> The Tesla was designed to avoid this collision. Are you trying to say that Tesla would prefer their car hit stuff?
They don't prefer their car to hit stuff, but the car is not designed to never hit stuff either. By your logic, any car manufacturer that doesn't have some sort of collision prevention system prefer their cars to hit stuff, which is absurd.
That's not my logic, it's the logic of the comment I replied to. What I'm trying to say is they specifically designed and built a collision detection system with the goal of preventing the car from hitting things parked in front of it. That collision detection system did not detect the collision that took place in this case, and failed in its design goal, it's raison d'etre.
The car is designed to prevent collisions that can be detected by the sensors. This particular collision could not be detected by the sensors, therefore it isn't possible for the car to prevent it.
Are you basically saying a bulletproof vest has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't stop armour-piercing rounds? Or a fire extinguisher has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't put out a wild forest fire? There are always limitations to everything.
I'm saying Tesla engineers aren't looking at this and throwing their hands up in the air, claiming this was supposed to happen, and I'm saying a bulletproof vest has failed to achieve its design goal if you can't wear it when it's wet.
