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
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.