News
Level 2 systems like Tesla Autopilot can improve drivers’ attentiveness: IIHS study
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently published the results of a rather unique real-world driver attentiveness test. Using a 2019 Mercedes-Benz C300 equipped with a Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) and a giant pink teddy bear dressed in a yellow high-visibility jacket, the agency was able to roughly determine if systems like GM’s Super Cruise and Tesla’s Autopilot make drivers less attentive on the road.
The participants of the study included both drivers who were familiar with Level 2 driver-assist systems and drivers who had little to no experience with ADAS. The IIHS tasked those familiar with Level 2 systems to drive with the Mercedes-Benz C300’s ADAS activated. A group of drivers unfamiliar with ADAS was also tasked to drive with the system engaged. Lastly, a group of drivers who were unfamiliar with the vehicle’s Level 2 system was tasked to drive without the advanced driver-assist feature activated.
To test the drivers’ situational awareness, the IIHS had an SUV with a giant pink teddy bear strapped to its back pass the Mercedes-Benz C300 three times as the participants drove over a stretch of Interstate 70 in Maryland for about an hour. Each time, the SUV with the massive stuffed bear stayed in front of the drivers for about 30 seconds. Researchers then measured the participants’ reactions after their driving session, while asking if they saw anything odd during their hour-long drive.
Interestingly enough, nearly all of the drivers who were experienced with Level 2 systems noticed the giant pink bear. The same group also identified the number of times the bear overtook the C300 during the hour-long test. Drivers who were inexperienced with Level 2 systems didn’t perform as well, with a good number of inexperienced drivers who used the C300’s ADAS failing to remember the giant pink teddy bear at all.
“Our data suggest that Level 2 driving automation has the potential to improve a driver’s situational awareness (SA) once he or she is familiar with the technology, although it does not guarantee it. Unfamiliar drivers, however, appear to have even more difficulty maintaining SA when using the system than when driving without it. On average, participants who were familiar with Level 2 systems showed the highest degree of SA about the bear when using the system, unfamiliar participants who drove with the system off had moderate SA, and unfamiliar participants who drove with the system on demonstrated the lowest SA,” the IIHS wrote.
Videos from inside the C300 showed that the drivers who correctly identified the giant stuffed bear actually spent more time scanning the road ahead of them. These drivers, particularly those familiar with Level 2 systems, even tended to look out of the car’s side windows. On the other hand, those who missed the bear spent a considerable amount of time just focusing on the road straight ahead. Drivers who failed to spot the bear even once spent considerable time looking at various aspects of the C300’s dash.
Considering the results of the IIHS’ study, it appears that some experience with Level 2 systems would be best for drivers before they are allowed access to more advanced driver-assist systems such as Tesla’s Full Self-Driving Beta, which is poised to be rolled out to a greater number of electric car owners in a couple of weeks. Situational awareness, after all, is critical when driving, and having drivers nervously fiddling around their vehicles’ features while operating a Level 2 system may present some risks. That being said, the IIHS’ results do go in line with one of Elon Musk’s more notable points–systems like Autopilot could actually perform as a formidable safety feature, provided that they are used responsibly and properly, of course.
The IIHS’ situational awareness study could be accessed below.
IIHS Level 2 Autonomy Report by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
