CNET47%

Tesla Can’t Avoid Recall Fix for Cars With Overly Bright Headlights 41%

By Omar Gallaga28%

7/22/2026, 4:52:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Status Quo Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.3% saturation with 111 hits. Analysis detected 700 faulty-reasoning hits from 548 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.6% and a BS Rank of 41% (12,997 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.40% of the article peer group.

Drivers who’ve been blinded by the lights, it’s not just your imagination. 
There are cars on the road with headlights that are so bright they’re illegal. 
Two years after Tesla informed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that low-beam headlights on some Tesla EVs exceed brightness limits, the company’s move to make those headlights street-legal has failed. 
The NHTSA denied Tesla’s petition to avoid a recall, meaning the company will need to issue a fix for nearly 20,000 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles from 2017 to 2023 for a problem the company called “inconsequential. 
” 
A representative for Tesla didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. 
Tesla argued in its petition that because the bright lighting in question falls outside of the field of vision of oncoming drivers, “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 
” 
In its response, NHTSA associate administrator for enforcement Eileen Sullivan wrote, “NHTSA disagrees with Tesla’s conclusion that there is no increased risk of glare for surrounding traffic or the driver of the subject vehicle in any driving conditions. 
” 
The agency argued, citing public comment, that the headlights can still produce glare that could affect other drivers. 
The group referenced similar decision it made in 2022 involving GM Terrain vehicles. 
For Tesla owners, the NHTSA ruling means the company must provide a free fix for the affected cars. 
Additional steps are possible 
The NHTSA isn’t commenting on pending legislation, including its denial of Tesla’s petition, but in an email to CNET, a spokesperson said that the organization is assessing studies about LED-headlamp glare and may take additional steps based on what it finds. 
“Some issues may arise from the inappropriate use of high beams, illegal aftermarket lamps, improperly maintained lamps or misaligned lamps,” the spokesperson wrote. 
Extra-bright headlights are illegal, and devices that don’t comply can be outlawed from sale on platforms like Amazon, while drivers using overbright headlights can face escalating fines, the suspension of their driver’s license or civil liability. 
“Although headlight technology has changed over the years, NHTSA’s lighting standard has remained constant in limiting the amount of glaring light directed toward traffic both coming and going,” the spokesperson said. 
SUVs, which sit taller on the road than sedans, have become the most popular vehicles in the US. 
That, combined with LEDs taking over as the prime technology for headlights, has led more people to notice that high-intensity low beams seem brighter and harder to avoid. 
Some modern cars have benefited from adaptive lighting technologies that can adjust brightness, direction or lighting pattern as driving conditions change, but many cars on the road aren’t equipped with these systems. 
Headlights in the congressional spotlight 
Earlier this year, the US House of Representatives joined the discussion about bright headlights with the introduction of a bill from Rep. 
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from Washington state. 
The LIGHT Safety Act would set maximum allowable brightness limits for low-beam headlamps on vehicles in the US. 
So far, the proposal has only been sent to committee, meaning it’s been assigned to a House panel for initial review, with no further action taken on it since March. 
The bill seeks to revise existing federal standards by establishing a maximum allowable brightness for low beams. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.7%Omar Gallaga: 2.6%CNET: 1.7%Confirmation Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 2.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Omar Gallaga: 4.1%CNET: 2.9%Availability Heuristic8.8%This article: 5.7%Omar Gallaga: 0.9%CNET: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.7%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Omar Gallaga: 5.5%CNET: 4.5%Framing Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.1%Omar Gallaga: 1.4%CNET: 0.5%Status Quo Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%Omar Gallaga: 1.1%CNET: 3.8%Optimism Bias7.5%This article: 5.5%Omar Gallaga: 0.8%CNET: 1.3%Pessimism Bias5.5%This article: 20.3%Omar Gallaga: 6.8%CNET: 3.6%Negativity Bias20.3%This article: 5.8%Omar Gallaga: 2.8%CNET: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 2.8%CNET: 4.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Omar Gallaga: 1.4%CNET: 1.4%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.6%Omar Gallaga: 2.1%CNET: 4.2%Appeal to Authority8.6%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 6.6%Omar Gallaga: 1.0%CNET: 0.5%Slippery Slope6.6%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.6%Omar Gallaga: 1.1%CNET: 4.7%Hasty Generalization2.6%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.5%CNET: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 2.4%CNET: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.5%Omar Gallaga: 1.1%CNET: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.5%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.9%Omar Gallaga: 1.1%CNET: 0.4%Burden of Proof6.9%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.2%Omar Gallaga: 0.7%CNET: 6.3%Anecdotal2.2%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.0%Omar Gallaga: 1.5%CNET: 3.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 5.8%Omar Gallaga: 1.8%CNET: 0.1%Special Pleading5.8%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.5%CNET: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.3%CNET: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Omar Gallaga: 0.0%CNET: 13.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

548 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.1%attributed speech509writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageEileen Sullivan • 38 words • 0.0% coverageEileen Sullivan • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Eileen Sullivan

0%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words100% of attributed speech87% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.