Connect with us

News

Rivian's new 'Guardian Mode' will safely move passengers without any driver present

(Photo: Rivian Automotive)

Published

on

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:

Advertisement

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.

Figure 4 of Rivian’s Patent that describes the decision-making process for its new “Guardian Mode”. (Credit: US Patent Office)

“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.

Advertisement

Joey has been a journalist covering electric mobility at TESLARATI since August 2019. In his spare time, Joey is playing golf, watching MMA, or cheering on any of his favorite sports teams, including the Baltimore Ravens and Orioles, Miami Heat, Washington Capitals, and Penn State Nittany Lions. You can get in touch with joey at joey@teslarati.com. He is also on X @KlenderJoey. If you're looking for great Tesla accessories, check out shop.teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

News

Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot

Published

on

A Texas man has been arrested and charged with manslaughter after his Tesla crashed into a home last month, striking a woman inside and killing her. The driver, Michael Butler, claimed the vehicle was in self-driving mode, but information from Tesla shows that Butler overrode the system.

Butler was arrested on Wednesday and booked at the Harris County, Texas, jail. He remained in custody through Thursday and Friday; he did not enter a plea, and his next court hearing is scheduled for Monday.

Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration

There are a handful of new clues in the case that could clear Tesla of any wrongdoing, especially as the woman who was killed’s family, the Avilas, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla and Butler, seeking at least $1 million in damages.

Charging documents from the Harris County prosecutor now show that Butler, who was working DoorDash the evening of the accident, had been using Full Self-Driving mode without incident through the duration of multiple deliveries that evening.

In the moments leading up to the crash, while in FSD and approaching a left turn, Butler pressed the accelerator pedal, overriding FSD’s speed control, and continued to push it until it reached 100 percent. This caused rapid acceleration; the brake pedal was never pressed, and there is no data to show that Butler aimed to turn away from the curb or house.

The charging documents state:

“I noted that the brake pedal was never pressed in the final minute before the crash. I also did not see any data to indicate that the driver attempted to turn away from the curb that he eventually struck. Further, I observed that no mechanical error was detected or recorded by the vehicle before BUTLER and the Tesla struck the curb.”

Additionally, a forensic analysis of Butler’s phone showed that he searched Google around the time of the crash with queries questioning why FSD was “too timid,” “not aggressive enough,” and even searched, “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving.”

The documents outlined this:

“Investigator Veal also informed me that he had received BUTLER’s cell phone from Deputy Amad and that HDAO digital forensics team had completed a data extraction and download of the phone. Multiple Google searches related to Tesla had been made from BUTLER’s phone in the months leading up the crash. I noted multiple searches in May of 2026 indicating an apparent frustration with Tesla’s FSD mode, including the following searches: “Tesla fsd not aggressive enough 2026 model,” “Tesla fsd not [sic) aggressive enough 2026,” “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving,” and “tesla fsd too timid.”‘

Tesla had claimed just after the crash that its internal data showed Butler had overridden the system’s speed control and pressed the accelerator completely, causing the vehicle to travel at an excessive rate of speed. Eventually, the car slammed into Avila’s house, killing her.

Butler has now been formally charged with Manslaughter, a felony.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s strong Q2 deliveries: Four key drivers behind the surprise

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla shocked with its quarterly delivery report yesterday by reporting it delivered 480,126 vehicles in the second quarter of 2026, a 25 percent year-over-year jump that crushed Wall Street estimates of roughly 400,000–408,000 units. Production reached 451,758, with Model 3 and Model Y accounting for the vast majority.

The result ended two years of annual delivery declines and drew down inventory, signaling demand that outpaced earlier production.

Tesla bears had long warned that the expiration of the U.S. federal EV tax credit would hammer demand. Without the $7,500 incentive, they argued, American buyers would balk at higher effective prices, leading to a sharp slowdown.

Will Tesla thrive without the EV tax credit? Five reasons why they might

That narrative has not played out as predicted. While U.S. EV sales faced broader headwinds, Tesla’s global numbers held firm, underscoring the company’s ability to offset domestic pressure through other levers.

There are several plausible factors that explain Tesla’s strength during this quarter. Let’s take a look at them:

Rising Gas Prices

Rising gas prices provided a powerful tailwind, especially in the U.S.

Geopolitical tensions tied to the Iran conflict pushed fuel costs higher earlier in the year, amplifying the lifetime savings of electric vehicles. Even as oil prices later moderated, the psychological and financial impact lingered, encouraging fleet operators and private buyers to accelerate EV purchases. European sales rebounded sharply, helping drive the quarter’s outperformance.

Full Self-Driving Adoption

Advances in Full Self-Driving (FSD) supervised software also appear to have boosted appeal. Tesla expanded FSD availability in select European markets and continued refining the system.

For tech-oriented buyers, the promise of future autonomy and enhanced driver-assistance features adds perceived value beyond the car itself. This differentiation helps Tesla stand out in a crowded market where competitors focus primarily on hardware and basic range.

Pricing Strategy, Affordable Configurations

Tesla’s offerings and its pricing strategy during Q2 further stimulated demand. Tesla introduced lower-cost versions of the Model 3 and Model Y, widening accessibility without sacrificing core margins.

These moves countered affordability concerns and attracted buyers who had been waiting on the sidelines. Combined with attractive financing and leasing options, the pricing strategy converted interest into actual orders more effectively than many analysts expected.

Broad European Recovery

Supported by government incentives, corporate fleet electrification, and easing political headwinds around CEO Elon Musk, Tesla was supplied additional momentum through stronger registration numbers throughout Europe.

Strong exports from the Shanghai Gigafactory and a production ramp at Giga Berlin ensured supply met this resurgent demand. Corporate buyers, in particular, accelerated transitions to EVs to meet sustainability targets, providing a steady volume base.

These elements created a virtuous cycle that delivered the strong deliveries report. While bears correctly flagged the loss of the U.S. tax credit as a risk, Tesla’s diversified playbook demonstrated that it could remain resilient against those headwinds. The Q2 beat suggests the company remains adept at navigating shifting market conditions, even as competition intensifies.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Semi involved in first known fatal crash in Nevada

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

A Tesla Semi was involved in a fatal collision on U.S. Highway 50 in Dayton, Nevada, on Sunday, June 28, 2026, marking the first known fatal crash involving the electric Class 8 truck. The incident occurred around 7:20 a.m. at the intersection with Traditions Parkway, approximately 40 miles east of Reno and close to Tesla’s Gigafactory Nevada.

According to the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada State Police Highway Patrol, a semi-truck struck two passenger vehicles stopped at a traffic signal. The truck hit the vehicles from behind. Two people were pronounced dead at the scene, and a third person suffered life-threatening injuries and was flown to a hospital, Forbes reported.

Preliminary statements gathered at the scene by the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office suggested the truck driver may have fallen asleep at the wheel. However, the Nevada Highway Patrol, which is leading the investigation, stated that the official cause has not yet been determined.

Additional information is expected to be released early the following week. The truck was seized for evidence as part of the ongoing probe.

Responders at the scene included deputies from the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, personnel from the Nevada Highway Patrol, Central Lyon County Fire Department, and the Nevada Department of Transportation. The crash led to the temporary closure of U.S. 50 in both directions.

The Tesla Semi is Tesla’s battery-electric heavy-duty truck, produced at the nearby Gigafactory in Nevada. Authorities initially described the vehicle as a semi-truck; its make was subsequently confirmed through reporting and scene identification; an interesting bit of information here, as the Semi is not yet available publicly and many do not know that Tesla builds electric trucks.

The investigation remains active, with no further official details on contributing factors or vehicle systems released as of early July 2026.

This incident highlights ongoing scrutiny of commercial vehicle safety on Nevada highways, particularly involving fatigue. Law enforcement continues to gather evidence and witness statements.

Continue Reading