There is no credible case to be made that any Tesla driver is unaware of Tesla's stance, that the driver assist features cannot provide autonomous driving and that the driver must always remain engaged.
The warnings are absolutely clear and reiterated so they could not be missed. If you want to challenge that notion in court, be my guest.
I mean, you do realize that there is a class action against Tesla for misleading customers with the names of their products, right? This is actively being fought in the courts. That alone should prove that people feel misled by the marketing.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-must-face-vehicle-owner...
> There is no credible case to be made that any Tesla driver is unaware of Tesla's stance, that the driver assist features cannot provide autonomous driving and that the driver must always remain engaged.
You’re free to believe what you want, but this is far from the closed case you are portraying it to be. In short, that’s just like your opinion man.
But more to the point: being misled into purchasing it is entirely different than being misled while driving it, and blaming an accident on thinking the auto assist didn't need their attention as a result.
That is not what the lawsuit is alleging.
It stands to reason that if there was anything approaching a credible case that any driver thinks they don't need to be engaged while driving a Tesla, because of misleading naming of its driver assist features, some law firm somewhere would have organized a lawsuit on behalf of accident victims by now.
So the evidence supports my position.
> If you want to challenge that notion in court, be my guest.
I pointed out that it is, in fact, being challenged. Right now. And has already been several times before, with Tesla settling out of court specifically to prevent any repercussions from a guilty verdict.
If you wanted to talk about successful cases, then that should have been your argument. At this point, you’re just moving the goal posts.
Tesla are trying to have it both ways. They ADVERTISE and promote that it is "FULL Self-Driving" and "FSD", while simultaneously doing everything post-sale to ensure the driver is responsible for failures of FSD.
I wasn't originally in that camp, but your arguments are convincing me that Tesla does in fact bear some responsibility for the crashes, despite the facts you point out that Tesla post-sale promotes driver attention.
Despite all Tesla's efforts towards driver attention, Tesla ALSO broadcasts conflicting messages which do give the impression that FSD is more capable and safe than it is. What percent responsible? I don't know, but I think it's above 5%, especially for new drivers, who have been more exposed to the sales pitch and less to the documentation.