Tesla doesn't claim it's system can bring you to a full stop. If you read back around the same place I linked, there are several accounts that Tesla will actually bring you to a full stop. It could be a CYA statement from them.
No need to be a Tesla fanboy, but the person can just RT*M. It's clearly stated there.
The OPs car might have done it too, if the car was functioning properly, who knows?
By reading the manual?
Most people don't just willy nilly drop 100k on a car without knowing approximately what it can and cannot do.
You're making a big assumption that most people read manuals just because you read them. If we're going to make a big assumption like that then I'm going to make a big assumption that most people that see a Suburu ad that shows it stopping to avoid a collision would assume a Tesla could do the same. However, according to the manual it cannot. So once again I ask, why not? If Suburu can do it in a $25k car why can't Tesla do it in a 100k+ car?
- - - Updated - - -
Subaru's wording is nearly identical to Tesla's, both in the disclaimer and in the feature description "Pre-Collision Braking helps you avoid or reduce frontal impacts by alerting you and applying full braking force in emergency situations."
I would not expect Subaru's implementation to work in all situations either, and I expect the OPs problem was due to applying the brakes themselves. It would be interesting to see Tesla reproduce the brick wall test in the video. I expect (but don't depend on!) it would pass.
Also: suggesting we'd be better off without a safety feature is kind of silly. That's like the old arguments about seatbelts and being safely thrown from a vehicle.
Actually, the wording is very different. Tesla makes no claim that it will apply full braking or that it will even attempt to come to a stop or avoid the collision. Here is what Tesla says about it in their manual (linked to above by Max) "When a frontal collision is considered unavoidable, Automatic Emergency Braking is designed to automatically apply the brakes to reduce the impact". Further, it states "When Automatic Emergency Braking has reduced the driving speed by 40 km/h (24 mph), the brakes are released. For example, if Automatic Emergency Braking applies braking when driving at 90 km/h (56mph), it releases the brakes when the speed has been reduced to 50 km/h (31 mph)."
So, the MS is clearly not designed to come to a complete stop like the Suburu is. This isn't a matter of an implementation working in all situations, this is the simple fact that the MS isn't designed to avoid a wreck but simply reduce the impact, where as a Suburu is designed to prevent it by avoiding a collision. In a brick wall test, a MS would smash right into it and the Suburu would stop. This is what I can't figure out, how a car that costs 1/5 the price can prevent a wreck while the more expensive car only minimizes the impact. It seems like it should be the other way around!
Also, it's a very different argument about seat belts and something that takes control of the car away from you at critical moments. Seat belts can't make things worse by malfunctioning and making the car accelerate seconds before an impact as the OP's TACC/AEBS did. Also, you're taking what I said out of context. Remember, originally I said " It seems like something any six figure car should come with, especially one that bills itself as being technologically advanced." and then followed it up by saying "if the OPs experience with it is an example of how well it works you're probably better off without it". I stand by that statement - you can have the system that messes up and accelerates you before an accident, I'll stick to manually controlling my car