> ... treated as fact by people and media Sure it is a fact that Elon Musk predicts they will have robotaxis in a year. It is not however a fact that Elon Musk

> ... treated as fact by people and media Sure it is a fact that Elon Musk predicts they will have robotaxis in a year. It is not however a fact that Elon Musk advises the drivers to drive carelessly. > How can it do this but __also__ "require active driver supervision"? This statement implies .... Yes it does. In a parking lot. At parking lot speed. While you are not in the car. > and it __definitly__ implies the vehicle is autonomous. If by autonomous you mean it can automatically come to you in a parking lot then yes. If by autonomous you mean you can sleep behind the wheel while it is driving in the streets then it __definitly__ does not imply that. > But these are conflicting statements... No they are not. One is about operation in a parking lot. One is about future functionality/value of the product. And one is about the current functionality of the product. > people think that Tesla is fully autonomous and thus get into accidents like this Citation needed. I'd say it is more likely that they are not using the car as intended, not that they mistakenly think their car is fully autonomous. > ... covering their ass Not sure what your point is here. So they are damned if they do damned if they don't? > but if people are still doing this then Tesla isn't doing a good job of making this clear People don't always use things as designed. This is not exclusive to Tesla cars. > They simply hide it inside the legal documents Not true. It is on the first page when you search for Tesla FSD. And I am pretty sure the warning is shown to the users at different steps before AP can be activated.