By that logic, the fairer test is for an independent arbiter to compare Tesla's AEB with other cars on sale, modelling a variety of common collision scenarios. All that's been proven here is that a motivated competitor was able to identify one scenario where their development tech works and Tesla's does not.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying that Tesla's current release version of AEB is anywhere near good enough. Clearly there is substantial room for improvement. If I had any influence over Tesla's priorities, I would make them package up the subset of FSD Beta necessary to perform AEB and get that deployed to the entire fleet as a matter of urgency.
------
As for whether a driver chooses to use any L1 or L2 driver assistance features in an inappropriate context, that is always the responsibility of the licensed driver. Engaging these systems is always a manual task performed by the driver. They are not on by default.
If there is a legitimate concern here, perhaps the correct response is to institute a blanket ban on the use of any assistance technologies (e.g. adaptive cruise, lane centring) while in school zones.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying that Tesla's current release version of AEB is anywhere near good enough. Clearly there is substantial room for improvement. If I had any influence over Tesla's priorities, I would make them package up the subset of FSD Beta necessary to perform AEB and get that deployed to the entire fleet as a matter of urgency.
------
As for whether a driver chooses to use any L1 or L2 driver assistance features in an inappropriate context, that is always the responsibility of the licensed driver. Engaging these systems is always a manual task performed by the driver. They are not on by default.
If there is a legitimate concern here, perhaps the correct response is to institute a blanket ban on the use of any assistance technologies (e.g. adaptive cruise, lane centring) while in school zones.