|
|
|
|
|
by goosejuice
311 days ago
|
|
> Thus, the constant refrain that "autopilot in cars is just like autopilot in planes" actually supports the case against Tesla. Just like, holds a lot of weight. I'm saying autopilot has a meaning in the world of aircraft and the FAA has some guidance on how it's used. They still place all responsibility on the pilot. So in that sense they are similar. It's not that I think automakers shouldn't be liable for misleading marketing, it's that in this case I don't think the argument is strong. > Thus, it's irrelevant that the small print The driver has to agree to understanding how it works before using the feature. In the manual it's called out in the same way my Subaru calls out warnings for eyesight. In the model S 2019 manual, the car in this accident, it's clearly labeled with multiple warnings and symbols. Saying it's small print is disengenous. Half of the manual in that section is warnings about the limitations of the driver assistance tech. |
|
A consumer is not expected, nor required, to resolve this conflict that the company created for itself through its own choice of conflicting language. Tesla was able to get away with it longer than expected, but now the floodgates are open to reason again.