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.”
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.”
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.
| System Tested | Vehicle | Overall Rating |
|---|---|---|
|
Lexus Teammate with Advanced Drive |
2022-2024 Lexus LS |
Acceptable |
|
GM Super Cruise |
2023-2024 GMC Sierra |
Marginal |
|
Nissan ProPILOT Assist with Navi-Link |
2023-2024 Nissan Ariya |
Marginal |
|
BMW Active Driving Assistant Pro |
2023-2024 BMW X1 |
Poor |
|
Ford BlueCruise |
2021-2024 Ford Mustang Mach-E |
Poor |
|
Ford Adaptive Cruise Control with Stop & Go and Lane Centering Assist |
2021-2024 Ford Mustang Mach-E |
Poor |
|
Genesis Highway Driving Assist 2 |
2023-2024 Genesis G90 |
Poor |
|
Genesis Smart Cruise Control/Lane Following Assist |
2023-2024 Genesis G90 |
Poor |
|
Lexus Dynamic Radar Cruise Control with Lane Tracing Assist |
2022-2024 Lexus LS |
Poor |
|
Mercedes-Benz Active Distance Assist DISTRONIC with Active Steering Assist |
2022-2023 Mercedes-Benz C-Class |
Poor |
|
Nissan ProPILOT Assist 2.0 |
2023-2024 Nissan Ariya |
Poor |
|
Tesla Autopilot version 2023.7.10 |
2021-2023 Tesla Model 3 |
Poor |
|
Tesla Full Self-Driving beta version 2023.7.10 |
2021-2023 Tesla Model 3 |
Poor |
|
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.
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.
News
Tesla VP explains latest updates in trade secret theft case
Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.
Tesla Vice President Bonne Eggleston explained the latest updates in a trade secret theft case the company has against a former manufacturing equipment supplier, Matthews International.
Back in 2024, Tesla had filed a lawsuit against Matthews International, alleging that the firm stole trade secrets about battery manufacturing and shared those details with some of Tesla’s competitors.
Early last year, a U.S. District Court Judge denied Tesla’s request to block Matthews International from selling its dry battery electrode (DBE) technology across the world. The judge, Edward Davila, said that the patent for the tech was due to Matthews’ “extensive research and development.”
The two companies’ relationship began back in 2019, as Tesla hired Matthews to help build the equipment for its 4680 battery cell. Tesla shared confidential software, designs, and know-how under strict secrecy rules.
Fast forward a few years, and Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.
Now, the latest twist, as this month, a Judge issued a permanent injunction—a court order banning Matthews from using certain stolen Tesla parts or designs in their machines. Matthews is also officially “liable” for damages. The exact amount would still to be calculated later.
Bonne Eggleston, a VP for Tesla, said on X today that Matthews is a supplier who “exploited customer IP through theft or deception,” and has no place in Tesla’s ecosystem:
Buyer beware: Matthews International stole Tesla’s DBE technology and is now subject to an injunction and liable for damages.
During our work with Matthews, we caught them red-handed copying our technology—including proprietary software and sensitive mechanical designs—into… https://t.co/Toc8ilakeM
— Bonne Eggleston (@BonneEggleston) March 10, 2026
Tesla calls this a big win and warns other companies: “Buyer beware—don’t buy from thieves.”
Matthews hit back with a press release claiming victory. They say an arbitrator ruled they can keep selling their own DBE equipment to anyone and rejected Tesla’s request for a total sales ban. They call Tesla’s claims “nonsense” and insist their 20-year-old tech is independent. Both sides are spinning the same narrow ruling: Matthews can sell their version, but they’re blocked from using Tesla’s specific secrets.
What are Tesla’s Current Legal Options
The case isn’t over—it’s moving to the damages phase. Tesla can:
- Push forward in court or arbitration to calculate and collect huge financial penalties (potentially $1 billion+ if willful theft is proven).
- Enforce the permanent injunction with contempt charges, fines, or even jail time if Matthews violates it.
- Challenge Matthews’ new patents that allegedly copy Tesla’s work, asking courts to invalidate them or add Tesla as co-inventor.
- Seek extra damages, lawyer fees, and possibly punitive awards under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and California law.
Tesla could also refer evidence to federal prosecutors for possible criminal trade-secret charges (rare but serious). Settlement is always possible, but Tesla’s fiery public response suggests they want full accountability.
This isn’t just corporate drama. It shows why trade secrets matter even when Tesla open-sources some patents, confidential know-how shared in trust must stay protected. For the EV industry, it’s a reminder: steal from your biggest customer, and you risk losing everything.
News
Tesla Cybercab includes this small but significant feature
The Cybercab is Tesla’s big plan to introduce fully autonomous ride-sharing in a seamless fashion. In fact, the Full Self-Driving suite was geared toward alleviating the need to manually drive vehicles.
Tesla Cybercab manufacturing is strikingly close, as the company is still aiming for an April start date. But small and significant features are still being identified for the first time as production units appear all over the country for testing and for regulatory events, like one yesterday in Washington, D.C.
The Cybercab is Tesla’s big plan to introduce fully autonomous ride-sharing in a seamless fashion. In fact, the Full Self-Driving suite was geared toward alleviating the need to manually drive vehicles.
This was for everyone, including the disabled, who are widely reliant on ride-sharing platforms, family members, and medical shuttles for transportation of any kind. Cybercab aims to change that, and Tesla evidently put a focus on those riders while developing the vehicle, evident in a small but significant feature revealed during its appearance in the Nation’s Capital.
Tesla Cybercab display highlights interior wizardry in the small two-seater
Tesla has implemented Braille within the Cybercab to make it easier for blind passengers to utilize the vehicle. On both the ‘Stop/Hazard Lights’ button and the Door Releases, Tesla has placed Braille so that blind passengers can navigate their way through the vehicle:
The hazard lights button will be used as an emergency stop. Smart pic.twitter.com/vkYBioqmKm
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 10, 2026
We have braille on the interior door releases as well
— Eric (@EricETesla) March 11, 2026
This is a great addition to the Cybercab, especially as Full Self-Driving has been partially pointed at as a solution for those with disabilities that would keep them from driving themselves from place to place.
It truly is a great addition and just another way that Tesla is showing they are making this massive product inclusive for everyone out there, including those who have not been able to drive due to not having vision.
The Cybercab is set to enter mass production sometime in April, and it will be responsible for launching Tesla’s massive plans for an autonomous ride-sharing program.
Elon Musk
Tesla and xAI team up on massive new project
It is the latest move by a Musk company to automate, streamline, and reduce the manual, monotonous, and tedious work currently performed by humans through AI and robotics development. Digital Optimus will be capable of processing and actioning the past five seconds of a real-time computer screen video and keyboard and mouse actions.
Elon Musk teased a massive new project, to be developed jointly by Tesla and xAI, called “Digital Optimus” or “Macrohard,” the first development under Tesla’s investment agreement with xAI.
Musk announced on X that Digital Optimus will “be capable of emulating the function of entire companies.”
Macrohard or Digital Optimus is a joint xAI-Tesla project, coming as part of Tesla’s investment agreement with xAI.
Grok is the master conductor/navigator with deep understanding of the world to direct digital Optimus, which is processing and actioning the past 5 secs of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 11, 2026
It is the latest move by a Musk company to automate, streamline, and reduce the manual, monotonous, and tedious work currently performed by humans through AI and robotics development. Digital Optimus will be capable of processing and actioning the past five seconds of a real-time computer screen video and keyboard and mouse actions.
Essentially, it will be an AI version of a desk worker in many capacities, including accounting, HR tasks, and others.
Musk said:
“Grok is the master conductor/navigator with deep understanding of the world to direct digital Optimus, which is processing and actioning the past 5 secs of real-time computer screen video and keyboard/mouse actions. Grok is like a much more advanced and sophisticated version of turn-by-turn navigation software. You can think of it as Digital Optimus AI being System 1 (instinctive part of the mind) and Grok being System 2. (thinking part of the mind).”
Its key applications would be used for enterprise automation, simulating entire companies, high-volume repetitive tasks, and potentially, future hybrid use with the Optimus robot, which would handle physical tasks, while Digital Optimus would handle the clerical work.
The creation of a digital AI suite like Digital Optimus would help companies save time and money, as well as become more efficient in their operations through massive scalability. However, there will undoubtedly be concerns from people who are skeptical of a fully-integrated AI workhorse like this one.
From an energy consumption perspective and just a general concern for the human workforce, these types of AI projects are polarizing in nature.
However, Digital Optimus would be a great digital counterpart to Tesla’s physical Optimus robot, as it would be a hyper-efficient addition to any company that is looking for more production for less cost.
Musk maintains that there is no other company on Earth that will be able to do this.
Tesla VP explains latest updates in trade secret theft case
Tesla Cybercab includes this small but significant feature
