Tesla Autopilot verdict sends a chill across the industry

• With partially automated features like adaptive cruise control and hands-free driving becoming common in more cars — not just Teslas — the opportunities for confusion and risk are multiplying.

Catch up quick: A Miami jury decided Aug. 1 that Elon Musk's car company was partly responsible for the crash that killed a woman and injured her boyfriend on a dark road in 2019.

• The driver admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before the crash, but he had put faith in Tesla's assisted-driving system.
• "I trusted the technology too much," George McGee testified. "I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes."
• That didn't happen, and his vehicle slammed into the couple's parked car at more than 60 miles per hour.
• Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Tesla misled customers about Autopilot's capabilities and didn't restrict drivers from using the system on roads it wasn't designed to handle.

The verdict follows years of federal investigations and recalls related to Tesla's autonomous vehicle technology.

• And it's a blow to Musk, who is betting the future on self-driving technology as demand for Tesla's aging lineup of EVs has cooled.
• Just this week in Texas, shareholders sued Tesla and Musk for securities fraud, accusing them of concealing potential safety risks associated with the company's self-driving vehicles.

To be fair, Tesla's assisted-driving technology today is vastly improved from 2019's Autopilot, and it continues to make updates, as Musk noted Wednesday on his social media platform X.

What they're saying: The decision "is wrong," Tesla said in a statement, "and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology." Tesla plans to appeal.

Reality check: Regardless of the manufacturer, there's little evidence that partial automation systems prevent collisions or save lives, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found.

• In fact, automation can create new risks by making it easier for the driver's attention to wander.

Between the lines: Some crash avoidance features, like automatic emergency braking, blind-spot warning and lane departure prevention, have proven safety benefits (although AEB is less effective at high speeds and at night).

• But automated technologies like adaptive cruise control or hands-free highway systems are conveniences — not safety features — that are meant to reduce the driving burden.
• Yet drivers who use partial automation on a regular basis often treat their vehicles as fully self-driving despite widespread warnings and numerous high-profile crash reports, IIHS research showed.
• "People have this assumption that more automotive sophistication means greater safety. But that's not a guarantee whatsoever," IIHS researcher Alexandra Mueller tells Axios.
• "Companies have to explicitly design those systems to be safe, otherwise you have convenience without safety, and as we've seen, that often comes at a great cost."

Zoom in: IIHS recently established minimum safety standards for partial automation systems and issued its first set of ratings on some of the leading technologies available.

• The ratings evaluate everything from driver monitoring to emergency procedures.
• Almost all automakers scored "marginal" or "poor" ratings. Lexus was the only brand to earn an "acceptable" rating. None earned a "good" rating, the highest available.

What to watch: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said this week it is launching a study of driver monitoring systems, which safety advocates welcomed as a step in the right direction.

• "Right now, there are no regulations at all around this technology — no requirements for driver monitoring or to prevent driver disengagement," says Michael Brooks, executive director for the Center for Auto Safety.