[shkkmo]

> Tesla claimed that the driver had his hands off earlier in the drive, not at the time of the collision.

You are wrong: "the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision."

see: https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%99s-accide...

Perhaps you shouldn't attack Tesla for using "weasel words" in their press release if you don't take the time to read it.

Edit: You seem to have edited your post without any disclaimer. Your edits were not visible when I responded. Most people on HN will edit their comments with an "Edit: I was wrong about ____" rather than ninja editing the mistaken claim away. This help make discussions easier to follow and limits misunderstandings.

[MertsA]

I already corrected that, but the point still stands that their press release is intentionally misleading and Tesla knows very well that detecting hand presence on the wheel has problems. Read the press release in full and tell me that it isn't misleading.

Originally when this was posted there was concern over if "prior to the collision" was talking about the 6 seconds before the collision or earlier in the drive. In any case, Tesla is implying that the victim wasn't driving responsibly and there's no data released to the public that would back up such a claim.

[shkkmo]

I have read the press release. What was misleading? The only thing I see that is potentially misleading where they quote the safety statistics for vehicles with auto pilot equipped.

[geofft]

The sentence is only relevant if it carries information content about whether the driver's hands were in fact on the wheel—the reliability of the hand detection system is not believed to be relevant to the crash in any way.

So, if the statement is actually carrying more information about the reliability of the hand-detection system when it sounds like it should be a claim about the driver's hands (the subject of the passive-voice sentence), it is misleading.