I think there's a lot to be concerned about wrt. AutoPilot and I plan on thoroughly reading the completed investigation reports.
I don't see why they have to wait for an investigation to talk about what the car did, nor about what the driver did with the car. They have all that information. The purpose of the investigation is to contextualize that information and incorporate external information like the speed and position of the truck in the time leading up to the crash.
He could have had a medical complication. He could also have erred in thinking that the trailer would have cleared the path in time, or in thinking the car would have braked for him, or in perhaps his reaction time was insufficient. I have no idea. None of the items on my brainstormed list strike me was weird.
> I don't see why they have to wait for an investigation to talk about what the car did, nor about what the driver did with the car.
Tesla doesn't have to, but the skeptic in me observes that it is all too easy to spread misinformation (that would benefit them) through the technology press before the investigation is completed. I personally don't see an advantage for Tesla to speak at this stage since there are serious product liability issues in play, but I admittedly don't get Tesla in general.
Something to consider is that a "good" risk analysis takes into account the foreseeable use and misuse of a product based on the information available. Given that it is no secret that AutoPilot users have used the system contrary to directions, it is reasonable to demand that the risk analysis be updated to account for this reality (assuming it did not account for this) as part of the continuous PLM process.