News
Rivian’s self-driving patent application hints at driver monitoring functionality
Rivian’s Associate Director of Self-Driving, Oliver Jeromin, discussed a driver monitoring system that’s part of the company’s full self-driving suite in a recent interview. Thanks to a recently published patent application by the all-electric carmaker, more details about how such a system would work are now available.
The patent application, titled “Occupant Awareness Monitoring for Autonomous Vehicles,” was published on July 25, 2019, under serial number US 2019/0225228. It describes a multi-part system wherein driver activity is interpreted through synced wireless devices either on a smartphone or directly with the vehicle itself. If a driver’s awareness is needed and determined not to be available, the vehicle will take remedial action to ensure a high level of safety.
The five levels of vehicle autonomy defined by the Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) (and adopted by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) range from level 0 with no automation to level 5 with full automation. Levels 3-5 specifically require that their human driver (or passenger if Level 5) be ready to retake control of the vehicle or respond in some way under specific circumstances. That said, Rivian’s invention described in this application seeks to detect whether the necessary level of readiness is present in the driver.
-
- Rivian’s driver monitoring patent application. | Image: Rivian/USPTO
-
- Rivian’s driver monitoring patent application. | Image: Rivian/USPTO
“The present inventors have recognized the technological problem of a potential need for human intervention in connection with the operation of autonomous automotive vehicles featuring autonomy levels 3, 4, or 5, and have observed a need for a technological solution to monitor the awareness of vehicle occupants,” the application states in the background portion of the description.
The monitoring process is described to work as follows:
- Connect, by vehicle, to wireless device of vehicle occupant.
- Receive, by vehicle, signal from wireless device indicative of activity of the vehicle occupant and processing the signal to determine level of awareness of vehicle occupant.
- Determine whether level of awareness of vehicle occupant satisfies a threshold.
- Generate, by vehicle, alert based upon whether level of awareness of vehicle occupant satisfies threshold.
To accomplish these steps, Rivian proposes in the application to pair electronic devices that can track and provide driver data to the automated driving program, e.g., general smartphones or tablets, finesses trackers, and electronically connected medical devices. If a driver is watching a movie or has vital signs indicating sleep (breathing rate, pulse, etc.), the vehicle would know the driver is not ready to resume control if needed and respond appropriately.
Also described in the patent application are enforcement ideas such as a series of touch screen prompts requiring a response, and in the event of no response, the vehicle would pull over and stop. If an emergency situation were detected via the connected medical devices, the car would pull over and call 911. Along with a fitness tracker, other medical devices suggested for use in the application are glucose monitors, blood oxygen monitors, and breathalyzers.
Driver attentiveness while using self-driving features is already a problem under Level 2 programs where warning prompts are fairly strict about keeping eyes on the road. Tesla, for instance, regularly reminds its customers that Autopilot isn’t a full self-driving system yet and needs complete driver attention. However, as headlines and Tesla crash investigations have indicated, the warning isn’t always heeded.
Rivian’s driver monitoring system certainly sounds like a good step towards increasing safety measures as the carmaker continues to develop its product lines. The proposed syncing of medical devices might run into some resistance on privacy grounds, but the overall payoff that a safe self-driving experience will provide may find cause for compromise. Overall, it’s clear Rivian has safety as a priority as it prepares to enter the automotive arena with the R1T pickup truck and R1S SUV later next year.
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
