Turning off the system just before a crash when it’s unavoidable allows them to say “the system wasn’t active when the crash occurred” and implicitly label a lo

Turning off the system just before a crash when it’s unavoidable allows them to say “the system wasn’t active when the crash occurred” and implicitly label a lot of data “irrelevant”. Which they do a lot of times according to the article, without providing any of that data. That’s beyond subterfuge. They don’t just kill people, they destroy evidence of their guilt and shift the blame to the victim. How much stock one needs to own to pretend they don’t understand this? Tesla bragged about the cars giving a ton of data, and showed it when this suited the company and it was good for the image. But every time it was controversial like an unexplainable accident potentially caused by the car itself the data was somehow not transmitted, or lost, or irrelevant. I’m not sure why you have such a hard time understanding the issue, or insist on what you’re “pretty sure” about when all evidence (they cite the NHTSA and experiments conducted privately by a NASA engineer, as well as the string of coincidental data unavailability for controversial accidents) points to the contrary. The article provides evidence and discussion on all these points. Nonetheless you ignore all that and stick to your “I’m pretty sure” with fanboy abandon. Sets a really low bar for future conversations.