News
Tesla MIT study concludes that drivers maintain vigilance when using Autopilot
Tesla owners using Autopilot are highly engaged when driving with the feature despite fears to the contrary, according to a study recently published by scientists at MIT titled Human Side of Tesla Autopilot: Exploration of Functional Vigilance in Real-World Human-Machine Collaboration.
The data used in the study was generated from the over 1 billion miles driven by Tesla owners since its activation in 2015, about 35% of which were determined to be assisted by Autopilot. Of these, 18,928 disengagements of Autopilot were annotated, which indicated instances when drivers took over during challenging driving situations. Overall, the numbers demonstrate a high rate of driver vigilance.
Tesla has provided a unique opportunity to form a baseline for objective, representative analysis of real-world use of Autopilot, as stated in the study:
“Due to its scale of deployment and individual utilization, [Tesla’s] Autopilot serves as perhaps the currently best available opportunity to study and understand human interaction with AI assisted vehicles ‘in the wild’…naturalistic driving research can now begin investigating and identify both promising and concerning trends in drivers’ behavioral patterns in the context of Autopilot.”
As automation has expanded over the last several decades, a pattern of overtrust in reliable automated systems has been shown by human behavior research studies. In the context of driving scenarios where property damage, injury, or death are possible consequences, the concern with the transition to semi-autonomous systems relying on driver input to function safely is obviously significant. The results of the MIT study are therefore promising, initially showing an approach to automation in driving systems that’s more careful than other areas.
“The two main results of this work are that (1) drivers elect to use Autopilot for a significant percent of their driven miles and (2) drivers do not appear to over-trust the system to a degree that results in significant functional vigilance degradation in their supervisory role of system operation,” the MIT scientists concluded.
The study further notes that more research will be needed as more data becomes available and more familiarity grows with Autopilot’s features.
Tesla has received a fair amount of criticism and attention whenever an accident involves one of its cars, especially if Autopilot was engaged around the time of the event. However, Tesla consistently maintains its position that the feature is not yet fully autonomous and requires drivers to both pay attention and intervene when necessary while Autopilot is in operation. The program is additionally equipped with several alerts which give drivers audio and visual warnings if hands are not detected on the steering wheel, something found to have been ignored in some prior crash events, playing into concerns the MIT study sought to address.
Beginning in Q3 2018, Tesla has been releasing quarterly Vehicle Safety Reports providing updated numbers for vehicle incidents occurring both when Autopilot was engaged and when the driver-assist feature was deactivated. For Q3, the company reported one accident or crash-like event for every 3.34 million miles driven with Autopilot active and one event for every 1.92 million miles driven with Autopilot disengaged. In Q4 2018, those numbers dropped slightly, possibly due to winter conditions, to one accident for every 2.91 million miles driven with Autopilot engaged and one accident for every 1.58 million miles driven without.
By comparison, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) most recent data at the time showed a crash event every 436,000 miles, a figure which includes all vehicles in the US whether or not the cars are equipped with driving enhancement software. Tesla’s numbers further include both accidents that have occurred and “near-misses”, and the NHTSA’s figures only include accidents that actually transpired.
Along with touting a correlation between lower accident rates and Autopilot being engaged, Tesla also maintains its title of producing the safest cars in the world based on NHTSA test results.
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
