News
Rivian Motorway name change approved by city council despite opposition
The City Council of Bloomington, Illinois approved a motion last night to rename the highway where Rivian’s main manufacturing plant is located to Rivian Motorway. The road, which has parts located in both Bloomington and Normal, is currently named Mitsubishi Motorway after the prior owner of the facility. After some deliberation, the Council voted 7 to 2 to move forward with the requested name change.
Prior to the Bloomington Council’s meeting, the vote on the naming matter was expected to largely be a formality. However, one council member was decidedly against the motion. Donna Boelen, Alderwoman of Ward 2, objected over several concerns focused on the long-term ramifications of the move.
“Is this really in the best interest of the City of Bloomington and the region? It’s an unfortunate precedent that streets have been named after companies, and I would like to see that come to an end,” Boelen commented. “Rivian has two other operational entities, one in California, and one in Michigan… Rivian did not meet its incentive goal last year. They promised 1,000 employees over the next ten years, and that only means 100 per year.”
Along with casting doubts about Rivian’s long-term prospects in Illinois, Boelen further asserted that street names are free advertising that could deter future businesses from setting up shop nearby as there are several vacant lots near Rivian’s facility that could be developed.
Renaming Mitsubishi Motorway would also require local businesses to incur significant expenses, Boelen further claimed, citing one business owner’s quote of $5,000 to update their website and advertising materials with the new street name. This particular point caused a bit of debate among the members, specifically with regard to the amount cited.
“I have a really hard time understanding where a $5,000 total could possibly come from,” one member objected. “I mean, changing a website and changing the line to Rivian from Mitsubishi should take somebody like 5 minutes at the most… I think maybe he should have some serious conversations with his web developer at that point.” Mayor Teri Renner also added a comment about the overall street naming precedent in response to Boelen’s concerns. “It’s pretty common throughout the entire United States to name streets after major investors,” he said. “That is part of what some people think of as pro-business.”
The Town Council for Normal, where Rivian’s facility is actually located, had its own debate about the name change despite its motion ultimately being approved 4-2 in early July. Council member Stan Nord cited concerns about electronic databases adjusting to the temporary nature of businesses in the long term. Other members were not convinced that a problem existed, though, noting that new streets and street name changes were very common across the country.
Rivian specifically requested the name change earlier this year, according to a memo written by Assistant City Manager Eric Hanson to the Normal City Council. “Obviously, it’s not necessarily advantageous for them to bring (potential investors) down Mitsubishi Motorway,” he said. “ A second road for access to Rivian’s factory is also planned for renaming, citing the same reasons – Sakura Lane will be renamed Electric Avenue.
The nascent car maker bought their factory headquarters from Mitsubishi in 2017, and efforts are currently underway to transition to the electrified lineup they have in the works to include the R1T pickup truck and R1S SUV. Interestingly, many of the workers currently involved in Rivian’s changeover process were part of the original Mitsubishi team that opened the factory when it was new.
Rivian must gain one more approval from the McLean County Board before Rivian Motorway is final. Along with the Normal and Bloomington Councils, the Illinois Emergency Telephone Systems Board has also approved the move. The County Board will consider the request later this month.
The City Council’s deliberations in full can be viewed below:
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
