News
Self-driving cars move forward. Can we say the same for epileptic driving rights?
The future of autonomous vehicles is almost a certainty, but for people with seizures and epilepsy who are dependent and reliant on having transportation for their day-to-day activities, it is anything but. The self-driving cars of the future could offer independence and freedom for those who are not legally able to obtain a driver’s license due to their medical conditions. However, as the autonomous vehicles of the future approach with every passing day, it seems that the states and laws that surround epilepsy and driving may need re-examining, especially as companies like Tesla move toward a future involving self-driving cars.
Laws regarding epilepsy and driver’s licenses vary from state to state. However, what may be more striking than the fact that those who suffer from seizures are rarely granted driving privileges is the fact that many states have not started to prepare for a future with them on the road as passengers. The simple fact is that companies are moving closer and closer to solving autonomy every single day. Legislation has not moved forward at the pace of autonomy, which begs the question: What if self-driving cars come before those with epilepsy have the right to operate them?
According to the California Department of Motor Vehicles, what lies ahead for autonomy really depends on the companies that handle the issue. For companies like Tesla, the goal is obvious: create a car that can take away the hassle of driving and make things safer for more people. However, some of the companies involved in the fight for autonomous vehicles may not realize the act of service they are doing for those who have not had the opportunity to drive or operate a motor vehicle due to a neurological condition.
David Dobrik’s Tesla launch does not define his love for the company
The California DMV told Teslarati that it allows those with epilepsy or conditions involving seizures to be evaluated by the State to ensure they remain safe behind the wheel. “If you lose consciousness for a short period of time, you can also lose control of your vehicle, which can result in serious accidents or death,” the California DMV writes on its website. Those who are interested in obtaining a driver’s license will undergo an evaluation, which uses the “Lapse of Consciousness Consolidation Table” as a benchmark to determine whether a person seems capable of driving a vehicle.
-->Obviously, whether the person receives driving privileges or not is completely dependent on the symptoms, severity, and causes of their condition. The chart is extensive and uses ten pages of tables to evaluate a potential driver, leaving no room for personal interpretation or grey areas. Additionally, provisionally available license grants are possible depending on a lapse of time in between episodes. However, it requires full medical transparency from the driver, including regular check-ins that are technically written and law-abiding statements. Falsifying the status of one’s condition can ultimately result in the suspension and possible revocation of a driver’s license.
While all of these details provide some color to the potential rights of those who would be interested in obtaining the privilege to drive a vehicle, there is still a major miscommunication on the potential of what self-driving cars could do for people who are not eligible for a license. Additionally, it could benefit some drivers who may be fit to drive but are uncomfortable with disclosing medical information with relation to the HIPAA act. When Level 5 autonomy is reached by a company, laws and legislation will have to be written or revised to include those who would like to have their vehicle drive them to a destination. Unfortunately, while companies chip away and move closer to this goal, the lack of knowledge on the part of DMVs at the current time was shocking. Relatively no detail was given by the California DMV, where Tesla was located until late September. Meanwhile, Waymo and Pony.ai still call California home in Mountain View and Fremont, respectively.
While the evaluation process is clear and concise, it only takes into account the instances where those with epilepsy would be able to drive a car, and not in the instance that a car drives itself. Essentially, the preparedness of government agencies to cater to those with disorders could result in even more time wasted for those who are affected.
The status of the self-driving industry is also moving forward at a tremendous rate. Tesla is expanding its Full Self-Driving Beta program and is focusing on gathering more data with the help of its Beta fleet to make its neural network more robust. Waymo is launching somewhat successful moves toward autonomous driving, and Pony.ai is launching Robotaxis in Beijing.
Waymo’s self-driving cars invade San Francisco street in most bizarre way possible
-->States need to begin working toward clarifying the situation between self-driving cars and the epileptic. There is too much room for interpretation currently, and the issue is much more serious than just “hitching a ride.” The revolutionary change that has already started occurring with electric cars will see something extremely similar with self-driving vehicles: a lack of understanding and infrastructure that could potentially delay progression and derail advancement in the way people with neurological disorders get from place to place.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with tips! Email us at tips@teslarati.com, or you can email me directly at joey@teslarati.com.
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
-->It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
-->The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
-->News
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
Tesla is preparing to introduce the Model 3 Standard to the Netherlands this December, as per information obtained by AutoWeek. The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
While Tesla has not formally confirmed the vehicle’s arrival, pricing reportedly comes from a reliable source, the publication noted.
Model 3 Standard lands in NL
The U.S. version of the Model 3 Standard provides a clear preview of what Dutch buyers can expect, such as a no-frills configuration that maintains the recognizable Model 3 look without stripping the car down to a bare interior. The panoramic glass roof is still there, the exterior design is unchanged, and Tesla’s central touchscreen-driven cabin layout stays intact.
Cost reductions come from targeted equipment cuts. The American variant uses fewer speakers, lacks ventilated front seats and heated rear seats, and swaps premium materials for cloth and textile-heavy surfaces. Performance is modest compared with the Premium models, with a 0–100 km/h sprint of about six seconds and an estimated WLTP range near 550 kilometers.
Despite the smaller battery and simpler suspension, the Standard maintains the long-distance capability drivers have come to expect in a Tesla.
-->Pricing strategy aligns with Dutch EV demand and taxation shifts
At €36,990, the Model 3 Standard fits neatly into Tesla’s ongoing lineup reshuffle. The current Model 3 RWD has crept toward €42,000, creating space for a more competitive entry-level option, and positioning the new Model 3 Standard comfortably below the €39,990 Model Y Standard.
The timing aligns with rising Dutch demand for affordable EVs as subsidies like SEPP fade and tax advantages for electric cars continue to wind down, EVUpdate noted. Buyers seeking a no-frills EV with solid range are then likely to see the new trim as a compelling alternative.
With the U.S. variant long established and the Model Y Standard already available in the Netherlands, the appearance of an entry-level Model 3 in the Dutch configurator seems like a logical next step.
News
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Tesla Model Y led China’s top-selling pure electric vehicles in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment through October 2025, as per Yiche data compiled from China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) figures.
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Model Y is still unrivaled
The Model Y’s dominance shines in Yiche’s October report, topping the chart for vehicles priced between 200,000 and 300,000 RMB. With 312,331 units retailed from January through October, the all-electric crossover was China’s best-selling EV in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment.
The Xiaomi SU7 is a strong challenger at No. 2 with 234,521 units, followed by the Tesla Model 3, which achieved 146,379 retail sales through October. The Model Y’s potentially biggest rival, the Xiaomi YU7, is currently at No. 4 with 80,855 retail units sold.
Efficiency kings
The Model 3 and Model Y recently claimed the top two spots in Autohome’s latest real-world energy-consumption test, outperforming a broad field of Chinese-market EVs under identical 120 km/h cruising conditions with 375 kg payload and fixed 24 °C cabin temperature. The Model 3 achieved 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y recorded 21.8 kWh/100 km, reaffirming Tesla’s efficiency lead.
The results drew immediate attention from Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun, who publicly recognized Tesla’s advantage while pledging continued refinement for his brand’s lineup.
-->“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
