To tell people that you have to pay attention 100% of the time your don't need any of the details. You have stated that over and over again, it just doesn't do enough, because a few weeks later people have forgotten all these statements and new customers or people who just like the car, but don't follow the company might never even have read them.
You could make the same silly linguistic argument about "cruise control."
The problem with this strategy is that literally no one is clamoring for a self-driving car that requires you to have a license, both hands on the wheel, both eyes on the road, and to be alert at all times.
If you have to mention it, fine, but engineer the ways you mention it to have low penetration and low retention.
That is only to weasel out of the legal issues. They are doing marketing stuff that pushes the feature as vastly more capable on the side..For ex Elon Musk tweeting videos that shows cars traveling by itself on unmarked roads..And having declarations such as "The human behind the wheel is only for legal reasons, the car is driving all be itself" and such..
So the actual marketing is based on this unrealistic projection, and only these "statements", which the public will soon forget, is based on its true capability..
Which supports my point. Theses responses likely have had a bigger influence from lawyers than PR folks. The goals of those two groups are almost diametrically opposed to each other. The best thing for Tesla from a legal perspective is to downplay the capabilities of autopilot. The best thing for Tesla from a marketing and PR perspective is to exaggerate the capabilities of autopilot. Tesla is doing the former in these responses. They are choosing the legal response over the PR response. It also should be noted this is also probably the best move from a public safety standpoint. I don't know why people are claiming these responses are PR spin or how these response could possibly sell more cars.
Regarding the rest of your post, I was not talking about Tesla's general marketing. I haven't seen Musk do anything like you claim. That is certainly misleading and irresponsible if he does do that and implies that any current Tesla can "drive all be itself"
Please take a look at the very start of the video attached here [1]. It says "The person in the driver seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself".
Now, the next one [2], where Elon Musk retweeted a video of a Tesla navigating an unmarked road. There is a reddit discussion about the same here [3]
[1] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2231417/tesla-shows-off-self-d...
[2] https://twitter.com/Teslarati/status/980476745106231297
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/88yk66/elon_ju...
Both videos also show attentive drivers who are able to jump in at a moments notice. The first video is a promo video and the second is from a Tesla fan. I wouldn't be surprised if they were specifically edited to showcase the car's features. I can certainly understand how someone might view these videos and think that autopilot is flawless, but I don't think Tesla is doing anything unethical in those videos.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's some fear over allowing uncertainty to fester for a year while awaiting the results of the investigation. But I think there's a much bigger risk in being perceived as unwilling to play by the same rules as everyone else.
The problem with this is that Tesla clearly believes that autopilot plus an attentive driver is safer than an attentive driver alone. I think that is most likely true.
It is possible that autopilot plus an inattentive driver is less safe than an attentive driver alone. I think this is plausible, but I don't think there is any real evidence to prove this one way or another.
The question then becomes does Tesla have an obligation to save the people in the second group from themselves and in turn put the people in the first group in greater danger?
That avoids prejudging whether it was primarily a defect with the vehicle, or driver error, or both.
Above all just respect the process. It's important to yield to an impartial entity when people have been hurt or killed.
Any faith the driver had in Tesla's autopilot system would be due to Tesla's marketing. If Tesla believes its self driving capabilities are not quite ready for market, maybe they shouldn't be selling it and calling it an "autopilot".
I disagree. People need to know that autopilot doesn't eliminate their responsibility for safely driving the vehicle and paying attention. People need to know they HAVE to respect the autopilot warnings. If that is happening too much in an area and so is too cumbersome, then don't use autopilot. And to wait a year for that to be released would not be in the public interest. Neither would a year of unanswered BS from short interests and competitors, considering that Tesla's vehicles overall are incredibly safe.
I think NTSB's action to remove Tesla is fine. Tesla felt they had to release such information (and there's a good argument for that, IMHO), but that is against NTSB's policy as it could compromise the investigation. So be it. Removing them may be best for all.