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.
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 once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
