TO THE EDITOR:
Regarding "How many must die for Tesla to face reckoning?" (April 26): Holding Tesla responsible for the actions of the reckless/foolhardy/inebriated is as nonsensical as blaming a firearm manufacturer for the deaths of innocents shot by the deranged (or equally reckless/foolhardy/inebriated).
That said, I do think Autopilot was an unfortunate choice of name for Tesla's driver-assistance system, certainly until they have improved it to at least Level 4 autonomy — despite the fact that Autopilot is actually quite an apt name (if you know what autopilot does for a suitably equipped aircraft — apparently most people do not).
Perhaps Tesla is being a little unhelpful by simply saying Autopilot was not engaged at the time of the collision, as I know from personal experience that if my 2015 Model S finds the Autopilot-assisted drive too demanding, it just drops out of Autopilot mode and tells you to take over. That is fine, as I always have at least one hand on the wheel when using it, and I also know under what circumstances it is likely to do so.
The danger in stringing Tesla up from the nearest tree is that the whole notion of autonomous vehicles may go the same way, and that would be a real shame, as the technology undoubtedly would save hundreds of thousands of lives every year across the planet. And, for all we know, Autopilot may have already saved many lives and prevented many, many more collisions.
MARTIN WINLOW, Director, EVBitz.uk, Kiloran, Scotland, EVBitz.uk is an electric vehicle charging equipment supplier, manufacturer and retailer.