News
Drivers using ‘cooperative steering’ more likely to stay engaged: IIHS
A new study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has highlighted the potential benefits to “cooperative steering” automated driving systems in keeping drivers engaged.
The study found that the likelihood a driver will remain engaged when driving with partially automated systems is higher when using “cooperative steering,” in which manual movements to the steering wheel don’t disengage the software, according to the study results shared in a press release on Tuesday. Inversely, those using partially automated systems that turn off when drivers use the steering wheel were less likely to take an active role.
“These results suggest that small differences in system design can nudge drivers toward safer habits,” said David Harkey, IIHS President.
This recent study looked at survey responses from 1,260 owners of vehicles from Ford, General Motors (GM), Nissan/Infiniti, and Tesla, who regularly use their partially automated driving systems.
Drivers who are used to partial automation that switches off when they try to share control over the steering were found to be less willing to steer or put their hands on the wheel in circumstances that required steering adjustments, while systems with some degree of manual steering were more likely to help drivers remain engaged with the road and take an active role when road scenarios demanded it.
Those with cooperative systems were ultimately 36 percent more likely than the others to say they would steer to one side of the travel lane when needed.
Drivers with vehicle systems that did offer shared control were 40 to 48 percent less likely than the others to say they would keep their hands off the wheel in situations that would make most drivers nervous, while two other recent IIHS studies showed that even those warned to remain engaged did not often do so.
Systems that remain on when drivers adjust steering include Ford’s BlueCruise system and Nissan/Infiniti’s ProPILOT Assist system, while both GM’s Super Cruise and Tesla’s Autopilot disengaged from lane-centering upon receiving driver steering inputs. While both the systems from Tesla and Nissan required drivers to keep their hands on the steering wheel, Tesla’s upgraded Supervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) allows some hands-free driving, and so do the aforementioned Ford and GM systems.
“Those are sizable differences,” said Alexandra Mueller, IIHS Research Scientist and Lead Author of the study. “Although there could be many reasons, one plausible explanation is that systems that switch themselves off whenever the driver steers may make drivers less likely to want to intervene, as it’s a pain to reactivate the system again and again.”
“These findings suggest that cooperative steering may have an implicit influence on how willing drivers are to take action when the situation calls for it, regardless of how they think their system is designed,” Mueller added.
You can see the full study results from the IIHS here.
RELATED: Tesla highlights FSSD safety in edge case test videos
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving Supervised and Cybercab unveil
The news comes weeks after Tesla unveiled its Cybercab robotaxi, which is built without a steering wheel, an accelerator, or brake pedals. It also comes in response to the company’s longtime bet on completely autonomous driving, first through the deployment of its FSD Supervised system, which is eventually expected to unlock an unsupervised version that buyers can use in their own vehicles.
While Tesla’s bet on full autonomy will likely come to fruition in future years, discussions about driver engagement have been ongoing, especially as those using Supervised FSD and other partially automated driving systems have used them in unintended ways that weren’t approved by the manufacturers.
At least for now, driver attention remains an important part of the path to full autonomy, until systems become safe enough to be trusted without supervision. Until then, efforts to keep drivers engaged may prove fruitful, and Tesla and others have taken steps to monitor drivers more closely when they use these systems, in order to ensure full engagement and readiness to regain control of the vehicle when needed.
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
IIHS tested Tesla Autopilot safeguards: Here’s what they found
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
