Carmi Levy

It wants to go straight, drive right off of the overpass into three-dimensional space.

The woman tries to take over, fails.

The car still crashes into the side.

She is seriously injured.

Thankfully, her one-year-old child, who was in a car seat in the backseat, was unharmed, is fine.

And she is now suing the company, not just for the fact that she had the accident, but for the fact that they market this technology as automated.

They market this technology as innovative.

It drives perfectly.

It sets an expectation that it will get you to your destination safely when clearly that is not the case.

This isn't the first time we've seen video like this, but now we are seeing, you know, this is yet another example of people trusting Elon Musk when he says it's full self-driving when clearly it is not.

I would like to think that you're right.

The terms of use are pretty definitive about what happens in an accident.

But I am certain that this trial will look at what those terms are and ask whether they are, in fact, reasonable, especially in light of the marketing that the company engages in to convince buyers of.

of whether it's worth it.

Remember, this is a feature that depending on when you bought the car, either added $8,000 or $12,000 to the price of the vehicle.

Now it's being sold as a subscription, but it's still, you're going to get this back in exchange for whatever you pay us.

And this is the kind of service it will deliver.

It's a very high expectation and it suggests level five automation.

A

suggests complete hands-off, and it minimizes the risks.