News
IIHS announces new ratings set for the safeguards of semi-autonomous vehicles
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has announced that it is developing a new ratings program that evaluates the safeguards that vehicles with partial automation employ to help drivers stay attentive.
The IIHS will use four levels for rating the safeguards: good, acceptable, marginal, or poor. Vehicles with “good” safeguard system ratings will need to ensure that the driver’s eyes are directed at the road and their hands are either on the wheel or ready to grab it at any point. Vehicles with escalating alert systems and appropriate emergency procedures when a driver does not meet those conditions will also be required, the IIHS said.
Expectations for the IIHS are that the first set of ratings will be released in 2022. The precise timing is currently not solidified as supply chain bottlenecks have affected the IIHS’ ability to obtain test vehicles from manufacturers.
IIHS President David Harkey believes a rating system for these “driver monitoring” systems could determine their effectiveness and whether safeguards actually hold drivers accountable. “Partial automation systems may make long drives seem like less of a burden, but there is no evidence that they make driving safer,” Harkey said. ” In fact, the opposite may be the case if systems lack adequate safeguards.”
Self-driving cars are not yet available to consumers, the IIHS reassures in its press release. While some advertising operations or product names could be somewhat misleading, the IIHS admits that some vehicles have partial automation. However, the human driver is still required to handle many routine driving tasks that many of the systems simply cannot perform. The driver always needs to be attentive and monitor the vehicle’s behavior, especially in case of an emergency where the driver needs to take over control of the car. The numerous semi-autonomous or partially automated programs on the market, like Tesla Autopilot, Volvo Pilot Assist, and GM’s Super Cruise, to name a few, all have safeguards in place to help ensure drivers are focused and ready. However, the IIHS says that “none of them meet all the pending IIHS criteria.”
The previously named partially automated driving systems all use cameras, radar, or other sensors to “see” the road. Systems currently offered on the market combine Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and lane centering with other driver assistance features. Automated lane changing is becoming common as well, and is a great example of one of these additional features.
Regardless of how many features a semi-autonomous driving program has, all of them still require the driver to remain attentive and vigilant during operation. This does not mean that all drivers maintain attention, as some may use cheat devices or other loopholes to operate a vehicle with semi-autonomous features in a fully autonomous way. Additionally, the IIHS mentions in its press release that some manufacturers “have oversold the capabilities of their systems, prompting drivers to treat the systems as if they can drive the car on their own.”
RELATED:
Level 2 systems like Tesla Autopilot can improve drivers’ attentiveness: IIHS study
The main issue is the fact that many operators deliberately misuse the systems. IIHS Research Scientist Alexandra Mueller is spearheading the new ratings program, and she says that abuse of the systems is one of many problems with semi-autonomous vehicle features.
“The way many of these systems operate gives people the impression that they’re capable of doing more than they really are,” Mueller said regarding the features. “But even when drivers understand the limitations of partial automation, their minds can still wander. As humans, it’s harder for us to remain vigilant when we’re watching and waiting for a problem to occur than it is when we’re doing all the driving ourselves.”
There is no way to monitor a driver’s thoughts or their level of focus on driving. However, there are ways to monitor gaze, head and hand position, posture, and other indicators that, when correctly displayed, could be consistent with someone who is actively engaged in driving.
The IIHS’ new ratings program aims to encourage the introduction of safeguards that can help reduce intentional and unintentional misuse. They would not address the functional aspects of some systems and whether they are activating properly, which could also contribute to crashes. It will only judge the systems that monitor human behaviors while driving.
“To earn a good rating, systems should use multiple types of alerts to quickly remind the driver to look at the road and return their hands to the wheel when they’ve looked elsewhere or left the steering unattended for too long. Evidence shows that the more types of alerts a driver receives, the more likely they will notice them and respond. These alerts must begin and escalate quickly. Alerts might include chimes, vibrations, pulsing the brakes, or tugging on the driver’s seat belt. The important thing is that the alerts are delivered through more channels and with greater urgency as time passes,” the IIHS says. Systems that work effectively would perform necessary maneuvers, like bringing the vehicle to a crawl or a stop if drivers that fail to respond to the numerous alerts. If an escalation of this nature occurs, the driver should be locked out of the system or the remainder of the drive, or until the vehicle is turned off and back on.
The rating criteria may also include certain requirements for automated lane changes, ACC, and lane centering. Automated lane changes should be initiated, or at least confirmed, by the driver before they are performed. If a vehicle comes to a complete stop when an ACC system is activated, the system “should not automatically resume if the driver is not looking at the road or the vehicle has been stopped for too long.” Lane centering features should also encourage the driver to share in steering, rather than switching off automatically when the driver adjusts the wheel. This could discourage some drivers from participating in driving, the IIHS said. Systems should also not be used if a seatbelt is unfastened, or when AEB or lane departure prevention is disabled.
“Nobody knows when we’ll have true self-driving cars, if ever. As automakers add partial automation to more and more vehicles, it’s imperative that they include effective safeguards that help drivers keep their heads in the game,” Harkey said.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
News
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.
SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.
Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.
The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.
Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.
The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.
Tesla is set to launch Cybercab on Thursday at an event in Austin, Texas, which will officially bring the company’s first steering wheel-less and pedal-less vehicle to a limited number of consumers for the first time.
The event, which is invite-only, is still thin on details: we’ll be there, and it seems the event will be held at Gigafactory Texas, but the launch of this vehicle truly relies on it being operational outside of the factory and on public roads.
🚨 Close-Up look at Tesla Cybercab without steering wheel: pic.twitter.com/9TXCDeDCz7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 3, 2026
Nevertheless, there are some big things to expect, and other things to temper expectations on. For what it’s worth, we believe this event could be perhaps the biggest indication that Tesla is ready to truly enter a new phase and chapter in its historic story.
Tesla Cybercab’s First Foray into the Public with Real-World Riders
Cybercab will likely hit the streets of Austin and the surrounding areas, likely in the established geofence that Tesla has expanded on for the past 14 months. Just yesterday, Tesla expanded it once again by 9 percent.
Tesla will put, for the first time, a vehicle without any manual controls on public roads, likely without any help from teleoperators. This is a truly groundbreaking development if it comes through in this fashion: it would be groundbreaking for Tesla to roll out a truly driverless ride-hailing vehicle.
Cybercab Has Already Been Unveiled
This is not an unveiling event. Cybercab has been released for nearly two years, as Tesla first showed it to the public on October 10, 2024.
FIRST LOOK: Tesla ‘Cybercab’ Robotaxi makes its global debut
While there is some small speculation that Tesla could release the Roadster at the event as a surprise, it seems more likely the focus will be on the Cybercab and the huge accomplishment that will come with releasing a vehicle with no manual controls.
There Will Be a Lot of Hype
What’s important to remember about the Cybercab event is that Tesla will continue to prioritize safety and the rollout will likely be slow, just as it has been with Robotaxi.
One of the biggest complaints about Robotaxi is vehicle population, and the fact that the wait for a ride, at least in some instances, has been longer than most want to admit.
It will take time for this project to truly scale. It will take time for Tesla to roll this out in a large fashion. The important thing to note is that they are doing it, and they’re doing it with a vehicle that is completely engineered and built internally. That’s something no other ride-hailing service can say.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
Tesla Cybercab Event: what to expect from Austin
