EVDRIVER wrote:Analogies, You can't restrict AP to certain conditions until there is more external control to do so and by then it would likely be moot. The system is safe when used properly just like anything else. End of story.
Of course you can restrict it to certain situations that Tesla is well aware of, just as Cadillac does. If we wish to carry analogy further, let's go back to yours:
Try using a BBQ in your house, people do that as well but it says not do use indoors. Don't deep fry a turkey that is frozen, people do and burn down their houses every year and it's the frying pans manufacturers fault right? Complete nonsense perfected here in the USA.
Now, to make the analogy more accurate, let's say that the BBQ knows whether or not it's inside your house, and the deep fat fryer knows whether or not the turkey is frozen, and both are supposedly capable of doing their jobs without human intervention - let's say they have AutoCook, or A/C. Furthermore, the company making them has the ability to design them so that they won't operate in those situations, but chooses not to. Instead, the company allows them to be so used, allows you to walk away and ignore them for extended periods of time despite them putting out all sorts of CYA statements in the owner's manual that says not to do this, and the existence of numerous Youtube videos showing people doing that. In addition, after the investigation of an earlier fire the National Fire Protection Association concluded that:
System safeguards, that should have prevented the BBQ/Deepfryer owner from using the unit's automation system in certain locations or with certain types of food, were lacking and the combined effects of human error and the lack of sufficient system safeguards resulted in a fatal fire that should not have happened”. . . .
[Among the conclusions]
The BBQ/deepfryer owner's pattern of use of the Autocook system indicated an over-reliance on the automation and a lack of understanding of the system limitations.
If automated cooking control systems do not automatically restrict their own operation to conditions for which they were designed and are appropriate, the risk of cook misuse remains.
The way in which the Autocook system monitored and responded to the cook's interaction with the unit was not an effective method of ensuring cook engagement. . . .
As a result of this, the BBQ/fryer company shortened the time interval between warnings that some hands-on attention was required, from 1 hour to 1/2 hour, which was still far too long given how quickly a fire could start. They also claim that when using Autocook the incidence of fires is reduced by 40%, but haven't released the statistical evidence that would prove or disprove this, and also blame any accidents which do happen when using Autocook are solely the responsibility of the cook. Do you agree? Do you think a jury would agree?