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.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
A new report claims that Apple is in the process of developing what would be the missing link for Tesla to get CarPlay.
Apple and Tesla have been reportedly working together for some time to give Tesla owners the opportunity to utilize CarPlay within their vehicles. While many owners are more than happy with Tesla’s in-house UI, which is seamless, effective, and smooth, some still want CarPlay, which does have its advantages.
A report from 9to5Mac now states that a new CarPlay technology that was highlighted during the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) would potentially be the bridge between Tesla and Apple. With the addition of a feature known as “Route Sharing,” which gives a navigation app the ability to share routing data with the vehicle, Tesla would be able to launch CarPlay in its vehicles, the report states.
CarPlay has not been a priority for Tesla because it has done extremely well with its in-house UI, but some drivers are just used to it. Additionally, it could improve Tesla’s subpar Navigation or offer improved app capabilities, especially with iMessage.
Route Sharing is an intended addition to CarPlay’s iteration in iOS 26.4, which was released in March:
The addition of CarPlay would undoubtedly be welcome, but at the same time, it seems like Tesla realizes it is not of the utmost priority. There are so many things that Tesla is working on currently within its own vehicles, especially attempting to solve self-driving.
Back in February, Bloomberg had reported that Tesla was still working on bringing CarPlay to its vehicles, but it had not due to app compatibility issues and incredibly low adoption rates of iOS 26.
This bottleneck could buy Tesla the proper amount of time to develop CarPlay for its vehicles. It would be a welcome addition, and could be brought on with either the Summer or Fall 2026 Software Updates.
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
Tesla Cybertruck driver gets pickup seized for ‘legitimate concerns’ in UK
