新能源车越来越香，但你真的会"开"吗？ 在新能源汽车发展初期，由于磷酸铁锂等原材料成本高企，叠加车企"三电"技术积累较少，为保证车辆 续航水平，自然就会对电耗"锱铢必较"。由此，隐藏式门把手也就成为了车企的主流选择之一。 以上数据标志着，中国汽车产业正式进入新能源与传统燃油车并存的"双轨"发展新阶段。 而随着新能源汽车渗透率的快速提升，行业焦点也从"量的突破"转向"质的保障"。在越来越多人感受到 新能源汽车带来的科技、环保、经济与便捷的同时，作为行业先锋的车企们，也面临着一场技术与安全 的深度博弈——动力电池安全、辅助驾驶安全、汽车门把手安全等议题，已成为牵动消费者神经的核心 关切。 一边是技术创新，另一边则是关乎生命的安全课题，它们的背后，是一场技术逻辑与人性诉求的拉锯 战。而在这场"战争"中，车辆与驾驶者组成的交通参与者，供应链与车企组成的产品创造者，以及监管 与行业机构，每一方都必须协同共进、在清晰的法律框架、技术标准和商业伦理下，切实承担起明确、 可问责、与其角色和能力相匹配的具体责任。 门把手的争议背后：安全成为车企新赛点 要说现阶段新能源汽车安全争议最大的，莫过于隐藏式门把手。 但其实，隐藏式门把 ...

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]