There should be such logic. Is this a version of "the beta excuse"? I mean, how hard is it to know that your EAP package ought to include the ability to detect common construction items? Why shouldn't we expect AEB to trigger for an object? Think of the robot children!
Does it say in the notes that it cannot see these common road construction items? They're among the first things I'd expect EAP to see. Cars and other *sugar* commonly found on a road.
Tesla Vision can barely see lane lines. I don't think it can distinguish children. At some point EAP stops being a driver assistance package and becomes a driver challenge package.
I'm not defending anything or giving excuses for anything, I'm telling you though that you're trivializing the problem. This isn't one of those things where "it's just a few lines of code" to fix it.
Tesla could have released a fully developed product, or they could have released a *sugar* product which they've been slowly improving upon. They did the latter. Many bigger companies are waiting and going for the former. There's nothing constructive you can do about it.
Now to get back to you trivializing the problem -- Where does it stop though? What do you call a common object?
-Person
-Construction cone
--But wait, construction cones come in different shapes and sizes, have to program them all
-Tire debris
-Car parts
--But wait, these come in different shapes and sizes too
-Tree branches
-Etc.
Which of the above should AEB trigger on? One of them? All of them? What about a small tree branch, is it better to trigger AEB or is it better to run over it? etc.
There are things which AEB 100% has to trigger for - car and person. I don't know what AP2 AEB can or can not trigger for (does it stop for people like AP1 yet?). The rest goes in the gray area. It's a complicated problem. Tesla will likely get there, the question is when.
But insinuating that since Tesla can't stop for a construction cone that's the size of a kid, that the Tesla would also miss a kid (and you're right, you didn't go there, you just left those two data points right next to each other) is absolutely incorrect.