The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) tested Tesla Autopilot safeguards and found that drivers are pretty quick to adapt to the windows of opportunity the suite gives after warning them to pay attention.
The IIHS study sought to determine whether partially automated driving systems and their safeguards increase driver attentiveness. With the rollout of more advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and semi-autonomous driving functionalities, the goal is to increase safety.
However, these suites still require the driver to pay attention and be aware of any potential opportunity to take over if needed. These driving systems and features are designed to increase safety but still require the driver’s full attention, hence their semi-autonomous label.
Credit: Tesla
For the study, the IIHS tested both Tesla Autopilot safeguards and those available in Volvo’s Pilot Assist.
The study gave 14 drivers a month with a 2020 Tesla Model 3 and required them to travel on Autopilot, when available, over one month. The IIHS wanted to see how drivers behaved leading up to, during, and after attention reminders prompted by a lack of focus on their end.
The Autopilot study found that drivers could learn safeguard sequences and identify “windows of opportunity” to perform non-driving-related tasks. These vehicles still utilized an Autopilot nag and a torque sensor to monitor whether the driver was paying attention. Failure to keep hands on the steering wheel would result in attention reminders.
Failure to change after the reminders would result in suspension of the Autopilot system, commonly referred to as “Autopilot jail.”
The study found:
“In total, the volunteers drove a little more than 12,000 miles with Autopilot engaged. During that time, they triggered 3,858 attention-related warnings from the partial automation system. About half of those alerts occurred when they had at least one hand on the steering wheel but were apparently not moving it enough to satisfy the torque sensor.”
Most warnings did not go past the initial reminder, and only 72 instances resulted in the driver not responding fast enough to prevent the alerts from escalating.
The study found that while initial warnings increased by 26 percent over the first four weeks, showing drivers were prone to expect it, escalations fell by 64 percent, meaning they did not allow the system to continue warning them.
However, this does not mean that non-driving secondary activities stopped after the first warning. Instead, the study showed something interesting:
“The researchers found that the drivers did nondriving secondary activities, looked away from the road, and had both hands off the wheel more often during the alerts and in the 10 seconds before and after them as they learned how the attention reminders worked. The longer they used the system, the less time it took them to take their hands off the wheel again once the alerts stopped.”
The IIHS admits that the safety impact of the change is hard to measure. While the agency noted that some research shows the longer a driver allows their attention to wander, the more likely they will be involved in an accident, the study also said that “even short lapses of attention become so frequent that the periods of supposed engagement between them have little value.”
The study also said the safeguards can be beneficial to behavior immediately and in the longer term, and other patterns showed potentially unintended consequences:
“The current study has shown that driver interactions with partial automation are dynamic. Some of the changes we observed indicate that system safeguards can beneficially shape behavior both immediately and in the longer term, whereas other patterns revealed potentially unintended consequences. It is important to note that these findings are likely not unique to Tesla’s Autopilot, as many systems on the market have overtly similar safeguard designs. As such, some observations from this study maybe relevant to other driver assistance technology that still requires the driver to be engaged in the driving task.”
IIHS Senior Research Scientist Alexandra Mueller, who led the study, said:
“These results show that escalating, multimodal attention reminders are very effective in getting drivers to change their behavior. However, better safeguards are needed to ensure that the behavior change actually translates to more attentive driving.”
While this study provides evidence that perhaps better safeguards are needed, it is important to note that Tesla has upgraded the in-cabin camera to monitor driver attentiveness.
Tesla activates cabin-facing camera in bid to improve vehicle safety
Additionally, many cars are on the road without these driver assistance and safety features.
Distracted driving is going to occur whether a vehicle is equipped with modern technology or not.
Tesla and other automakers have brought their newest vehicles up to speed in the fight against distracted driving, and perhaps this study showed that warnings could and should come at varying rates to prevent anticipation from drivers.
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.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft is heading to jury trial
The ruling keeps alive claims that OpenAI misled the Tesla CEO about its charitable purpose while accepting billions of dollars in funding.
OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft will face a jury trial this spring after a federal judge rejected their efforts to dismiss Elon Musk’s lawsuit, which accuses the artificial intelligence startup of abandoning its original nonprofit mission. The ruling keeps alive claims that OpenAI misled the Tesla CEO about its charitable purpose while accepting billions of dollars in funding.
As noted in a report from Bloomberg News, a federal judge in Oakland, California, ruled that OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft failed to show that Musk’s claims should be dismissed. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stated that while the evidence remains unclear, Musk has maintained that OpenAI “had a specific charitable purpose and that he attached two fundamental terms to it: that OpenAI be open source and that it would remain a nonprofit — purposes consistent with OpenAI’s charter and mission.”
Judge Gonzalez Rogers also rejected an argument by OpenAI suggesting that Musk’s use of an intermediary to donate $38 million in seed money to the company stripped him of legal standing. “Holding otherwise would significantly reduce the enforcement of a large swath of charitable trusts, contrary to the modern trend,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote.
The judge also declined to dismiss Musk’s fraud allegations, citing internal OpenAI communications from 2017 involving co-founder Greg Brockman. In an email cited by the judge, fellow OpenAI board member Shivon Zilis informed Musk that Brockman would “like to continue with the non-profit structure.”
Just two months later, however, Brockman wrote in a private note that he “cannot say that we are committed to the non-profit. don’t want to say that we’re committed. if three months later we’re doing b-corp then it was a lie.”
Marc Toberoff, a member of Musk’s legal team, said Judge Gonzalez Rogers’s ruling confirms that “there is substantial evidence that OpenAI’s leadership made knowingly false assurances to Mr. Musk about its charitable mission that they never honored in favor of their personal self-enrichment.”
OpenAI, for its part, maintained that Musk’s legal efforts are baseless. In a statement, the AI startup said it is looking forward to the upcoming trial. “Mr. Musk’s lawsuit continues to be baseless and a part of his ongoing pattern of harassment, and we look forward to demonstrating this at trial. We remain focused on empowering the OpenAI Foundation, which is already one of the best-resourced nonprofits ever,” OpenAI stated.
News
Tesla arsonist who burned Cybertruck sees end of FAFO journey
The man has now reached the “Find Out” stage.
A Mesa, Arizona man has been sentenced to five years in federal prison for setting fire to a Tesla location and vehicle in a politically motivated arson attack, federal prosecutors have stated.
The April 2025 incident destroyed a Tesla Cybertruck, endangered first responders, and triggered mandatory sentencing under federal arson laws.
A five-year sentence
U.S. District Judge Diane J. Humetewa sentenced Ian William Moses, 35, of Mesa, Arizona, to 5 years in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release for maliciously damaging property and vehicles by means of fire. Moses pleaded guilty in October to all five counts brought by a federal grand jury. Restitution will be determined at a hearing scheduled for April 13, 2026.
As per court records, surveillance footage showed Moses arriving at a Tesla store in Mesa shortly before 2 a.m. on April 28, 2025, carrying a gasoline can and backpack. Investigators stated that he placed fire starter logs near the building, poured gasoline on the structure and three vehicles, and ignited the fire. The blaze destroyed a Tesla Cybertruck. Moses fled the scene on a bicycle and was arrested by Mesa police about a quarter mile away, roughly an hour later.
Authorities said Moses was still wearing the same clothing seen on camera at the time of his arrest and was carrying a hand-drawn map marking the dealership’s location. Moses also painted the word “Theif” on the walls of the Tesla location, prompting jokes from social media users and Tesla community members.
The “Finding Out” stage
U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine noted that Moses’ sentence reflects the gravity of his crime. He also highlighted that arson is never acceptable.
“Arson can never be an acceptable part of American politics. Mr. Moses’ actions endangered the public and first responders and could have easily turned deadly. This five-year sentence reflects the gravity of these crimes and makes clear that politically fueled attacks on Arizona’s communities and businesses will be met with full accountability.”
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell echoed the same sentiments, stating that regardless of Moses’ sentiments towards Elon Musk, his actions are not defensible.
“This sentence sends a clear message: violence and intimidation have no place in our community. Setting fire to a business in retaliation for political or personal grievances is not protest, it is a crime. Our community deserves to feel safe, and this sentence underscores that Maricopa County will not tolerate political violence in any form.”
News
Tesla says its Texas lithium refinery is now operational and unlike anything in North America
Elon Musk separately described the site as both the most advanced and the largest lithium refinery in the United States.
Tesla has confirmed that its Texas lithium refinery is now operational, marking a major milestone for the company’s U.S. battery supply chain. In a newly released video, Tesla staff detailed how the facility converts raw spodumene ore directly into battery-grade lithium hydroxide, making it the first refinery of its kind in North America.
Elon Musk separately described the site as both the most advanced and the largest lithium refinery in the United States.
A first-of-its-kind lithium refining process
In the video, Tesla staff at the Texas lithium refinery near Corpus Christi explained that the facility processes spodumene, a lithium-rich hard-rock ore, directly into battery-grade lithium hydroxide on site. The approach bypasses intermediate refining steps commonly used elsewhere in the industry.
According to the staff, spodumene is processed through kilns and cooling systems before undergoing alkaline leaching, purification, and crystallization. The resulting lithium hydroxide is suitable for use in batteries for energy storage and electric vehicles. Tesla employees noted that the process is simpler and less expensive than traditional refining methods.
Staff at the facility added that the process eliminates hazardous byproducts typically associated with lithium refining. “Our process is more sustainable than traditional methods and eliminates hazardous byproducts, and instead produces a co-product named anhydrite, used in concrete mixes,” an employee noted.
Musk calls the facility the largest lithium refinery in America
The refinery’s development timeline has been very impressive. The project moved from breaking ground in 2023 to integrated plant startup in 2025 by running feasibility studies, design, and construction in parallel. This compressed schedule enabled the fastest time-to-market for a refinery using this type of technology. This 2026, the facility has become operational.
Elon Musk echoed the significance of the project in posts on X, stating that “the largest Lithium refinery in America is now operational.” In a separate comment, Musk described the site as “the most advanced lithium refinery in the world” and emphasized that the facility is “very clean.”
By bringing large-scale lithium hydroxide production online in Texas, Tesla is positioning itself to reduce reliance on foreign refining capacity while supporting its growth in battery and vehicle production. The refinery also complements Tesla’s nascent domestic battery manufacturing efforts, which could very well be a difference maker in the market.
Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft is heading to jury trial
Tesla arsonist who burned Cybertruck sees end of FAFO journey
