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
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
