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.
News
Tesla wins FCC approval for wireless Cybercab charging system
The decision grants Tesla a waiver that allows the Cybercab’s wireless charging system to be installed on fixed outdoor equipment.
Tesla has received approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to use Ultra-Wideband (UWB) radio technology in its wireless EV charging system.
The decision grants Tesla a waiver that allows the Cybercab’s wireless charging system to be installed on fixed outdoor equipment. This effectively clears a regulatory hurdle for the company’s planned wireless charging pad for the autonomous two-seater.
Tesla’s wireless charging system is described as follows in the document: “The Tesla positioning system is an impulse UWB radio system that enables peer-to-peer communications between a UWB transceiver installed on an electric vehicle (EV) and a second UWB transceiver installed on a ground-level pad, which could be located outdoors, to achieve optimal positioning for the EV to charge wirelessly.”
The company explained that Bluetooth is first used to locate the charging pad. “Prior to the UWB operation, the vehicular system uses Bluetooth technology for the vehicle to discover the location of the ground pad and engage in data exchange activities (which is not subject to the waiver).”
Once the vehicle approaches the pad, the UWB system briefly activates. “When the vehicle approaches the ground pad, the UWB transceivers will operate to track the position of the vehicle to determine when the optimal position has been achieved over the pad before enabling wireless power charging.”
Tesla also emphasized that “the UWB signals occur only briefly when the vehicle approaches the ground pad; and mostly at ground level between the vehicle and the pad,” and that the signals are “significantly attenuated by the body of the vehicle positioned over the pad.”
As noted by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, the FCC ultimately granted Tesla’s proposal since the Cybercab’s wireless charging system’s signal is very low power, it only turns on briefly while parking, it works only at very short range, and it won’t interfere with other systems.
While the approval clears the way for Tesla’s wireless charging plans, the Cybercab does not appear to depend solely on the new system.
Cybercab prototypes have frequently been spotted charging at standard Tesla Superchargers across the United States. This suggests the vehicle can easily operate within Tesla’s existing charging network even as the wireless system is developed and deployed. With this in mind, it would not be surprising if the first batches of the Cybercab that are deployed and delivered to consumers end up being charged by regular Superchargers.
Elon Musk
Tesla posts updated FSD safety stats as owners surpass 8 billion miles
Tesla shared the milestone as adoption of the system accelerates across several markets.
Tesla has posted updated safety stats for Full Self-Driving Supervised. The results were shared by the electric vehicle maker as FSD Supervised users passed more than 8 billion cumulative miles.
Tesla shared the milestone in a post on its official X account.
“Tesla owners have now driven >8 billion miles on FSD Supervised,” the company wrote in its post on X. Tesla also included a graphic showing FSD Supervised’s miles driven before a collision, which far exceeds that of the United States average.
The growth curve of FSD Supervised’s cumulative miles over the past five years has been notable. As noted in data shared by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, annual FSD (Supervised) miles have increased from roughly 6 million in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and 4.25 billion in 2025. In just the first 50 days of 2026, Tesla owners logged another 1 billion miles.
At the current pace, the fleet is trending towards hitting about 10 billion FSD Supervised miles this year. The increase has been driven by Tesla’s growing vehicle fleet, periodic free trials, and expanding Robotaxi operations, among others.
Tesla also recently updated the safety data for FSD Supervised on its website, covering North America across all road types over the latest 12-month period.
As per Tesla’s figures, vehicles operating with FSD Supervised engaged recorded one major collision every 5,300,676 miles. In comparison, Teslas driven manually with Active Safety systems recorded one major collision every 2,175,763 miles, while Teslas driven manually without Active Safety recorded one major collision every 855,132 miles. The U.S. average during the same period was one major collision every 660,164 miles.
During the measured period, Tesla reported 830 total major collisions with FSD (Supervised) engaged, compared to 16,131 collisions for Teslas driven manually with Active Safety and 250 collisions for Teslas driven manually without Active Safety. Total miles logged exceeded 4.39 billion miles for FSD (Supervised) during the same timeframe.
Elon Musk
The Boring Company’s Music City Loop gains unanimous approval
After eight months of negotiations, MNAA board members voted unanimously on Feb. 18 to move forward with the project.
The Metro Nashville Airport Authority (MNAA) has approved a 40-year agreement with Elon Musk’s The Boring Company to build the Music City Loop, a tunnel system linking Nashville International Airport to downtown.
After eight months of negotiations, MNAA board members voted unanimously on Feb. 18 to move forward with the project. Under the terms, The Boring Company will pay the airport authority an annual $300,000 licensing fee for the use of roughly 933,000 square feet of airport property, with a 3% annual increase.
Over 40 years, that totals to approximately $34 million, with two optional five-year extensions that could extend the term to 50 years, as per a report from The Tennesean.
The Boring Company celebrated the Music City Loop’s approval in a post on its official X account. “The Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority has unanimously (7-0) approved a Music City Loop connection/station. Thanks so much to @Fly_Nashville for the great partnership,” the tunneling startup wrote in its post.
Once operational, the Music City Loop is expected to generate a $5 fee per airport pickup and drop-off, similar to rideshare charges. Airport officials estimate more than $300 million in operational revenue over the agreement’s duration, though this projection is deemed conservative.
“This is a significant benefit to the airport authority because we’re receiving a new way for our passengers to arrive downtown at zero capital investment from us. We don’t have to fund the operations and maintenance of that. TBC, The Boring Co., will do that for us,” MNAA President and CEO Doug Kreulen said.
The project has drawn both backing and criticism. Business leaders cited economic benefits and improved mobility between downtown and the airport. “Hospitality isn’t just an amenity. It’s an economic engine,” Strategic Hospitality’s Max Goldberg said.
Opponents, including state lawmakers, raised questions about environmental impacts, worker safety, and long-term risks. Sen. Heidi Campbell said, “Safety depends on rules applied evenly without exception… You’re not just evaluating a tunnel. You’re evaluating a risk, structural risk, legal risk, reputational risk and financial risk.”
Tesla wins FCC approval for wireless Cybercab charging system
Tesla posts updated FSD safety stats as owners surpass 8 billion miles
