“自动驾驶”绝非醉驾的免罪符

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal principle that technology cannot be used as an excuse to evade responsibility for drunk driving, emphasizing that the driver remains the sole responsible party regardless of the vehicle's capabilities [1][2][3] Legal Framework - China's Criminal Law clearly states that driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated constitutes a crime, focusing on the driver's actions rather than the vehicle's technology [1] - The court's ruling reinforces that current Level 2 driving assistance systems are merely aids, and the driver must maintain control and responsibility at all times [1][2] Social Implications - There is a growing "technological innocence" mindset among drivers, exacerbated by misleading marketing from some car manufacturers regarding autonomous driving capabilities [2] - The legal requirement for drivers to remain vigilant and in control is paramount, as neglecting this duty poses risks to public safety [2][3] Ethical Considerations - The application of technology must be constrained within legal and ethical boundaries, with strict penalties for misleading marketing practices related to driving assistance technologies [2] - Law enforcement must uphold legal standards without leniency due to technological advancements, ensuring that progress serves humanity rather than creating loopholes for irresponsibility [2] Responsibility and Safety - The steering wheel symbolizes not just vehicle control but also the driver's responsibility, with a zero-tolerance policy towards drunk driving being essential for societal safety [3] - The ruling serves as a reminder that responsibility cannot be automated, and lawful driving is the only path to safety [3]