Equipment Complaints

THIS REPORT IS ABOUT A SAFETY ISSUE INVOLVING A WAYMO VEHICLE OPERATING ON SAN THOMAS EXPRESSWAY AND CA HIGHWAY 101. 6/24/2026 ON OR AROUND THIS DATE, THE VEHICLE WAS OBSERVED AT SAN THOMAS EXPRESSWAY IN SANTA CLARA CALIF AND HIGHWAY 101. WAYMO VEHICLE CA PLT # 98720A4 WAS OBSERVED IN THE RIGHT LANE, THAT IS DEDICATED FOR VEHICLES ENTERING THE ONRAMP FOR THE CA 101 SOUTH. WITHOUT WARNING AND WITHOUT A TURN SIGNAL AND CROSSING OVER THE SOLID WHITE LINE, THE WAYMO VEHICLE AGGRESSIVELY ACCELERATED AND MADE AN UNSAFE AND ILLEGAL MERGE INTO THE LEFT LANE BOUND OVER THE OVER-PASS, AND CONTINUED ONTO MONTAGUE EXPRESSWAY. WAYMO VEHICLES ARE UNSAFE AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON PUBLIC ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND STREETS. PLEASE INVESTIGATE!!

I loaded cargo into the truck bed, ensured that the tonneau cover was fully closed and securely latched, and began my drive. While on the road, the cover detached and flew off due to wind resistance. Fortunately, it landed on the grass, but it could have caused a major accident or severe injury to the vehicle driving behind me. This incident occurred just one month after leasing the vehicle from Stellantis, and the truck bed cover was a factory-installed OEM component that came directly with the vehicle. Following the incident, I requested a repair from Stellantis. While they performed the repair, they claimed that the driver had failed to properly secure the latches to avoid liability. However, I am certain that I locked the latches correctly. The physical evidence contradicts the manufacturer's claim: the clean fracture on the detached latch and the severe upward warping of the bed rails undeniably prove that the latches were fully engaged, and that this was a critical manufacturing defect where the components could not withstand highway-speed wind resistance. This poses a serious safety risk to other motorists.

On June 11, 2026, a BraunAbility Turny Evo seat system, installed by a third-party mobility dealer, suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure while in operation. A passenger with a physical disability was secured in the equipment when the mechanism seized, trapping the individual mid-cycle. The remote control displayed a mandatory "Code 19" error, rendering the equipment unresponsive and creating an immediate safety crisis. Beyond this mechanical failure, the vehicle's structural integrity is compromised. The floor plates and railings, which are critical for the securement of this mobility equipment, are loose and rattling, posing a severe risk of detachment while in motion. Furthermore, the interior upholstery was permanently damaged during the installation process, and a secondary mobility hoist system—which was paid for in full—was never installed. The dealer and the manufacturer have been notified of these dangerous structural and mechanical defects but have failed to provide a safe, complete repair. The vehicle is currently unsafe to operate and poses a direct threat to the safety of the passenger.

My 2023 Ford Escape (with fewer than 50,000 miles) began experiencing significant mechanical issues. I noticed exhaust fumes entering the cabin that passengers and I would inhale, loud noises from under the hood, and lose power during acceleration. After inspecting the vehicle, the dealership determined that the turbocharger wastegate/flapper valve had failed mechanically, causing the turbocharger to overboost and sustain internal damage. This failure led to numerous drivability issues, including hesitation, rough shifting, delayed upshifts, loud whining noises during cold starts, slipping during acceleration, and, at times, the inability to shift beyond second gear. Ultimately, the dealership concluded that the transmission needed to be rebuilt or replaced. My vehicle remained at the dealership from January 28, 2026, through May 14, 2026, over three and a half months. The vehicle still has transmission issues and loses power at times when driving on the highway commuting to work. At this moment of time, I scheduled it to go back to the dealership on July 9th.

The reporting citizen was driving legally on [XXX] going forward towards the parking lot next to the round about when an uncrewed, autonomous commercial vehicle operated by Waymo suffered a catastrophic software/hardware failure. The 6,000-pound driverless robot taxi aggressively pursued and chased the citizen’s vehicle in reverse for that full city block despite honking the horn and then holding it down the entire time as the killing 6,000 lbs robot car kept reversing towards the citizens car instead of going forward, forcing the citizen out into a perpendicular intersecting road onto [XXX] The citizen safely evaded a severe collision solely through high-speed defensive driving, reversing, and holding down the horn to warn surrounding motorists of the out-of-control vehicle. The autonomous system failed to stop, recognize the citizen's vehicle, or register the horn. Upon reviewing the internal vehicle data and footage, Waymo’s corporate office confirmed to the citizen on several calls after the [XXX] reporting that this specific vehicle "went rogue." Waymo admitted the failure was severe enough that they immediately pulled the specific vehicle out of operational service. I have several case #s from Waymo of each call admitting fault. These 6000 lbs killing car robots are NOT SAFE and should not be allowed on public roads where real humans are driving! I can’t sleep since [XXX] due to the nightmares of these killing car robots trying to kill me. I must factor in extra time to go anywhere as I cannot have these killing car robots near me and they are everywhere in my area. I visibly shake and sweat involuntarily whenever I see one of these even from very far away or even think about them—which is pretty much always now since [XXX]. Because Waymo deployed a malfunctioning 6,000-pound autonomous vehicle that aggressively chased a resident on public streets, this is an immediate Public Safety Hazard and Reckless Endangerment issue caused by Waymo. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOI

On [XXX] at approximately [XXX] pm, I was driving in the right-most lane on [XXX]. Traffic in my lane was stopped due to a red light. An autonomous Waymo vehicle was originally stopped at a yield sign on an intersecting side road behind my position. Instead of waiting for a legal gap in the traffic lane, the Waymo vehicle illegally entered the designated bicycle lane to bypass the stopped vehicles. When the traffic light turned green and my lane began to move, the Waymo vehicle abruptly merged into my lane directly from the bike lane (my right-side blind spot). It forced its way in front of my vehicle, requiring me to brake and use my horn to avoid a collision. The autonomous vehicle performed an unpredictable, illegal passing maneuver in a non-vehicle lane (bike lane) and merged from a blind spot, causing a near-miss with a human-driven vehicle that had the right-of-way. I have front and rear dashcam footage capturing the entire incident. Because the raw video files exceed standard upload limits, I have uploaded the unedited footage here for investigators to review and download: [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Waymo car who had a passenger in the back of the vehicle, was autonomously driving illegally in the bus lane via Wilshire Blvd. Endangering those around them and the passenger inside.

At approximately [XXX] PT on Saturday, [XXX], my daughter and I were riding as passengers inside the car when the car itself couldn't make the traffic light in time before it turned red and got caught in the intersection of [XXX] and [XXX]. It started backing up into the oncoming traffic going across on [XXX] with the car itself backing up on [XXX], and kept on going backwards to the point that it fully blocked one out of the 2 lanes on [XXX] going towards downtown. This blatantly broke traffic laws, with cars going around us so it wouldn't hit us. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

I made a simple right turn and my left ball joint snapped in half. I will try to include photos of the product. It is an advanced auto parts house brand part. Driveworks.

I am filing a complaint regarding a GM Ultium Home EV Charging Station that failed while still under warranty. GM acknowledged the failure and sent a replacement, but the replacement was not equivalent to the original product. My original charger was a plug in model, but GM sent a hard wired model, which requires professional installation costing approximately $450. GM stated they no longer manufacture the plug in version and refused to provide an equivalent replacement or cover the installation cost. I contacted the GM EV Concierge (Case # 95387763)multiple times and escalated the issue. GM responded but continues to refuse to honor the warranty by either (1) providing a like for like replacement, or (2) covering the installation cost required solely because GM discontinued the original model. GM also suggested I “sell the charger” if I did not want to pay for installation, which is not a valid warranty remedy. The GM EV Concierge advised they stopped manufacturing the model of the EV charger I was sold because there were multiple failures. This situation leaves me without a functioning EV charger and forces me to pay out of pocket for a problem caused by GM’s product discontinuation. The failure of the charger and GM’s refusal to provide an equivalent replacement raises concerns about safety, reliability, and GM’s compliance with warranty obligations for EV charging equipment. I am requesting NHTSA’s review because this appears to be a pattern of GM not honoring warranty requirements for EV charging equipment, and consumers are left without safe and functional charging options. I would like a refund of the price I paid for the charger since they will not honor their warranty.