No, he's asserting that a normal attentive driver won't crash into a stationary emergency vehicle under remotely normal weather/road conditions. And, personally, I'm not going to trust a system that isn't as good as a normal attentive driver.
Even if the accidents a Tesla does get into are ones that a normal attentive driver wouldn't get into, if it avoids just as many accidents that a normal attentive driver would get into isn't that enough?
A lot of people probably feel the same.
But... no one is forcing anyone to use this system. They elect to. Thus this is the wrong question, but rather if drivers should be given the option to use the system.
If anything it might be reasonable to infer that poor drivers are more likely to use this system, so the standard could plausibly be below that of an average driver while still improving overall safety.
>I'm not going to trust a system that isn't as good as a normal attentive driver.
As I understand it, we're not expected to trust the current incarnation of Tesla Autopilot. We're supposed to be ready to intervene in case it screws up.
I'd be interested to know how long the drivers of the 12 Teslas in these accidents had to intervene but didn't (how long was it obvious Autopilot had screwed up before the impact).
So if data show that people keep failing at it we have to take a look and decide that it's not a good system, not that the people are at fault.