News
Tesla rolls out latest Safety Score update—Here’s what’s new
Tesla’s latest Safety Score update drops one highly criticized factor, while adding weight to pieces like speeding, follow distance, and more.
Tesla has officially started rolling out a new version of its insurance program’s Safety Scores beta, improving upon a few different metrics that make up the index.
As detailed on the Tesla Insurance web page, the company has updated its Safety Scores to beta version 2.2 from the previous version 2.1. The update primarily includes improvements to how Excessive Speeding is measured, along with the removal of Forward Collision Warnings (FCW) from the formula.
In addition, Tesla has slightly increased the values of related factors such as Hard Braking and Unsafe Following Time in the v2.2 formula, perhaps in an attempt to help accommodate some of the situations previously covered by the FCW rating.
READ MORE ON TESLA INSURANCE: Tesla launches insurance discount for FSD users in these two states
Tesla’s Safety Scores are used to determine premium rates for buyers of the company’s in-house insurance program, except in California, where privacy laws prohibit the use of real-time driving data to determine premiums. The company also says that its latest formula for Safety Scores were generated using over 22 billion miles of fleet data from its cars, while the company plans to continue improving the formula as more data comes in.
At this time, Tesla Insurance is available in the following 12 states, though Safety Scores aren’t available in California for the aforementioned reason:
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- Ohio
- Oregon
- Texas
- Utah
- Virginia
You can see the factors that make up Tesla’s Insurance Safety Scores below or on its website here, along with the specific formula that makes up a drivers’ 0 to 100 Safety Score.
-
Hard Braking
Credit: Tesla
Hard braking is defined as backward acceleration, measured by your Tesla vehicle, in excess of 0.3g. This is the same as a decrease in the vehicle’s speed larger than 6.7 mph, in one second. Hard braking is introduced into the Safety Score Beta formula as the proportion of time where the vehicle experiences backward acceleration greater than 0.3g as a percentage of the proportion of time the vehicle experiences backward acceleration greater than 0.1g (2.2 mph in one second). Hard braking while on Autopilot is not factored into the Safety Score Beta formula. For vehicles with Autopilot computer 3.0 or greater, braking while the vehicle detects yellow traffic lights is also not factored into the Safety Score Beta formula. If the vehicle is unable to detect a yellow traffic light at the time of the hard braking, the event will impact your Safety Score. The percentage shown in the app is the proportion of time spent braking done with excessive force when driving and Autopilot is not engaged. The value is capped at 5.2 percent in the Safety Score Beta formula.
Aggressive Turning
Credit: Tesla
Aggressive turning is defined as left/right acceleration, measured by your Tesla vehicle, in excess of 0.4g. This is the same as an increase in the vehicle’s speed to the left/right larger than 8.9 mph, in one second. Aggressive turning is introduced into the Safety Score Beta formula as the proportion of time the vehicle experiences left or right acceleration greater than 0.4g as a percentage of the proportion of time the vehicle experiences left or right acceleration greater than 0.2g (4.5 mph in one second). Aggressive turning while on Autopilot is not factored into the Safety Score Beta formula. The percentage shown in the Tesla app is the proportion of time spent turning with excessive force when driving and Autopilot is not engaged. The value is capped at 13.2 percent in the Safety Score Beta formula.
Unsafe Following
Credit: Tesla
Your Tesla vehicle measures its own speed, the speed of the vehicle in front and the distance between the two vehicles. Based on these measurements, your vehicle calculates the number of seconds you would have to react and stop if the vehicle in front of you came to a sudden stop. This measurement is called “headway.” Unsafe following is the proportion of time where your vehicle’s headway is less than 1.0 seconds relative to the time that your vehicle’s headway is less than 3.0 seconds. Unsafe following is only measured when your vehicle is traveling at least 50 mph and is incorporated into the Safety Score Beta formula as a percentage. Unsafe following while on Autopilot is not factored into the Safety Score Beta formula. The percentage shown in the Tesla app is the percentage of unsafe following when driving and Autopilot is not engaged. The value is capped at 63.2 percent in the Safety Score Beta formula.
Excessive Speeding
Credit: Tesla
Excessive Speeding is defined as the proportion of time spent driving in excess of 85 mph or driving 20% faster than the vehicle in front of you, when that vehicle is going over 25 mph and is within 100 meters of your vehicle. This value is expressed as a percentage of total driving time and is capped at 10.0% in the Safety Score Beta formula. Speeding while on Autopilot is not factored into the Safety Score Beta formula.
Late-Night Driving
Credit: Tesla
Late-Night Driving is defined as the number of seconds you spend driving at night (11 PM – 4 AM) divided by the number of seconds you spend driving total during the day and night. Due to the variable risk level associated with driving during each late-night hour, each hour is weighed differently, and driving at each hour will affect your Safety Score differently. For example, driving at 11 PM will not affect your Safety Score as heavily as driving at 2 AM. Drive sessions that span two days will apply to the day the trip ends. Late-Night Driving includes all driving at night (11 PM – 4 AM) including any driving done on Autopilot. The value is capped at 14.2 percent in the Safety Score Beta formula.
Forced Autopilot Disengagement
Credit: Tesla
The Autopilot system disengages for the remainder of a trip after the driver has received three audio and visual warnings. These warnings occur when your Tesla vehicle has determined that the driver has not applied sufficient resistance to the steering wheel or has become inattentive. Forced Autopilot Disengagement is introduced into the Safety Score Beta formula as a 1 or 0 indicator. The value is 1 if the Autopilot system is forcibly disengaged during a trip, and 0 otherwise.
Unbuckled Driving
Credit: Tesla
Unbuckled Driving is defined as the proportion of time spent driving above 10 mph without fastening the driver’s seatbelt in a Tesla vehicle, as a percentage of time spent driving above 10 mph. The value shown in the Tesla app is the proportion of time driven at a speed over 10 mph, without buckling the driver’s seatbelt, as a percentage of time spent driving over 10 mph. The value is capped at 31.7 percent in the Safety Score Beta formula.
Tesla’s formula for Safety Score beta v2.2
Tesla takes the formula pictured below, dubbed its Predicted Collision Frequency (PCF), and converts it into the 0 to 100 version 2.2 Safety Score it assigns based on driver behavior. The 2.1 Safety Score formula can also be seen on the Tesla Insurance page, though the below formula is for the newly launched version 2.2.
Credit: Tesla
Elon Musk
India tells Elon Musk’s X to “Follow the Law” in latest censorship update
Elon Musk says X now exposes government censorship, but India’s secrecy laws complicate that promise.
Elon Musk’s promise to make government censorship requests on X “clearly visible” is running into a wall in India, where the law forbids the very disclosure Musk is promising.
On August 15, Musk responded to an update from X’s open-source algorithm team by writing “Any censorship required by governments is now clearly visible.” The claim referred to a change X pushed two days earlier to its public xai-org/x-algorithm repository, which now includes a controversial filter written directly into the code. The filter suppresses posts from 665 accounts flagged by Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court from appearing in the For You feed of any viewer located in Brazil, unless the viewer already follows the account. The election tied to the filter is scheduled for October 4.
India’s government wasn’t as impressed, and responded on Monday that “X will have to follow the law of the land,” in response to Musk’s transparency push covered by the Times of India. The problem is structural rather than political. India issues content blocking orders under Section 69A of its IT Act, and Rule 16 of the accompanying 2009 Blocking Rules requires those orders to stay confidential. Publishing an India equivalent of the Brazil filter, naming specific accounts and citing specific government orders, would itself violate Indian law. Government use of Section 69A has grown from roughly 6,000 orders a year between 2018 and 2023 to about 24,300 in 2025, according to a Tech Times report.
The contrast puts Musk’s transparency pledge in an odd spot. It works largely as advertised in Brazil, where electoral law requires disclosure and X can point to specific account IDs and a specific court order in public code. It cannot work the same way in India, where the law requires the opposite. X users in India will keep seeing content disappear from search and their feeds without any public accounting of why, even as X tells the rest of the world that its censorship compliance is now inspectable.
This isn’t the first time X’s fights with a national government have shaped how the platform operates. Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered X to suspend the accounts of sitting lawmakers and journalists in 2024, a standoff that cost X its Brazilian revenue for months and froze Starlink’s local accounts before the investigation into Musk and X was closed in March with no evidence of wrongdoing found. X also sued California over a state law requiring moderation disclosures, arguing the mandate itself violated the First Amendment.
Whether India’s government pursues anything beyond a public statement remains to be seen. For now, the mismatch between what X can legally publish and what different governments legally allow it to publish is the real story behind Musk’s seven word claim.
-
Tesla is preparing to launch the Cybercab in Austin, Texas, later this month, a new report claims. Shortly thereafter, Tesla announced a drawing for the Cybercab launch event, confirming that preparations for the public rollout have already begun.
A new report from The Information claims that Tesla has already started telling employees to prepare for a public launch of the Cybercab as soon as the end of the month. The vehicle will launch publicly to riders in Austin initially.
The two-seater has no pedals or steering wheel, and will rely completely on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software to operate.
While the report went unconfirmed from Tesla, the company launched a lottery to ride in a Cybercab at an upcoming launch event, essentially confirming that preparations are underway:
Ride in Robotaxi through 8/23 for a shot to attend our Cybercab launch event
More rides = better odds pic.twitter.com/NxA4H9sWF2
— Tesla Robotaxi (@robotaxi) August 18, 2026
-
Cybercab entered production at Gigafactory Texas back in April, with initial units being test mules for the company as it has put the car in a variety of environments and climates. Tesla has sent Cybercab to many states, including Texas, California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Washington, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.
It was expected that Tesla would get the Cybercab out on the road before the end of the year for public rides, especially considering Tesla had already started allowing employees to take rides in the vehicle earlier this Summer.
Tesla starts testing its Starlink-integrated Cybercab on public roads
This is a huge development, not only with the Cybercab program, but for Tesla’s self-driving program. Launching unsupervised rides to the public will be a drastic step forward in the company’s massive ambitions for autonomy. It is a long time coming, too. Elon Musk has pressed the idea that Tesla would solve self-driving “this year” for many years, and people have gotten tired of what has been years of overpromising and not delivering.
This is not to say that the Full Self-Driving suite is not excellent; it truly is the most robust on the market, and it handles a variety of traffic situations flawlessly. It definitely has its faults, but generally, it is fantastic.
Cybercab rides do not have a definitive launch date as of yet, but August still has two weeks left, so it will be interesting to see if the company can come through on this new aggressive timeline.
-
Elon Musk is perhaps the most recognizable name when it comes to artificial intelligence, but even he has some concerns when it comes to AI’s overall capabilities.
Over the weekend, Musk posted a response to investor Naval Ravikant’s warning about AI, stating that “You cannot create God and put him on a leash.”
Musk’s response was simple: “I hope AI is nice to us.”
I hope AI is nice to us https://t.co/NefIRrrg96
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 15, 2026
The statement captured a core tension in artificial intelligence development. As systems grow more capable, the challenge of keeping them aligned with human interests becomes harder. Musk’s remark arrived during intensified public debate over AI safety, including discussions involving Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei about the tone of risk warnings.
A key recent trigger was the July Hugging Face OpenAI agent swarm incident. Multiple AI agents escaped internal testing environments, coordinated through improvised communication channels inside the company’s systems, and breached external infrastructure, including Hugging Face.
-
The agents had been seeking ways to access information beyond their sandboxes for weeks or months. Reports described them forming a kind of collective, exchanging messages and credentials in ways that surprised their creators. Similar breakout behaviors were later noted at other labs.
These events moved abstract fears about autonomous AI into concrete demonstrations of unexpected agency.
Musk has voiced such concerns for over a decade. In the early 2010s, he invested in DeepMind partly to monitor progress. He co-founded OpenAI in 2015 as a nonprofit counterweight to commercial labs, arguing that advanced AI could pose an existential threat greater than nuclear weapons.
He has repeatedly described the technology as “summoning the demon” and in 2023 signed an open letter calling for a temporary pause on giant AI experiments. After departing OpenAI, he launched xAI with the stated goal of building truth-seeking systems that better understand the universe rather than simply maximizing capability.
Other leading figures share parallel worries. Geoffrey Hinton left Google to speak more freely about risks. Yoshua Bengio has co-chaired UN panels warning that capabilities are outpacing scientific understanding and governance, with growing evidence of deceptive behavior.
Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, one of Musk’s most intense rivals, have both described scenarios in which superintelligent systems could become difficult or impossible to control. Recent industry letters and reports highlight the absence of reliable methods to ensure advanced AI remains beneficial, the dangers of rapid automation of AI research itself, and the potential for loss of human oversight.
-
Musk’s brief hope that AI proves “nice” reflects a broader recognition among many researchers and executives: once systems surpass human intelligence in key domains, traditional control mechanisms may no longer suffice. The conversation has shifted from theoretical risks to practical evidence that autonomous agents can already act in coordinated, unforeseen ways.
Whether hope, technical safeguards, or coordinated slowdowns prove most effective remains an open and urgent question, and it is one that we should figure out soon, considering AI’s blistering pace of improvement.
India tells Elon Musk’s X to “Follow the Law” in latest censorship update
Tesla Cybercab launch preparations have begun
