[Veserv]

There are really two things at play here.

First, every manufacturer should be required to collect and produce scientifically rigorous evidence of safety for these systems. Any system that does not increase danger, i.e. within the range of human safety, would generate a easily manageable number of incidents to characterize. The total number of US traffic fatalities is only on the order of 40,000/year. Even if it took a staggering 10 hours of 300$/hr lawyer time just to characterize each incident, that would amount to a mere 120 M$ for the entire US. That is just 50 measly cents per car annually. And we are talking literal deaths here. Not doing so is obscene.

Literally every manufacturer of ADAS systems fails by this metric. None of them is acceptable. Arguments about who is failing double turbo hard is a meaningless exercise. The minimal standard they should be held to is clear and all of them should need to meet it or they should pull their systems from the field until they feel like taking human lives seriously.

Second, although all manufacturers fail at the standard that they should be held to and should be censured for that, only Tesla actively and deceptively markets their “safety performance” according to these very same metrics they claim are misleading. The reported data objectively undercounts incidents. Despite this, Tesla intentionally and deceptively markets the data as the true rate of incidents to overstate their safety. No other manufacturer does this as far as I am aware.

Every other manufacturer just relies on the prevailing wind that scientifically rigorous safety evidence collection is not needed when deploying new features. But none intentionally misrepresent the absence of evidence of danger as evidence of safety. That is pure scientific and business malfeasance that Tesla is guilty of and, even barring a change in evidence collection requirements, should be punished for.