News
Driver-assistance tech seen as annoyance by many non-Tesla drivers
Automakers have been adding driver assistance features to new vehicles for years now, especially with the industry gearing towards self-driving technology. However, a recent J.D. Power 2019 U.S. Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study has found that many drivers see them as “nannying” annoyances and often opt to turn them off. While it doesn’t look like Tesla’s all-electric vehicles were included in the study, the results draw an interesting contrast between Autopilot and other manufacturers’ approach to similar technology.
“Automakers are spending lots of money on advanced technology development, but the constant alerts can confuse and frustrate drivers,” explained Kristin Kolodge, Executive Director of Driver Interaction & Human Machine Interface Research at J.D. Power, as quoted in the study’s summary. “The technology can’t come across as a nagging parent; no one wants to be constantly told they aren’t driving correctly.”
When it comes to lane-keeping and centering systems in particular, an average of 23% of customers with these systems complained that the alerts are annoying or bothersome. Of this group, around 61% frequently choose to disable the features. Even more telling is that out of six categories of vehicle features rated by the study, driving assistance was scored second lowest in measured owner experiences. The other categories were collision protection, smartphone mirroring, comfort and convenience, entertainment and connectivity, and navigation. The study overall was focused on owner experiences, usage, and interaction with 38 driver-centric vehicle technologies at 90 days of ownership.
The Kia Stinger scored the highest in all categories out of the vehicles rated by J.D. Power. On a 1,000-point scale, it averaged 834, the overall average being 781 and the lowest-scoring model coming in at 709. The Korean auto maker’s compact luxury sedan has a full suite of active safety features including adaptive cruise control, automatic emergency braking, blind spot warning, rear cross-traffic alert, lane keeping assist, pedestrian detection, and a driver attention alert.
Since owner satisfaction is directly tied to future purchases and customer recommendations, the findings in the J.D. Power study are significant. “When overall satisfaction is greater than 900, 75% “definitely will” repurchase the same make again and 95% “definitely will” recommend it. Automakers looking to drive loyalty need to provide a highly satisfying tech usage experience,” the summary concluded. With this in mind alongside self-driving developments, it’s especially important for owners to find value in their driver assistance features if manufacturers hope to win consumer confidence as features progress.
“Consumers are still very concerned about cars being able to drive themselves, and they want more information about these complex systems, as well as more channels to learn how to use them or how and why they kick in,” Kolodge commented on the findings. “If they can’t be sold on lane-keeping—a core technology of self-driving—how are they going to accept fully automated vehicles? …It’s essential that the industry recognize the importance of an owner’s first experience with these lower-level automated technologies because this will help determine the future of adoption of fully automated vehicles.”
Tesla’s Autopilot is perhaps becoming one of the most well-known driver assist features offered by an auto company today, and it’s primarily due to high owner satisfaction. Owners frequently report their positive experiences with the feature’s traffic capabilities, and numerous videos and stories have been shared about how preventative measures taken by Autopilot have prevented serious traffic incidences. What’s more, Tesla’s own safety data validates these owner findings on a macroscale and has led the company to make some functions available even without the Full Self-Driving suite.
In May, Tesla introduced two new active lane monitoring features designed to help prevent drivers from unintentionally leaving their lane of travel named ‘Lane Departure Avoidance’ and ‘Emergency Lane Departure Avoidance.’ They are derived from Autopilot, yet work while it’s not on. The Lane Departure Avoidance applies corrective steering to keep drivers in their intended travel lane if a departure is sensed without a turn signal. Emergency Lane Departure Avoidance is automatically enabled and is designed to return a Tesla vehicle back to its original lane if a departure and an imminent collision are detected, rather than simply alerting drivers of the situation. “As our quarterly safety reports have shown, drivers using Autopilot register fewer accidents per mile than those driving without it,” Tesla’s press release on the lane-oriented features stated.
Lane-keeping technologies may not be big sellers for legacy auto companies, but Tesla is clearly making very good headway with those features.
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
