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
Waymo scrutinized after self-driving taxis cause traffic jams during SF blackout
It’s not farfetched to speculate that it would have been a doomsday scenario for Tesla had FSD behaved this way.
A power outage across San Francisco over the weekend forced numerous Waymo self-driving taxis to stop at darkened intersections and cause traffic blockages in multiple locations across the city. The disruption left riders stranded, frustrated drivers blocked, and city officials stepping in as the Alphabet-owned company temporarily suspended service amid the widespread gridlock.
Needless to say, it would likely have been a doomsday scenario for Tesla had FSD behaved in a similar way, especially if fleets of its robotaxis blocked traffic for numerous drivers.
Power outage halts Waymo fleet
The outage knocked out electricity for tens of thousands of customers, leaving traffic signals dark across large parts of the city, as noted in a report from the New York Times. Waymo vehicles began stopping at intersections and remained stationary for extended periods, seemingly unable to operate. Tow truck operators worked through the night removing immobilized vehicles, while videos circulated online showing Waymos with hazard lights flashing as traffic backed up around them.
Waymo later confirmed that it had paused its Bay Area ride-hailing service after the San Francisco mayor’s office contacted the company about the congestion its vehicles were contributing to. Service began coming back online shortly after 3:30 p.m. local time, though some users still reported being unable to request rides. Waymo maintained that no injuries or accidents were reported during the outage.
Autonomous cars during emergencies
The incident surprised industry observers since autonomous vehicles are designed to function during signal outages and temporary connectivity losses. Waymo stated that its vehicles treat nonfunctional signals as four-way stops, but “the sheer scale of the outage led to instances where vehicles remained stationary longer than usual to confirm the state of the affected intersections. This contributed to traffic friction during the height of the congestion.” Experts suggested the problem may have been linked to the vehicles’ reliance on remote assistance teams, which help resolve complex situations the cars cannot handle independently.
“Yesterday’s power outage was a widespread event that caused gridlock across San Francisco, with non-functioning traffic signals and transit disruptions. While the failure of the utility infrastructure was significant, we are committed to ensuring our technology adjusts to traffic flow during such events,” the Waymo spokesperson stated, adding that it is “focused on rapidly integrating the lessons learned from this event, and are committed to earning and maintaining the trust of the communities we serve every day.”
News
Tesla aims to combat common Full Self-Driving problem with new patent
Tesla writes in the patent that its autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles are heavily reliant on camera systems to navigate and interact with their environment.
Tesla is aiming to combat a common Full Self-Driving problem with a new patent.
One issue with Tesla’s vision-based approach is that sunlight glare can become a troublesome element of everyday travel. Full Self-Driving is certainly an amazing technology, but there are still things Tesla is aiming to figure out with its development.
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to get around this issue, and even humans need ways to combat it when they’re driving, as we commonly use sunglasses or sun visors to give us better visibility.
Cameras obviously do not have these ways to fight sunglare, but a new patent Tesla recently had published aims to fight this through a “glare shield.”
Tesla writes in the patent that its autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles are heavily reliant on camera systems to navigate and interact with their environment.
The ability to see surroundings is crucial for accurate performance, and glare is one element of interference that has yet to be confronted.
Tesla described the patent, which will utilize “a textured surface composed of an array of micro-cones, or cone-shaped formations, which serve to scatter incident light in various directions, thereby reducing glare and improving camera vision.”
The patent was first spotted by Not a Tesla App.
The design of the micro-cones is the first element of the puzzle to fight the excess glare. The patent says they are “optimized in size, angle, and orientation to minimize Total Hemispherical Reflectance (THR) and reflection penalty, enhancing the camera’s ability to accurately interpret visual data.”
Additionally, there is an electromechanical system for dynamic orientation adjustment, which will allow the micro-cones to move based on the angle of external light sources.
This is not the only thing Tesla is mulling to resolve issues with sunlight glare, as it has also worked on two other ways to combat the problem. One thing the company has discussed is a direct photon count.
CEO Elon Musk said during the Q2 Earnings Call:
“We use an approach which is direct photon count. When you see a processed image, so the image that goes from the sort of photon counter — the silicon photon counter — that then goes through a digital signal processor or image signal processor, that’s normally what happens. And then the image that you see looks all washed out, because if you point the camera at the sun, the post-processing of the photon counting washes things out.”
Future Hardware iterations, like Hardware 5 and Hardware 6, could also integrate better solutions for the sunglare issue, such as neutral density filters or heated lenses, aiming to solve glare more effectively.
Elon Musk
Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package
The unanimous decision criticized the prior total rescission as “improper and inequitable,” arguing that it left Musk uncompensated for six years of transformative leadership at Tesla.
The Delaware Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling, reinstating Elon Musk’s 2018 compensation package originally valued at $56 billion but now worth approximately $139 billion due to Tesla’s soaring stock price.
The unanimous decision criticized the prior total rescission as “improper and inequitable,” arguing that it left Musk uncompensated for six years of transformative leadership at Tesla. Musk quickly celebrated the outcome on X, stating that he felt “vindicated.” He also shared his gratitude to TSLA shareholders.
Delaware Supreme Court makes a decision
In a 49-page ruling Friday, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick’s 2024 decision that voided the 2018 package over alleged board conflicts and inadequate shareholder disclosures. The high court acknowledged varying views on liability but agreed rescission was excessive, stating it “leaves Musk uncompensated for his time and efforts over a period of six years.”
The 2018 plan granted Musk options on about 304 million shares upon hitting aggressive milestones, all of which were achieved ahead of time. Shareholders overwhelmingly approved it initially in 2018 and ratified it once again in 2024 after the Delaware lower court struck it down. The case against Musk’s 2018 pay package was filed by plaintiff Richard Tornetta, who held just nine shares when the compensation plan was approved.
A hard-fought victory
As noted in a Reuters report, Tesla’s win avoids a potential $26 billion earnings hit from replacing the award at current prices. Tesla, now Texas-incorporated, had hedged with interim plans, including a November 2025 shareholder-approved package potentially worth $878 billion tied to Robotaxi and Optimus goals and other extremely aggressive operational milestones.
The saga surrounding Elon Musk’s 2018 pay package ultimately damaged Delaware’s corporate appeal, prompting a number of high-profile firms, such as Dropbox, Roblox, Trade Desk, and Coinbase, to follow Tesla’s exodus out of the state. What added more fuel to the issue was the fact that Tornetta’s legal team, following the lower court’s 2024 decision, demanded a fee request of more than $5.1 billion worth of TSLA stock, which was equal to an hourly rate of over $200,000.
Delaware Supreme Court Elon Musk 2018 Pay Package by Simon Alvarez
Waymo scrutinized after self-driving taxis cause traffic jams during SF blackout
Tesla aims to combat common Full Self-Driving problem with new patent
