Most of those aren’t likely even engineered mechanical products let alone ones that are designed to minimize user attention. And you probably noticed they have things like childproof caps, guards, shields, hand grips with stops, and more.

If that’s the limitation it should not ship. Sorry. If it can’t stop for a stationary object for which it is headed for an offset crash with it, it fails the FMEA.

I would say expected misuse within reasonable limits. Gross misuse, even when expected, would require making a product useless for its intended purpose. But this with TM isn’t gross misuse, it’s expecting the product to function as reasonably expected.

I’ve been doing product development for a couple decades. I cannot recall of an instance that the customer was supposed to be paying attention was considered an acceptable excuse.

Furthermore calling it “autopilot’ essentially tells people they don’t have to pay attention. Also when something sometimes doesn’t work is…

“None of those automakers have a level 2 autonomous driving system on the market.”

And yet that attitude doesn’t work for Ford, GM, Toyota, and so on....

“It may be one tool, but it’s a pretty big one.”

So let’s say TM is correct here and the motorist didn’t take the wheel as instructed. Well guess what that should be? That should be part of the FMEA. Since the severity of such a thing would get the highest (worst) score it should have been addressed. The probability wouldn’t have scored well but the detectability…

Oh for fuck’s sake. I was very clear that was for a society that does not value property rights. If the society does not value property rights government is a moot point. Government _cannot_ protect my property rights if you and nearly everyone else refuse to recognize them. It has no capability to police such a…

Usually effectively no. If they could why do the same problems persist year after year, decade after decade? Why is the solution always more of the same regardless who is in office? The institution is the same, the people who run it are chosen the same way, the people chosen think the same way, etc and so on.…

You are continuously demanding things of me yet you have still not offered any valid support for your assertion that governments are required for markets. So let’s table any further demands of yours until you can support this assertion of yours.

I didn’t create a strawman. You simply don’t understand the subject. Government will always use its power to affect the market. Your demand from me therefore is illogical. Because government affects the market does not mean the market needs the government to exist.

Products are replaced all the time for superior ones, cheaper ones, whatever the market demands.

It’s a market inside prison with a functioning price mechanism. It’s not a free market because it is inside a prison but it is a market.

If it was the case that the tire was unfit for motor homes why did Goodyear sell this tire for so long? They should have been able to develop and tool up a new tire and just retire the G159 as a regular product update. These cases had to cost more than a tire development program. A new tire model would stop the damage…

Government uses taxation and regulation to crush decentralized travel of the peasantry. Centralized managed travel under its control inherits the world.

Government likes to meddle in markets for the favor of its friends, those who operate government, and so on, but government is not needed for markets to exist. Markets always exist. Even when governments make them illegal they still exist. There are markets inside of government prisons even.

That’s the very nature of technocratic governance you’re questioning. The folly of which is what I was pointing out.

If they don’t live up to the marketing then stop buying them.

Government doesn’t ‘correct’. That would require admitting error. Instead it expands and does more. If government wanted to correct its error of encouraging diesel powered vehicles it would fix what it did before.