I can understand where you are coming from with concerns over the marketing. I do regularly run into non-owners who are mislead by them as well as an occasional

I can understand where you are coming from with concerns over the marketing. I do regularly run into non-owners who are mislead by them as well as an occasional new owner who is disappointed by the reality not matching their expectations. Unfortunately, if you are hoping for fixes to that, you are likely looking in the wrong place. The safety officials have instead focused on two problems. The first is that Autopilot can be activated anywhere, so long as it can see the lines. The NTSB seems to think that limiting it to some subset of streets will fix something[1]. The second is that Tesla's driver monitoring is insufficient and Tesla has not promised to do what some other manufacturer's have promised (but not necessarily implemented). Notably, neither of these relate to the accident in question. The driver in this scenario was warned repeatedly that his attention was required. Regardless of the overall effectiveness of Tesla's solution, it is clear that Tesla's current solution was detecting inattention of this driver. Driver attention cameras would have behaved similarly. Notably absent are clear and convincing evidence that one system is more or less safe than another, despite systems of various designs being in current deployment on our public streets[2]. [1] TBH, I partially feel like this complaint is also a result of the marketing that you are complaining about. Its almost as if the regulators themselves have been fooled into believing that there are places where less attention is require than others and this geofencing will solve something. In reality, attention is required in all places, even with this requirement, making this almost completely redundant. [2] Please don't read this as a defense of autopilot. It isn't. It may very well be less safe than SuperCruise and other systems, I simply do not see the evidence proving either side right now. Considering the widespread deployments, I think a regulatory change in course should by its nature be evidence based rather than based on conjecture.