That surely helps the now dead people they crash into. The manufacturer can prevent deaths by adding safety features, so it should to a reasonable extent.
As Ars has noted time and again, Tesla's Autopilot system has a more permissive operational design domain than any comparable driver-assistance system that still requires the driver to keep their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road, and NHTSA's report adds that "Autopilot invited greater driver confidence via its higher control authority and ease of engagement."
So Tesla actively does everything they can to make people thing the system is way more capable than it really is. Then shows a small popup the first time you use it that tells you "j/k it doesn't really do any of this, goodluck". I feel like eventually they'll be held accountable for it, but the bureaucracy moves veryyyy slowly.
The thing is, it's not just marketing that's contributing to these misunderstandings. The car actually is capable of fully driving itself... most of the time. So it's not so much that their marketing is misleading as it is that the reality of the situation is itself misleading, if you don't pay close enough attention to the system's limitations and caveats.
It literally is.
> Self-driving systems shouldn't need all these "are you paying attention" bells and whistles.
It's not self driving at all. That's the problem.
Yes, it is. An L2 driver assist system must ensure that the driver is always actively supervising, and Tesla's systems failed to do that. That's why they recalled 2 million cars.
Tesla autopilot / FSD is immensely more capable than 99% of LKAS systems, so maybe that's why regulators care more. But from a pure attentiveness standpoint, 1000 other car models have grossly worse safety in this regard.
However, my argument is that your original claim that the "L2 driver assist system must ensure that the driver is always actively supervising" is demonstrably false, given that, by pure numbers, "Level-2" capable cars, by large, do not have driver monitoring features. However, the government continues to focus solely on Tesla.
According to the NHTSA, Tesla was forced to enable driver monitoring via a camera because sensing driver steering input was insufficient.
So, without a doubt, 10s of millions of cars have "insufficient" driver monitoring while having "level 2" capability. Should those cars not be recalled and the feature be disabled (or updated to more aggressive monitoring if appropriate hardware exists)?
To be clear, I fully support driver monitoring for ADAS to whatever extent regulations require. But picking and choosing who to enforce the rules suggests they aren't working for the general public's best interest.
Sure, go after Tesla if the system endangers people via spurious inputs or dangerous maneuvers. But it's also not Tesla's responsibility to nanny people any more than alcohol manufacturers are held liable for drunk driving. If some idiot zones out on their phone or tries to "drive" from the back seat, their negligence is not Tesla's responsibility.
Self-driving systems shouldn't need all these "are you paying attention" bells and whistles. Just hammer the people who abuse them with reckless driving charges.