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.
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
