Connect with us
Ford BlueCruise Mustang Mach-E Ford BlueCruise Mustang Mach-E

News

ADAS safeguards are lacking across auto brands: IIHS

Credit: Ford

Published

on

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has released a study showing that Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) safeguards are lacking across brands, with most of the 14 partially automated systems tested receiving “marginal” or “poor” ratings.

In a press release shared on Tuesday, the IIHS released early results from the new ratings system, noting that partial automation systems from Tesla, Ford, Nissan, and most other automakers that were tested were lacking in multiple categories. The study offered ratings of good, acceptable, marginal or poor, both overall and in specific categories.

Level 2 systems like Tesla Autopilot can improve drivers’ attentiveness: IIHS study

“We evaluated partial automation systems from BMW, Ford, General Motors, Genesis, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Tesla and Volvo,” said David Harkey, IIHS President. “Most of them don’t include adequate measures to prevent misuse and keep drivers from losing focus on what’s happening on the road.”

Advertisement

Of the 14 partially automated systems tested thus far, only one system from any automaker was deemed acceptable, while two were rated marginal, 11 were rated poor, and none were rated good. The categories that were individually rated for each system included driver monitoring, attention reminders, emergency procedures, lane change, adaptive cruise control (ACC) resume, cooperative steering, and safety features.

The IIHS gave both Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) beta systems poor ratings overall, while Volvo Pilot Assist, Nissan ProPilot, Mercedes Active Distance Assist Distronic, Ford BlueCruise and several others were rated poor. Driver monitoring and attention reminders were some of the lower-rated categories across most brands, highlighting the ability for drivers to trick systems into thinking they’re being fully aware.

The research non-profit also noted that there was “little” evidence to support that partially automated systems like these are actually at the point that they currently make driving safer—though most companies target safety as a number one goal with ADAS programs.

“Some drivers may feel that partial automation makes long drives easier, but there is little evidence it makes driving safer,” Harkey said. “As many high-profile crashes have illustrated, it can introduce new risks when systems lack the appropriate safeguards.”

Advertisement

The top-rated systems in the index  included Lexus Teammate with Advanced Drive with an acceptable rating, along with the GM Super Cruise and Nissan ProPilot Assist with Navi-Link. Every other system was rated poor overall.

You can see the full category breakdowns from tests of Tesla’s Autopilot and FSD beta systems from the IIHS below, along with those of a few others.

Credit: IIHS

Credit: IIHS

Credit: IIHS

Credit: IIHS

Credit: IIHS

“These results are worrying, considering how quickly vehicles with these partial automation systems are hitting our roadways,” Harkey added.

“But there’s a silver lining if you look at the performance of the group as a whole. No single system did well across the board, but in each category at least one system performed well. That means the fixes are readily available and, in some cases, may be accomplished with nothing more than a simple software update.”

Below you can see overall ratings for each system tested.

Advertisement
System Tested Vehicle Overall Rating
 

Lexus Teammate with Advanced Drive

 

2022-2024 Lexus LS

 

Acceptable

 
Advertisement

GM Super Cruise

 

2023-2024 GMC Sierra

 

Marginal

 

Nissan ProPILOT Assist with Navi-Link

 
Advertisement

2023-2024 Nissan Ariya

 

Marginal

 

BMW Active Driving Assistant Pro

 

2023-2024 BMW X1

 
Advertisement

Poor

 

Ford BlueCruise

 

2021-2024 Ford Mustang Mach-E

 

Poor

 
Advertisement

Ford Adaptive Cruise Control with Stop & Go and Lane Centering Assist

 

2021-2024 Ford Mustang Mach-E

 

Poor

 

Genesis Highway Driving Assist 2

 
Advertisement

2023-2024 Genesis G90

 

Poor

 

Genesis Smart Cruise Control/Lane Following Assist

 

2023-2024 Genesis G90

 
Advertisement

Poor

 

Lexus Dynamic Radar Cruise Control with Lane Tracing Assist

 

2022-2024 Lexus LS

 

Poor

 
Advertisement

Mercedes-Benz Active Distance Assist DISTRONIC with Active Steering Assist

 

2022-2023 Mercedes-Benz C-Class

 

Poor

 

Nissan ProPILOT Assist 2.0

 
Advertisement

2023-2024 Nissan Ariya

 

Poor

 

Tesla Autopilot version 2023.7.10

 

2021-2023 Tesla Model 3

 
Advertisement

Poor

 

Tesla Full Self-Driving beta version 2023.7.10

 

2021-2023 Tesla Model 3

 

Poor

 
Advertisement

Volvo Pilot Assist

 

2022-2024 Volvo S90

 

Poor

 

You can view the full list of rankings with individual category rankings from the IIHS here, or view the institute’s test protocol and rating guidelines here. Additionally, see the institute’s press release detailing the rating system’s early results here.

Advertisement

What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.

Zach is a renewable energy reporter who has been covering electric vehicles since 2020. He grew up in Fremont, California, and he currently lives in Colorado. His work has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, KRON4 San Francisco, FOX31 Denver, InsideEVs, CleanTechnica, and many other publications. When he isn't covering Tesla or other EV companies, you can find him writing and performing music, drinking a good cup of coffee, or hanging out with his cats, Banks and Freddie. Reach out at zach@teslarati.com, find him on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla director pay lawsuit sees lawyer fees slashed by $100 million

The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

The Delaware Supreme Court has cut more than $100 million from a legal fee award tied to a shareholder lawsuit challenging compensation paid to Tesla directors between 2017 and 2020. 

The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.

Delaware Supreme Court trims legal fees

As noted in a Bloomberg Law report, the case targeted pay granted to Tesla directors, including CEO Elon Musk, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, Kimbal Musk, and Rupert Murdoch. The Delaware Chancery Court had awarded $176 million to the plaintiffs. Tesla’s board must also return stock options and forego years worth of pay. 

As per Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. in an opinion for the Delaware Supreme Court’s full five-member panel, however, the decision of the Delaware Chancery Court to award $176 million to a pension fund’s law firm “erred by including in its financial benefit analysis the intrinsic value” of options being returned by Tesla’s board.

Advertisement

The justices then reduced the fee award from $176 million to $70.9 million. “As we measure it, $71 million reflects a reasonable fee for counsel’s efforts and does not result in a windfall,” Chief Justice Seitz wrote.

Other settlement terms still intact

The Supreme Court upheld the settlement itself, which requires Tesla’s board to return stock and options valued at up to $735 million and to forgo three years of additional compensation worth about $184 million. 

Tesla argued during oral arguments that a fee award closer to $70 million would be appropriate. Interestingly enough, back in October, Justice Karen L. Valihura noted that the $176 award was $60 million more than the Delaware judiciary’s budget from the previous year. This was quite interesting as the case was “settled midstream.”

The lawsuit was brought by a pension fund on behalf of Tesla shareholders and focused exclusively on director pay during the 2017–2020 period. The case is separate from other high-profile compensation disputes involving Elon Musk.

Advertisement

Tesla Litigation by Simon Alvarez

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX-xAI merger discussions in advanced stage: report

The update was initially reported by Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.

Published

on

Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

SpaceX is reportedly in advanced discussions to merge with artificial intelligence startup xAI. The talks could reportedly result in an agreement as soon as this week, though discussions remain ongoing.

The update was initially reported by Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.

SpaceX and xAI advanced merger talks

SpaceX and xAI have reportedly informed some investors about plans to potentially combine the two privately held companies, Bloomberg’s sources claimed. Representatives for both companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A merger would unite two of the world’s largest private firms. xAI raised capital at a valuation of about $200 billion in September, while SpaceX was preparing a share sale late last year that valued the rocket company at roughly $800 billion.

Advertisement

If completed, the merger would bring together SpaceX’s launch and satellite infrastructure with xAI’s computing and model development. This could pave the way for Musk’s vision of deploying data centers in orbit to support large-scale AI workloads.

Musk’s broader consolidation efforts

Elon Musk has increasingly linked his companies around autonomy, AI, and space-based infrastructure. SpaceX is seeking regulatory approval to launch up to one million satellites as part of its long-term plans, as per a recent filing. Such a scale could support space-based computing concepts.

SpaceX has also discussed the feasibility of a potential tie-up with electric vehicle maker Tesla, Bloomberg previously reported. SpaceX has reportedly been preparing for a possible initial public offering (IPO) as well, which could value the company at up to $1.5 trillion. No timeline for SpaceX’s reported IPO plans have been announced yet, however.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla already has a complete Robotaxi model, and it doesn’t depend on passenger count

That scenario was discussed during the company’s Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call, when executives explained why the majority of Robotaxi rides will only involve one or two people.

Published

on

Credit: @AdanGuajardo/X

Tesla already has the pieces in place for a full Robotaxi service that works regardless of passenger count, even if the backbone of the program is a small autonomous two-seater. 

That scenario was discussed during the company’s Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call, when executives explained why the majority of Robotaxi rides will only involve one or two people.

Two-seat Cybercabs make perfect sense

During the Q&A portion of the call, Tesla Vice President of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy pointed out that more than 90% of vehicle miles traveled today involve two or fewer passengers. This, the executive noted, directly informed the design of the Cybercab. 

“Autonomy and Cybercab are going to change the global market size and mix quite significantly. I think that’s quite obvious. General transportation is going to be better served by autonomy as it will be safer and cheaper. Over 90% of vehicle miles traveled are with two or fewer passengers now. This is why we designed Cybercab that way,” Moravy said. 

Advertisement

Elon Musk expanded on the point, emphasizing that there is no fallback for Tesla’s bet on the Cybercab’s autonomous design. He reiterated that the autonomous two seater’s production is expected to start in April and noted that, over time, Tesla expects to produce far more Cybercabs than all of its other vehicles combined.

“Just to add to what Lars said there. The point that Lars made, which is that 90% of miles driven are with one or two passengers or one or two occupants, essentially, is a very important one… So this is clearly, there’s no fallback mechanism here. It’s like this car either drives itself or it does not drive… We would expect over time to make far more CyberCabs than all of our other vehicles combined. Given that 90% of distance driven or distance being distance traveled exactly, no longer driving, is one or two people,” Musk said. 

Tesla’s robotaxi lineup is already here

The more interesting takeaway from the Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call is the fact that Tesla does not need the Cybercab to serve every possible passenger scenario, simply because the company already has a functional Robotaxi model that scales by vehicle type.

The Cybercab will handle the bulk of the Robotaxi network’s trips, but for groups that need three or four seats, the Model Y fills that role. For higher-end or larger-family use cases, the extended-wheelbase Model Y L could cover five or six occupants, provided that Elon Musk greenlights the vehicle for North America. And for even larger groups or commercial transport, Tesla has already unveiled the Robovan, which could seat over ten people.

Advertisement

Rather than forcing one vehicle to satisfy every use case, Tesla’s approach mirrors how transportation works today. Different vehicles will be used for different needs, while unifying everything under a single autonomous software and fleet platform.

Continue Reading