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 has introduced an enhanced visualization in its Supercharger navigation system, building directly on the Site Maps feature rolled out a few months ago.
This latest software update adds detailed 3D icons that represent specific vehicle models parked at charging stalls, offering drivers a more precise view of site occupancy and layout.
The Site Maps debuted in Tesla’s 2025 Holiday Update, providing 3D overviews of select Supercharger locations with real-time stall availability.
Tesla supplements Holiday Update by sneaking in new Full Self-Driving version
Drivers could see which spots were open, occupied, or out of service when navigating to supported stations.
Now, the system takes this capability further by rendering accurate representations of Tesla vehicles, including distinctions between models such as the Model 3, Model Y, Model S, Model X, and Cybertruck. These icons appear as lifelike 3D renderings, complete with recognizable shapes and proportions that match the actual cars charging at the site:
Supercharger update now shows type of Tesla at charger as well.
Pretty cool. pic.twitter.com/J3NRSIgM0m
— DennisCW | wen my L (@DennisCW_) June 2, 2026
This refinement improves the user experience during road trips and daily charging stops. As drivers approach a Supercharger, the navigation display now shows not just generic occupied markers but identifiable vehicle types plugged into each stall.
Blue indicators highlight active charging sessions, while other visual cues denote availability or maintenance status. The feature integrates seamlessly with the existing map interface, allowing quick assessment of the best available spot based on vehicle size and positioning.
Tesla continues to expand the availability of these detailed Site Maps across its global network. Initially piloted at a limited number of locations, the rollout has progressed steadily, with more stations gaining support in recent software versions.
Owners benefit from better planning, as the system helps identify compatible stalls and reduces uncertainty upon arrival. The update reflects Tesla’s ongoing commitment to refining its navigation and charging ecosystem through iterative software improvements.
In addition to model-specific icons, the enhanced maps maintain all prior functionalities, such as integration with nearby amenities and energy usage predictions. This ensures a comprehensive tool for efficient Supercharging.
As Tesla’s fleet grows and the network scales, such features play a key role in optimizing the overall ownership experience. Future updates may extend similar visualizations to additional sites and incorporate even more data points for drivers.
With this piggyback enhancement, Tesla demonstrates how small but thoughtful additions can elevate an already useful tool, making Supercharger visits smoother and more informed for its customers. The company is expected to broaden the feature’s reach in upcoming releases, further solidifying its leadership in EV charging infrastructure.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.3 driver monitoring was reportedly scaled back in recent releases, but a new version that was released in the early hours of June 3 aimed to do a better job of keeping those in control of their cars honest, according to release notes.
The release notes for FSD v14.3.3, via Software Version 2026.14.6.7 added:
“Improved driver monitoring system sensitivity with better eye gaze tracking, eye wear handling, and higher accuracy in variable lighting conditions.”
However, Tesla said this was already enabled in the first rollout of FSD v14.3.3 in late May. We tested it anyway, especially as the Standard Speed Profile seemed less-than-worried about what you were doing during operation.
I decided to try out the Hurry and Mad Max Speed Profiles for this test, and it gave me results that I would have expected. Tesla has evidently ramped up driver monitoring based on the Speed Profile you are using to travel.
The more aggressive the Speed Profile, the more on the hook you will be for taking your attention away from the road. Our testing showed that Mad Max was less likely to allow you to do normal things like change music or adjust navigation without getting an on-screen warning or nag from the driver monitoring system.
Hurry Mode Results
On Hurry, the driver monitoring system on FSD v14.3.3, via Software Version 2026.14.6.7, was more restrictive than Standard but less restrictive than Mad Max. I found that I could scroll through music options for a considerable amount of time, more than 30 seconds:
Roughly :31 between first touching the center screen and getting the first nag
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 3, 2026
Standard gave me about 80 seconds of phone scrolling with absolutely no nags or warnings in a previous test. It is worth noting that this was a previous branch of v14.3.3, but Standard is such a goodie-two-shoes on the road that it is my impression it would not change much.
Here’s an 80-second phone nag test on Tesla FSD v14.3.3.
No alerts, no nagging, no annoyance. https://t.co/1dxvTOw5Cn pic.twitter.com/vYViFpjfoK
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 29, 2026
Mad Max Results
I spent the majority of the drive on Mad Max to see how it truly reacted to the driver having their attention elsewhere. While I did do a short phone test, I am aiming to steer away from those and use the center screen. I think it is a valid criticism that the phone test is dangerous and, not to mention, illegal in Pennsylvania. Changing the navigation and music is a more reasonable, more responsible, and safer test.
With Mad Max being the fastest and most aggressive Speed Profile, I anticipated this being the quickest mode to give me an alert that I needed to look at the road. That was the case with music:
🎥 Testing Tesla FSD v14.3.3 (via 2026.14.6.7) nags on Mad Max https://t.co/qZALU2OujY pic.twitter.com/XddOJ0D47x
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 3, 2026
As well as adjusting Navigation, when I received two nags:
🎥 Testing Tesla FSD v14.3.3 (via 2026.14.6.7) nag while adjusting navigation
Two nags here https://t.co/qZALU2OujY pic.twitter.com/xa3dtaDG1L
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 3, 2026
These nags were more than reasonable, and I think it’s probably good that Tesla is ramping up the driver monitoring. I do believe that it should be relatively strict across all of the Speed Profiles, especially with phone use. When using the center screen, the nag intervals should be based on the speed profile you are utilizing at the time.
These driver monitoring adjustments are a great thing to have while FSD is still under its “Supervised” moniker, but I expect Tesla to continue pushing the limits on what it will allow, especially considering CEO Elon Musk has hinted that phone use is capable with the more recent versions.
You can watch the full drive on YouTube below:
Tesla has responded to the skeptics of its Robotaxi program by launching a massive expansion of the unsupervised program in its initial rollout city of Austin.
The company’s geofence, the enabled area of operation for rides, now covers the entire Austin Metropolitan area, an incredible move just days after media headlines attempted to discredit the ride-hailing service.
Those who have access to the Tesla Robotaxi app on their smartphones can now request a ride in any portion of the Austin Metro area. The company confirmed this on the social media platform X:
Unsupervised Robotaxi now in the entire Austin Metro area https://t.co/eXNBdarvVS
— Tesla Robotaxi (@robotaxi) June 3, 2026
This is Tesla’s fifth expansion of the geofence, with the others occurring in July, early August, late August, and late October 2025. It has remained at that size since October 26, but Tesla has now more than doubled that size.
It is now covering the entire area, including suburbs like Pflugerville and Manor, as well as I-35 highways, Gigafactory Texas, and the Austin-Bergstrom Airport.
The move comes just days after various media outlets highlighted the small fleet size of Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet in Austin, something that is a reasonable criticism but an understandable move on the company’s part to prioritize safety.
Tesla has expanded its Robotaxi geofence many times, but its fleet has remained at a relatively conservative size as the company continues to push safety as its most crucial metric.
The latest expansion is a key indicator of Tesla’s comfort level to expand the ride-hailing service. The move shows Tesla is scaling unsupervised autonomy, as it demonstrates that the company’s Full Self-Driving system has reached sufficient reliability for a broader real-world deployment, which is something the company has worked on extensively.
It also shows Tesla is game for a competition with its rivals in the autonomous ride-hailing sector. Tesla has often matched or exceeded competitors like Waymo in coverage area, despite its smaller fleet. This step highlights Tesla’s iterative, data-driven progress toward a high-margin, app-based Robotaxi network.
It’s not the absolute largest area expansion ever, but achieving full unsupervised operations across a major metro is a key moment in the Robotaxi story. It shifts the program from limited pilot/testing toward a more mature commercial service, while gathering the miles needed for faster growth.
Tesla piggybacks recent Supercharger feature with update that takes it further
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.3 driver monitoring: We tested it
