It seems that it was written in a way that confuses the issue intentionally.
”Nor does it explain the fact the car plowed into a barrier.”
This is critical. No matter how many notices you give, slamming into something at speed is the wrong answer. It’s almost unbelievable that they’re trying to use that as an excuse.
I'm finding it hard to believe the wording on this crucial sentence was so misleading by accident. Upon first reading it, the wording seemed a little off and seemed to me that the two statements should have been two separate sentences instead.
I'm willing (and almost hope) to be proven wrong on this, but I personally find it hard to believe that the ambiguity around this in the statement is accidental. A statement of this nature will have been extensively wordsmithed.
Even then, I fail to see how it’s relevant information.
I’m supposed to trust an “autopilot” that warns me six seconds before it slams me into a wall?
In their next statement about the next person they kill: 'The Autopilot clearly both stated in vocal synthesis and by displaying on the internal screen: "WARNING - I'll attempt to kill you in six second". Yet the driver did not manage to regain control against the rogue AI. He is clearly at fault for having died, and his family should be fined to recover the cost the the investigation.' :P
But that isn't what their statement says. It says the victim had his hands off the wheel for six seconds before the crash, and that he received hands-on warnings "earlier in the drive." It does not say that during those crucial six seconds he was being warned. Nor does it explain the fact the car plowed into a barrier.