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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
