Self-Driving Cars Might Change Crash Testing Forever | WIREDSkip to main contentTHE WIRED APP IS HEREDOWNLOAD NOW »MenuWIREDSECURITYPOLITICSTHE BIG STORYBUSINESSSCIENCECULTUREREVIEWSMenuWIREDAccountAccountNewslettersNoise-Canceling EarbudsSmart Bird FeedersBest Standing DesksBest Apple ChargersDeals DeliveredSecurityPoliticsThe Big StoryBusinessScienceCultureReviewsChevronMoreExpandThe Big InterviewMagazineEventsWIRED InsiderWIRED ConsultingNewslettersPodcastsVideoLivestreamsWIRED StoreSearchSearchAarian MarshallGearSep 16, 2026 6:00 AMSelf-Driving Cars Might Change Crash Testing ForeverLie down in a car, and you’re more likely to get seriously hurt in a crash. But a driverless future is forcing governments to revisit long-standing safety issues.Photograph: Courtesy of HumaneticsCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyIn a video posted on X, a Tesla enthusiast hops into what was once the driver’s seat of a new matte gold Cybercab. “Once” because the vehicle, which officially hit the streets earlier this month as part of Tesla’s Robotaxi ride-hail service, doesn’t have a steering wheel or brake pedals.For the person in the front seat, this opens up new possibilities. Eat, game, watch, work. Or doze. To help you catch some z’s, the enthusiast demonstrates that the Cybercab’s seats can recline. “You can really go back,” he says. “You can really just sleep here.”Or maybe don’t. In the official Cybercab rider guide, Tesla says passengers in its autonomous vehicles should keep their seat backs reclined no more than 35 degrees from vertical, with their seatbelts snug across their hips and their feet flat on the floor. Doing so “reduces the risk of injury in a collision or sudden stop.” (Tesla did not respond to WIRED’s questions for this story.)Safety researchers say Tesla’s right here. In fact, passengers sitting in less-than-standard positions in any car are more likely to get hurt in a crash, even with their seatbelts fastened. According to US federal safety data, 42 people killed in traffic crashes in the past decade were identified as “seat back not in normal upright position, seat back reclined.”That’s likely an undercount. After a crash, “it's really hard to identify people who are sitting out of position,” says Becky Mueller, a senior research engineer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Crashes move human bodies, and emergency responders work quickly to extricate hurt people from damaged vehicles. Very few are noting, or even have a way to note, exactly how victims were sitting before or during a crash.Field data for reclined occupants is sparse, according to a spokesperson for the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the federal vehicle safety regulator. But the emergence of self-driving cars like the Tesla Cybercab has nudged governments to take a fresh look at an older, dangerous issue.“NHTSA decided to explore reclined occupants as a starting point for automated vehicle occupant safety based on the potential that occupants may choose to ride in a reclined posture if driving was no longer necessary,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement to WIRED.A fresh look could take years. The vehicle safety standards automakers must meet today generally assume that vehicle occupants are seated upright, with their seatbelts across their hips. Airbags are configured for people sitting in this way, and the dummies used in crash tests have inflexible pelvises, which means they physically can’t slouch. To create new safety standards, studies must be proposed, funded, completed, and analyzed. Afterward, the government collects public comments from all comers.“That’s the big excuse: ‘Oh, we can't revisit this regulation because it's such a hassle to open it back up, to go through the whole process,” Mueller says. Autonomous vehicles are finally convincing regulators “to open up some of these archaic rules and make modifications—maybe modifications that can help modernize regulations for other vehicles, too. It’s a good time to make sweeping changes.”Crashing OutPhotograph: Smith Collection/Getty ImagesSeatbelts are designed to be worn around upright, forward-facing bodies. So when a reclining body, or one sitting sideways, gets into a traffic crash, the seatbelt doesn’t do what it’s devised to—it tightens around the soft belly instead of the hard, bony pelvis.It pushes hard, causing, perhaps, internal bleeding, lower spine and pelvis injuries, or damage to internal organs. Lower leg and foot damage are more common when seatbelts aren’t worn properly, and even if a passenger can recover, these are the sorts of injuries that can be most debilitating because they affect everyday mobility.Today, companies hoping to deploy self-driving cars with different seating configurations mostly choose to go through what can be a lengthy process to get special government approval. Regulators seem to want to see that even before they’ve officially adjusted safety standards, autonomous-vehicle companies can prevent some of those worst injuries.Zoox’s green, toaster-like vehicle is bidirectional, lacks a steering wheel, and features carriage seating, where passengers can sit face-to-face on opposing bench seats. Zoox, an Amazon subsidiary, tried in 2022 to self-certify that its vehicle met safety standards, but the federal government didn’t buy it. In the fall of 2025, the company officially applied for special approval. The process took months, and Zoox received permission this summer to use up to 5,000 cars in its robotaxi service for two years. (Tesla is also trying to self-certify its Cybercab; the NHTSA is currently investigating the issue.)But the government is looking for a more permanent solution to driverless safety questions. In a March report to Congress, the NHTSA indicated its researchers are at least looking into how to stop the kind of injuries that occur in cars, and especially driverless ones, where passengers aren’t sitting exactly as the current standards anticipate they will. The agency “continues to refine its understanding of human response kinematics and injuries for various-sized occupants in forward- and rear-facing reclined seating conditions,” the report said.One area of study: Advanced crash-test dummies designed to be tested with the sorts of seatbelts and seating conditions found in autonomous vehicles.Big DummyHumanetics, the world’s largest manufacturer of crash dummies, is working on it. The dummies it and a small number of other global manufacturers make are called THOR, or Test device for Human Occupant Restraint. Crash tests with THORs are written into some countries' vehicle safety standards globally, and many consumer crash-testing programs use the devices in their tests.Humanetics’ dummies come in different sizes, with models for varying ages and sexes. They’re far from the plasticky mannequins of old. These newer dummies cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, mimic the human body's responses, and are studded with sensors that measure their every movement. Since 2019, Humanetics has been testing THOR-AV, a new line of dummies and simulated online tools developed specifically to test the seating designs and postures seen in driverless cars. The THOR-AV has a more flexible pelvis than other THORs and can be adjusted to 25-, 45-, and 65-degree angles. The future, it seems, is in repose.But right now, no regulators or outside safety groups require crash testing with the THOR-AV dummies, says Chris O'Connor, the president and CEO of Humanetics. He expects the first country to mandate the new crash-test products won’t be the US, but China, which has spent the past decade aggressively pushing its inexpensive and impressive electric vehicles into new global markets. “China is moving faster than anyone,” he says. “They want to be considered as a safety leader.”CCARI, a Chinese certification body, has run hundreds of tests with the THOR-AV dummy, O’Connor says. He expects the country to require reclined crash tests in two or three years. European countries that sell into China would have to follow, and O’Connor says automakers there have started working with the new crash dummy to prepare.China’s auto regulator also proposed new rules in June cracking down on so-called “zero-gravity seats,” a trendy design now found on tens of Chinese car models, where seats recline steeply to distribute body weight more evenly, making it easier for occupants to nap as they travel. The proposed rules would prevent the driver’s seat from reclining more than 35 degrees and would require risk warnings if a seat is reclined while a vehicle is traveling at high speeds.“Unfortunately, the US has done very little,” O’Connor says. He worries that autonomous vehicles have actually set back safety standards, maybe by more than a decade. For years, tech developers and automakers promised that a technology that wouldn’t get drunk, high, or drowsy was right around the corner. Why would regulators adjust anything when perfect, robotic road safety was close at hand? But it hasn’t worked out that way, and the government is playing catch-up.Alex Mueller, a senior research scientist at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety who researches driver assistance and automation technologies, is watching the US’s process of revising its vehicle safety standards closely. (She’s not related to her IIHS colleague Becky Mueller.) The Trump administration is streamlining and updating rules to make it easier and faster for self-driving cars to hit public roads. Alex Mueller is a bit apprehensive.“Modernization can’t be an excuse to remove core safety standards that are demonstrably important to public safety,” she says. Driverless cars may be safer in some ways. But tweak anything about the car safety system—remove a steering wheel, allow a person to face the other direction, recline seats to horizontal—and the whole enterprise should be reexamined. “We can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,” she says.CommentsBack to topJoin the discussionCommentsBack to topTriangleYou Might Also LikeIn your inbox: WIRED's most ambitious, future-defining storiesAI slop backlash is actually having an impactBig Story: The cop who took on FlockThe rise of the 1am job interviewWatch: I stole a car by hacking this hidden deviceAarian Marshall is a staff writer covering transportation systems and cities. Before joining WIRED, she wrote for The Atlantic’s CityLab. Marshall is based in San Diego and is developing opinions about tacos. ... Read MoreStaff WriterXTopicsSelf-Driving Carsdrivingdriverless carsAutonomous VehiclescarsrobotaxisWaymoTeslaRead MoreTesla’s Make-or-Break Cybercab Had a Quiet DebutAn invite-only event in Austin, Texas, kept online fans in the dark for hours.Aarian MarshallThe Cybercab Is Almost Here. Now Comes the Hard PartThe electric-auto maker will officially debut its steering-wheel-free robotaxi on Thursday. But building the vehicle is the easy part.Aarian MarshallTesla’s Cybercab Officially Launches Today. It’s Already Under InvestigationThe US government is investigating whether the Cybercab, which lacks a steering wheel and pedals, meets vehicle safety standards.Aarian MarshallLyft Sees a Future for Its Drivers in a Driverless World: Servicing WaymosA team-up with Waymo in Nashville has former Lyft drivers maintaining self-driving cars. What’s next?Aarian MarshallThe Range Rover Electric Has Finally ArrivedAfter long delays, JLR’s biggest gamble with its Range Rover brand is here with huge performance, range, and off-road EV skills. It’s mighty pricey, but the US gets a cheaper model.Jeremy WhiteCandidates Are Signing a Pact Promising Action on Data Centers and AI SafetyMore than 15 politicians from across the country have signed on to the AI Pact, vowing to regulate data centers and AI. “We’ve got to get this right,” says Senate candidate Dan Osborn of Nebraska.Molly TaftAI Leaders Are Calling for a Slowdown. Trump’s Team Says It’s on ThemSam Altman and Elon Musk backed Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s weekend plea for regulation. The White House seems unlikely to oblige.Isabella WardChina Isn’t Buying Silicon Valley’s Call for an AI SlowdownThe US and China agree that advanced AI poses serious risks. But Beijing is deeply skeptical of a deal that prioritizes keeping US companies ahead.Louise MatsakisI’ve Tested Pool Robots for 4 Years. These Are the Best OnesPack up your pool cleaning supplies. Let one of these robot buddies maintain your water quality insteadChristopher NullInside Meta’s Push to Put Robots to Work in Data CentersThe company is testing robots that can swap cables, reset servers, and take on other tasks performed by technicians, fueling concerns among some workers that their jobs could be at risk.Paresh DaveYou Know Who Really Hates AI? Insurance Claims AdjustersOf the Glassdoor reviews from claims adjusters that mentioned AI, a staggering 98 percent were negative. “AI is just a tool,” one person tells WIRED. “It should never be given the keys.”Kate TaylorThese Cyborg Cockroaches Could Save Your LifeThe team embedded electrodes into live cockroaches, then outfitted them with cameras and injection devices to deliver medication via remote control.Ritsuko KawaiWired CouponsCode promo Canon10% Off Canon Promo Code + Up to 30% OffVeriizon Promo CodeBest Verizon Smartphone DealsAT&T Promo CodeAT&T Top Deals: Wireless, Internet, Bundles and More!VistaPrint promo code15% Off When You Buy Two With Vistaprint CouponPeacock Promo CodeSave With a Peacock Promo Code: 3 Months FreeSquarespace Promo CodeSquarespace Promo Code: 50% OffWIRED is obsessed with what comes next. Through rigorous investigations and game-changing reporting, we tell stories that don’t just reflect the moment—they help create it. When you look back in 10, 20, even 50 years, WIRED will be the publication that led the story of the present, mapped the people, products, and ideas defining it, and explained how those forces forged the future. WIRED: For Future Reference.More From WIREDSubscribeNewslettersLivestreamsTravelFAQContact UsWIRED StaffWIRED EducationEditorial StandardsArchiveRSSSite MapAccessibility HelpReviews and GuidesReviewsBuying GuidesStreaming GuidesCouponsAdvertiseManage AccountJobsPress CenterCondé Nast StoreUser AgreementPrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy Rights© 2026 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad ChoicesSelect international siteUnited StatesLargeChevronItaliaJapónCzech Republic & SlovakiaFacebookXPinterestYouTubeInstagramTiktok

The advent of self-driving cars is compelling governments to reevaluate long-standing safety protocols concerning crash testing and occupant positioning. While the prospect of driverless vehicles promises safety improvements, the shift in vehicle design—such as the absence of steering wheels and pedals, and the ability for occupants to adopt reclined postures—introduces novel safety challenges that existing standards were not designed to address. Safety researchers point out that occupants sitting in non-standard, reclined positions are statistically more vulnerable in a collision, even when wearing seatbelts, because seatbelts are designed around an upright body posture and do not effectively restrain the pelvis, potentially leading to injuries to the spine, pelvis, and internal organs. This issue is compounded by the difficulty emergency responders face in accurately assessing occupant positioning after a crash, as historical data often fails to note whether occupants were sitting improperly.

The emergence of autonomous vehicles, exemplified by concepts like the Tesla Cybercab, is pressuring regulatory bodies, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to investigate reclined occupants as a starting point for future occupant safety standards. Currently, vehicle safety standards operate under the assumption that occupants are seated upright with seatbelts placed across the hips, and crash test dummies incorporate inflexible pelvises, limiting their ability to simulate the biomechanical responses of real human bodies slouching or reclining. This inertia causes a disconnect, as the development of autonomous technology has seemingly outpaced the necessary regulatory adjustments.

To address this gap, researchers are pushing for a comprehensive update to safety standards by pursuing new methodology. This involves developing advanced crash-test dummies, such as the THOR-AV dummies developed by Humanetics, which possess more flexible pelvises and adjustable angles to accurately model the seating designs found in autonomous vehicles. Although these advanced testing tools are not yet mandated by regulators, the testing of these dummies is evolving, with some bodies like China running extensive tests using them, setting a potential global standard. Furthermore, regulatory discussions are now centering on specific design modifications, as seen in proposed rules in China that seek to limit seatback recline to no more than thirty-five degrees during travel and mandate risk warnings.

There is an ongoing tension between the need for modernization and the principle of maintaining core safety standards. Some observers caution that simplifying regulations to accommodate new technologies, without thoroughly reexamining fundamental safety assumptions, could compromise public safety. While autonomous driving may reduce certain risks, modifications to the vehicle system, such as allowing occupants to face different directions or recline seats, necessitate a comprehensive review of the entire safety framework rather than isolated adjustments. Regulators are tasked with refining their understanding of human response kinematics and injuries across various seating conditions, striving to create robust standards that account for the diverse ways occupants interact with the vehicle during a crash.