News
Tesla Model 3 earns ‘Superior’ front crash prevention rating by IIHS in safety test
The Tesla Model 3 has attained a “Superior” front crash avoidance rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit organization funded by auto insurers dedicated to reducing the number of accidents and injuries on the road. The Model 3’s headlights were also given an “Acceptable” rating, due to some glare from the vehicle’s low beams.
The IIHS’s front crash avoidance ratings for the Model 3 are only part of the vehicle’s safety results. The IIHS conducts its full evaluation on several vehicle samples, some of which would be destroyed due to crash tests.
The Model 3 has managed to earn a “Superior” score for front crash prevention in the crash avoidance and mitigation category. The IIHS evaluates the automatic braking functions of vehicles in two tests — one at 12 mph and the other at 25 mph — on its Vehicle Research Center. As noted on the nonprofit’s website, the IIHS awards points based on how emergency systems can slow a vehicle down before coming into contact with an object — in this case, an inflatable car dummy.
The Tesla Model 3 was granted a perfect score, earning points for its Forward Collision Warning, its low-speed autobrake, and its high-speed autobrake systems. During its 12 mph collision avoidance test, the Model 3 was able to reduce its speed by more than 10 mph, and in in the 25 mph test, the compact electric car was able to exhibit a speed reduction of over 22 mph.
While the Model 3 earned a perfect rating for front collision avoidance, the electric car’s headlights were only dubbed as “Acceptable” by the IIHS. Headlights are evaluated based on the lamps’ reach as the vehicle travels on straight and curved lines. Low beams are measured on five approaches — straightaways, left and right curves on an 800-foot radius, and sharp left and right curves on a 500-foot radius.
As noted by the IIHS, low beams are weighted more heavily than high beams because they are used more often during driving. During the tests, the Model 3’s low beams exhibited a 15.2% glare during straightaways, preventing the vehicle from earning a “Good” score from the IIHS.
Overall, the vehicle’s scores in the forward collision avoidance tests are encouraging, and the less-than-perfect headlights score is understandable. The IIHS, after all, is the organization that dubbed the Model S’ headlights as “Poor.” The 2018 Chevy Bolt EV, a car with bright headlights, was also given a “Poor” headlights rating.
Tesla’s electric cars are among the safest vehicles on the road. Thanks to their construction from a hybrid of aluminum and ultra-high strength steel and the vehicle’s all-electric design, Teslas have generous crush zones that protect drivers and passengers in the event of a collision. Back in February, this was showcased when a Model 3 crashed while traveling at 60 mph. During the incident, the compact electric car was completely totaled, but its driver was able to walk away with only a swollen ankle.
The Model S and Model X are equally safe as well. The electric SUV, for one, has a perfect 5-star safety rating in every category of the NHTSA. The Model S also performed so well during crash testing back in 2013; it quite literally broke the NHTSA’s crash-testing gear.
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
