News
Rivian's new 'Guardian Mode' will safely move passengers without any driver present
A new patent submitted by electric car maker Rivian aims to create a safe traveling experience without anyone actually operating the vehicle. This would allow the vehicle to transport individuals who are not fully-competent to operate a vehicle to a destination without having a driver present.
Rivian named the patent “Systems and Methods for Operating an Autonomous Vehicle in a Guardian Mode,” and filed it to the United States Patent Office on June 11, 2019. The patent would create a new mode that could allow a physical driver to not actually be present for the duration of a trip. It would instead give the vehicle’s owner the option to request a ride for someone who is not capable of legally or safely operating the vehicle, like a child or a senior citizen. The company calls this capability “Guardian Mode.”
Using examples like a child needing a ride home from school, Rivian mentions that the development of autonomous vehicles are allowing for safe travel without someone having to be in direct control of the vehicle. However, there is the possibility for someone who is not fully competent to still control the car and make use of the vehicle’s autonomous features to travel, even if they are not legally able to.
Rivian explains this point further in the following section:
“Modem autonomous vehicle technology allows an autonomous vehicle to transport passengers between destinations without being directly controlled by a human driver. Consequently, it is now possible for an autonomous vehicle to transport a user who is not fully competent (e.g., a child user, a senior citizen user, or a mentally challenged user) without a fully competent user being present. However, in such a situation, a user who is not fully competent may misuse the capabilities of the autonomous vehicle while in transit. Such misuse may lead to undesirable situations (e.g., a child requesting to go to a wrong location), or even dangerous situations (e.g., a child opening a door while the car is still in motion, or a child unbuckling a seat belt). Consequently, what is needed is an autonomous vehicle with a mode of operation that is appropriate for transporting users who are not fully competent.”
The new “Guardian Mode” would be activated by initially having a user request a destination for their vehicle. Subsequently, the vehicle would ask the user if it would be operating in “Regular Driving Mode” with a driver present, or in “Guardian Mode” without someone directly operating the vehicle. The car would then decide upon a route of travel based on this selection.
“Guardian Mode” would give the person who is present some freedoms within the vehicle, like radio or music operation, climate control, opening or closing windows, or in some cases, request a destination change. All of these options would be enabled or disabled by the owner of the car. They would input a PIN or passcode that would activate or deactivate each of these settings. The patent also states that the vehicle would be in constant connection with a laptop or smartphone to allow for communication between the vehicle and the owner.
In October, Rivian submitted a different patent for a control system that would customize a user’s ability to control certain functions within the vehicle. This was an attempt to increase the safety of the company’s fully-autonomous platform because they recognized that not everyone should have access to some features of the vehicle.
In an attempt to create a safer road, Rivian’s several patents geared toward the development of fully-autonomous driving are a recognition that there are loopholes within the overall framework of the idea. While self-driving vehicles are new and exciting and safer than humans in many ways, there are certain functions that are open for user abuse. One incident of a child getting behind the wheel of an autonomous car could spell disaster for the entire industry and may set back autonomous traveling technology back several years. Before the world commits to a fully autonomous driving future, the industry’s leaders must confront the obvious issues. The submission of these patents is proof that Rivian is facing these challenges head-on.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
