supervised Level 2 system” doesn’t cut it. That disclaimer certainly did not save the driver of the Cybertruck running FSD that crashed into a concrete barrier on Houston’s 69 Eastex Freeway in August 2025, nearly plunging off a bridge with the driver and her infant inside.

The technology is still evolving, and regulators are watching closely. Ultimately, Tesla’s marketing of this story walks a fine line between inspiring and misleading.

If you want more stories like this, follow Guessing Headlights on Yahoo so you don’t miss what’s coming next.