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.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
