Teen Fails Driving Test Over Tesla’s Tech, Not His Skills

Introduction: Technology or Trickery? The Growing Debate Over Smart Cars and Driving Exams

In an age where smart vehicles are becoming more common, questions are rising about how their advanced features align—or clash—with traditional driving test protocols. A recent incident in New Jersey has spotlighted this issue. A high school junior was failed not for bad driving, but because his car—a Tesla Model Y—allegedly “helped” him too much during the exam. This strange event raises bigger questions about fairness, regulation, and whether driving tests are keeping pace with the rapid evolution of automotive technology.

the Original Story

In Cherry Hill, New Jersey, high school student Lochlan Keefer failed his driving test under unusual circumstances. It wasn’t his skills behind the wheel that cost him, but rather the car he used—a Tesla Model Y. The examiner claimed that Keefer relied on the vehicle’s driver-assistance features, particularly regenerative braking and potential parking-assist, during the test. According to NJ.com, the testing sheet read: “Had the parking and stopping assistance on, never stepped on the brake to stop his self, let the vehicle stop itself.”

Lochlan’s father, James Keefer, disputed this claim, insisting they do not subscribe to Tesla’s paid parking-assist features and that his son parallel parked manually. He explained that while regenerative braking was active, his son offered to disable it but was told it wasn’t necessary. After the test, the examiner claimed the use of this feature created an unfair advantage. As a result, the student was told to wait 14 days before retaking the exam—this time with the system disabled. The decision was backed by a supervisor, whom Keefer described as “belligerent and unprofessional.”

Interestingly, when Lochlan later took the test in Delanco, New Jersey—with the regenerative braking still enabled—he passed without issue. The examiner in Delanco had no problem with the feature, suggesting inconsistent interpretations of what’s allowed or disallowed during the exam. The Keefer family noted that they were not shown any official policy that prohibits regenerative braking during driving tests.

What Undercode Say: A System That’s Not Ready for the Future

This story exposes a deeper flaw in how driving tests are conducted in the age of intelligent vehicles. While the examiner’s intent may have been to ensure a level playing field, the incident reveals troubling inconsistencies in policy enforcement. Regenerative braking—standard in many electric vehicles (EVs)—is not an autopilot feature. It’s a passive energy-saving system that helps slow the car down and recharge the battery. Equating that to active driver assistance is a misunderstanding of basic EV functions.

The crux of the issue is not the Tesla’s technology, but the system’s outdated framework. Examiners and state motor vehicle departments are clearly unprepared to deal with the nuances of electric and semi-autonomous vehicles. Without formalized and updated policies, such decisions are left to subjective interpretation. This opens the door to arbitrary outcomes, like what Lochlan experienced.

Even more telling is the outcome of the second test in Delanco. The same vehicle, same driver, and same feature—yet a completely different verdict. That inconsistency undermines the credibility of the driving test system. If one examiner passes you and another fails you over the same non-issue, then the system isn’t functioning fairly.

Moreover, the claim that regenerative braking gives an unfair advantage is questionable. Most modern EVs, from Nissan Leafs to Kia EV6s, have this feature. Will we start banning entire classes of cars from driving tests? That seems both unrealistic and discriminatory.

The lack of transparency about official policies is another red flag. The Keefers were never shown any documented rule that would justify the fail. This suggests policy may be either unwritten or inconsistently applied, which opens the door to bias and misjudgment.

Also troubling is the instructor’s reported attitude. A belligerent tone and lack of professionalism from public officials erode trust in public institutions. It’s not just about the driving test—it’s about how public servants treat the people they’re supposed to serve.

As we move into a future where smart vehicles become the norm, testing systems must evolve. That includes training examiners on the distinctions between passive and active tech features, updating policies accordingly, and ensuring transparency for all involved.

This story isn’t about a spoiled teen or a pushy parent. It’s about how a rigid, outdated system struggles to adapt to modern technology—and how that struggle can unfairly penalize people who follow the rules but get caught in the cracks of progress.

🔍 Fact Checker Results

✅ Regenerative braking is a standard EV feature — not exclusive to Tesla nor considered an active driver-assistance tool.
✅ Tesla’s parking-assist is a paid, optional feature — which the Keefers say they never subscribed to.
❌ No known New Jersey DMV rule explicitly bans regenerative braking during tests — indicating the examiner’s reasoning may lack regulatory backing.

📊 Prediction: More States Will Be Forced to Revamp Driving Test Protocols

As electric and autonomous vehicles become more prevalent, state departments will face increasing pressure to modernize their testing policies. Expect a wave of regulatory updates within the next 2–3 years addressing passive features like regenerative braking, lane assist, and even partial autonomy systems. Clear-cut guidelines will be essential to avoid misinterpretation and ensure fair, uniform testing standards across all regions. The Keefer case could serve as a catalyst for broader reform.