Now you're playing silly word games
No, you're just using words incorrectly...again...and someone is pointing that out.
It's important when trying to explain something that there's a mutual understanding of the terms used.
Otherwise everyone is just wasting their time.
So if on AP a car plows into the back of another car, you don't call that "failing"?
No, because it's a known limitation of the system.
If the system doesn't stop at a red light- is that a "failure"?
No- it's just something the system is known not to be able to reliably handle and isn't
expected to
As I cited to you- directly from the owners manual in 2 different places.
But regardless of if you understand what "fail" means or not- I thus gave you
many many examples of where the hack will
kill people if they either fall asleep without the nags or have a medical emergency where they lose consciousness because without the nags the car will keep going... right into a parked on the shoulder vehicle (as it as in real life- multiple times).... or into live cross-traffic, pedestrians, or bikes if used off of highway because it doesn't stop for lights or stop signs.
Maybe address that instead of wasting time with your "word game" deflections?
You telling me on AP its designed to plow into the back of stopped cars?
No, I'm telling you it's
not designed to avoid it in specific cases.
And the owners manual, explicitly, tells you that multiple times.
Maybe give that a read? Lots of interesting stuff in there.
That's why the
driver must be there
To handle the limitations of the system.
Like being incapable of reliably avoiding stopped objects, especially ones only partly in the lane, or facing a different direction.
Or being incapable of slowing or stopping, at all, to lights or stop signs.
If its not, then I call it a fail, but you want to play word games so you can appear right about everything.
You can call it a potato if you want- doesn't make you any less incorrect.
And doesn't someone who crashed into a truck and died because of it and bypassing the safety system that could avoid it any less dead.
I'm not sure how you want to blame tesla about a hack that can kill you if you have a seizure when most cars don't have AP and would have a 99% chance crashing and having bodily harm
This is called moving the goalposts.
You've realized you're wrong, and the hack is
objectively dangerous compared to not using it.
So you're trying to move the goalposts from 'the hack is not dangerous' to 'the hack is less dangerous than not even HAVING autopilot!'
Which is both irrelevant and a really bad attempt at a common rhetorical bit of BS.
I award you no points.
People use AP everyday, hundreds of thousands, and they are not plowing into the back of vehicles.
I mean- except for the many cases where they are.
This is a
known limitation of radar based systems
Tesla hits parked California police vehicle; driver blames 'Autopilot'
NHTSA Investigating Fatal Crash Where Tesla Hit Fire Truck
Tesla Driver Was on Autopilot Eating a Bagel and Hit a Fire Truck
Tesla Model 3 crashes into parked truck and catches fire
Why Tesla's Autopilot Can't See a Stopped Firetruck
