News
No, Tesla wasn’t “cheated” in the Model 3 headlight safety test by the IIHS
With the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s release of initial crash test information for the Tesla Model 3 came cries from many in the electric vehicle community that Tesla was “being cheated.” This isn’t entirely true as the new IIHS test removes a lot of cars out of the Top Safety Pick+ rating, the highest accolade the independent safety tester will give a car.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is an independent testing organization funded by insurance companies and some of the banks who back them. The IIHS purchases every car it tests–usually several of each–and tests these vehicles in their highest-available safety configuration. These crash tests usually destroy the vehicles in question, of course, but give an independent, third-party result not otherwise available.
When the IIHS’ initial safety results for the Tesla Model 3 were released, they included ratings for only two of the seven total ratings given to a vehicle. Those ratings, posted to the IIHS.org website, created a lot of response from the community regarding the failure of the Model 3’s headlamps to pass muster.
The tests so far include only the non-invasive, non-destructive tests normally conducted by the IIHS. Namely to crash mitigation systems and headlamps. It’s likely that the next test to see release on the Model 3 will be for LATCH child safety system use, another non-destructive test. From there, crash testing will begin. For that, IIHS needs to receive more Model 3 vehicles (5 in all), the rest of which are on order and expected later this year. Like any other Model 3 buyer, delays in manufacturing have put the IIHS’ ownership of the cars for evaluation on hold.
How the IIHS Conducts Headlight Tests, and Why
The IIHS conducts headlamps tests because, according to the organization, about half of all fatal crashes in the U.S. occur in the dark and many of those are on unlit roads where headlamps are the only thing illuminating whatever’s in front of the car. Although headlights are mandatory and minimum illumination requirements are required by law for all street-legal vehicles, there is a wide variance in how much (and how useful) that illumination can be. Especially with the advent of new lighting technologies.
“Headlight technology has been developing rapidly in recent years. LED and high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps have begun to replace the traditional halogen ones,” IIHS explains on its website. “Many automakers offer curve-adaptive headlights, which respond to steering and swivel according to the direction of travel. Many also offer high-beam assist, a feature that can increase the use of high beams..” These and other variables mean that headlights of the same type on one vehicle can be much worse than they can on another. Even little things like how the lights are focused, what type of light they emit, etc. can change effectiveness.
[Credit: Parker Smith via YouTube]
For those reasons, the IIHS instituted a headlight testing methodology in 2016. Starting this year (2018), these test results directly affect a vehicle’s eligibility for Top Safety Pick+ status. So far in 2018, only a handful of models have received TSP+ ratings. Somewhat surprising for luxury and high-end car buyers is the fact that almost all of those TSP+ vehicles are lower-end vehicles from makes like Hyundai and Subaru.
Testing for headlamps is conducted using a multi-part evaluation using a hypothetical, clear, two-lane road. The tests include measurements in a straightaway, measuring both the length and amount of illumination as well as the amount of glare the lights create for oncoming drivers. Then a gradual left- and right-hand turn and a steeper left- and right-hand curve are measured for a total of five directions in all.
Results are taken from varied distances at 10 inches high and 3-feet, 7-inches high (from the ground) to mimic where the driver is looking (out and down) and where oncoming vehicle drivers are seeing from (higher up). Ratings are then assigned according to how these measurements line up with a hypothetical ideal headlight system. Both low and high beams are tested the same way with the low beams being weighted for scoring as they are used most often in the real world. Vehicles with automatic high beam systems are given more points as the high beams will be used more often.
The Controversy Surrounding the IIHS Headlight Test
The inherent weakness in this IIHS test is similar to that of most of its advanced testing: it’s only tested on the ideal vehicle trim level and options. In other words, the testing is most likely happening on the most expensive model being sold, not necessarily on the most mainstream version of the vehicle. This becomes obvious when the bulk of the Top Safety Pick+ list is comprised of vehicles like the 2018 Subaru WRX.
The WRX is a great car, sure; a personal favorite in fact. But its winning of a TSP+ badge is a little misleading. The volume-selling model WRX is the mid-tier Premium trim, which doesn’t include the LED headlights or the automatic high beam control tested by the IIHS. To get those, one has to go up to the more expensive Limited trim point and add the EyeSight system. That latter point can only come if the buyer of this driver’s car is willing to drop their manual transmission for a CVT. That’s another sticking point as the WRX has a large percentage of buyers who want to shift the gears themselves.
What all of this means is that the 2018 WRX is a great car, but it’s not likely to be purchased in the configuration which the IIHS used to test its headlamps with. Other cars on the TSP+ list are much the same.
The interesting note here is that unlike actual crash tests, the slightly more subjective headlamp tests of the IIHS fall into the non-destructive tests for other safety equipment that, while respected, are also flawed for the same reason: only top-end models tend to have all of that equipment on them. Unlike those other safety items, however, the headlamp tests can hurt higher-end models while lower-end options would ace them. Why? Because LED headlamps, which consistently appear to fail most of the glare testing that the IIHS does, are generally only found on top-end models or luxury vehicles. There could be a lot of reasons for that, but my personal theory is that it has to do with automakers having to find a median between maximum safe illumination and glare due to how reflective LED lamps are designed.
The current IIHS Top Safety Pick+ list includes no midsize luxury cars (which the Model 3 is considered), though the overall midsize car category has five entries. All of them with caveats as to what must be included (usually top trim point items or options). Last year, under the old rules, most midsize and midsize luxury cars made the TSP+ list and Tesla’s Model S failed to make the list in part, again, for headlights.
It’s difficult to say what will happen with the Insurance Institute’s testing going forward. Likely manufacturers will come up with solutions to receive better scores on the headlamps test, perhaps by changing LED lighting designs or gaming the IIHS tests (as they have in the past with the small front overlap).
Tesla has some smart engineers and could probably figure out a way to remedy the lighting problem that’s kept their vehicles from rating high on IIHS tests in recent years. With a mainstream attempt like the Model 3, that could become a very important goal as buyers in the midsize sedan category tend to be safety conscious consumers.
Tesla brought its innovative Cybercab robotaxi to the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) Annual Convention in Austin, Texas, on July 3 at the JW Marriott Austin.
The hands-on demonstration highlighted the vehicle’s thoughtful design for blind and visually impaired users, underscoring Tesla’s commitment to inclusive autonomous mobility. Attendees, many using white canes or accompanied by service dogs, experienced the steering-wheel-free Cybercab firsthand.
Cybercab at the National Federation of the Blind’s Annual Convention in Austin for a hands-on experience of its accessibility features for blind or visually impaired customers⁰⁰For example:⁰– Braille lettering on physical controls
– Space for service animals & assistive… pic.twitter.com/8wrJcDHkw7— Tesla Robotaxi (@robotaxi) July 6, 2026
The showcase emphasized practical features tailored to the needs of the blind community. Braille lettering appears on physical controls, including door releases and emergency buttons, allowing users to navigate interfaces independently through touch. Generous interior space accommodates service animals and assistive devices such as canes, guide dogs, or mobility aids without compromising comfort.
Wheelchair-height seating facilitates easier transfers for users with additional mobility challenges. Photos from the event captured blind attendees approaching the vehicle confidently, service dogs relaxing inside, and hands exploring Braille-equipped handles.
Tesla Robotaxi’s official account detailed these elements, noting the Cybercab’s focus on accessibility, especially noting the Braille lettering and additional space for service animals.
How Tesla Will Transform Mobility for the Blind
Autonomous vehicles like the Cybercab promise revolutionary independence for the roughly 2.2 million visually impaired Americans. Traditional barriers—reliance on sighted drivers, costly paratransit, or limited public transit—often restrict spontaneous travel. Tesla Full Self-Driving aims to eliminate the need for a human operator, enabling on-demand, door-to-door rides via simple app hailing with voice guidance.
Users gain freedom to work, socialize, shop, or attend events anytime without scheduling hassles or safety concerns. This reduces isolation, boosts employment opportunities, and enhances quality of life, turning mobility from a dependency into true personal autonomy.
The NFB demonstration not only gathered valuable feedback but also generated excitement about a future where technology levels the playing field. By prioritizing inclusive design, Tesla advances a vision of transportation that serves everyone, potentially reshaping daily life for blind individuals and setting a standard for the autonomous industry.
As Cybercab deployment scales, these accessibility innovations could mark a significant step toward equitable mobility.
Investor's Corner
Tesla challenges startups to score a gig inside its most advanced European factory
Tesla is challenging startups to bring their best battery tech directly to Gigafactory Berlin.
Tesla has issued an open challenge to startups across Europe, inviting them to bring their best battery technology directly to the floor of Gigafactory Berlin. The program, called the JUNI x Tesla Battery Cell Giga Challenge, opened applications this month with a deadline of July 24, 2026, and is targeting startups with solutions that can make battery cell manufacturing faster, cheaper, safer, and more scalable at an industrial level.
The timing of the challenge is directly tied to Tesla’s most aggressive European battery investment yet. On May 12, 2026, Giga Berlin plant manager André Thierig announced a $250 million investment to scale the factory’s annual 4680 cell production capacity from 8 GWh to 18 GWh, more than doubling the previous target set just months earlier in December 2025. Thierig confirmed the expansion on X, saying the investment “will enable 18 GWh of annual 4680 cell production and create more than 1,500 new jobs.” Combined with a previously announced battery investment at the Grunheide site now approaches $1.2 billion.
Today, we announced a $ 250m investment for our Giga Berlin Cell factory. This will enable 18GWh of annual 4680 cell production and create more than 1500 new jobs. Good news during challenging times for the German industry. pic.twitter.com/ou4SWMfWh9
— André Thierig (@AndrThie) May 12, 2026
The challenge is looking specifically for startups with proven solutions across five categories: materials, equipment, operations, automation, and artificial intelligence. Applications are screened directly by Tesla’s cell manufacturing team in Grunheide, and the strongest submissions move through technical discussions, a pitch day in front of Tesla stakeholders, and potentially a paid pilot project with the cell team. Tesla is not looking for ideas at concept stage. The program requires applicants to demonstrate working prototypes, test data, or prior pilots before being considered.
The historical context matters here. Elon Musk first announced plans for what he called the world’s largest battery cell production facility alongside the Giga Berlin car factory back in 2020, targeting up to 250 GWh of annual capacity. Those plans were shelved in 2022 when Tesla shifted its battery investment focus to the United States to take advantage of Inflation Reduction Act incentives. The revival of cell production at Giga Berlin, now backed by over $1 billion in committed capital, represents a return to an ambition that was set aside for three years. As Teslarati has reported, the 4680 format is central to Tesla’s long-term cost reduction strategy across vehicles, energy storage, including the Tesla Semi and Cybercab.
By opening the challenge to outside startups, Tesla is acknowledging that reaching 18 GWh at Grunheide will require technology it does not currently have in-house, and it is willing to pay for the right solutions. For a startup in the battery supply chain, a paid pilot with Tesla’s European cell team is as close to a direct commercial path as the industry offers.
A Texas man has been arrested and charged with manslaughter after his Tesla crashed into a home last month, striking a woman inside and killing her. The driver, Michael Butler, claimed the vehicle was in self-driving mode, but information from Tesla shows that Butler overrode the system.
Butler was arrested on Wednesday and booked at the Harris County, Texas, jail. He remained in custody through Thursday and Friday; he did not enter a plea, and his next court hearing is scheduled for Monday.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
There are a handful of new clues in the case that could clear Tesla of any wrongdoing, especially as the woman who was killed’s family, the Avilas, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla and Butler, seeking at least $1 million in damages.
Charging documents from the Harris County prosecutor now show that Butler, who was working DoorDash the evening of the accident, had been using Full Self-Driving mode without incident through the duration of multiple deliveries that evening.
In the moments leading up to the crash, while in FSD and approaching a left turn, Butler pressed the accelerator pedal, overriding FSD’s speed control, and continued to push it until it reached 100 percent. This caused rapid acceleration; the brake pedal was never pressed, and there is no data to show that Butler aimed to turn away from the curb or house.
The charging documents state:
“I noted that the brake pedal was never pressed in the final minute before the crash. I also did not see any data to indicate that the driver attempted to turn away from the curb that he eventually struck. Further, I observed that no mechanical error was detected or recorded by the vehicle before BUTLER and the Tesla struck the curb.”
Additionally, a forensic analysis of Butler’s phone showed that he searched Google around the time of the crash with queries questioning why FSD was “too timid,” “not aggressive enough,” and even searched, “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving.”
The documents outlined this:
“Investigator Veal also informed me that he had received BUTLER’s cell phone from Deputy Amad and that HDAO digital forensics team had completed a data extraction and download of the phone. Multiple Google searches related to Tesla had been made from BUTLER’s phone in the months leading up the crash. I noted multiple searches in May of 2026 indicating an apparent frustration with Tesla’s FSD mode, including the following searches: “Tesla fsd not aggressive enough 2026 model,” “Tesla fsd not [sic) aggressive enough 2026,” “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving,” and “tesla fsd too timid.”‘
Tesla had claimed just after the crash that its internal data showed Butler had overridden the system’s speed control and pressed the accelerator completely, causing the vehicle to travel at an excessive rate of speed. Eventually, the car slammed into Avila’s house, killing her.
Butler has now been formally charged with Manslaughter, a felony.
Tesla flexes how it will help the blind with Cybercab
Tesla challenges startups to score a gig inside its most advanced European factory
