Not having an emergency braking system should not have been a no no in this particular test. It was a prototype with probably many parts not working properly, t

Not having an emergency braking system should not have been a no no in this particular test. It was a prototype with probably many parts not working properly, that's why there was a human to check what was happening and act in case of issues. Here the driver is clearly at fault given that he was willfully not paying attention at the road. There is probably some degree of responsibility on the side of Uber however: * how this guy was recruted? * was he trained and evaluated? * is this kind of behavior quite common in test drives? if so, was it addressed? * did Uber put in place at least a basic system to keep the driver engaged (like a switch you have to press every 30 seconds)? Given the specifics I hope this ruling will not serve as a precedent, it's a bit too special. Lastly, it raises another question: Car automation is unlikely to become perfect within the next few years, and even if it is, the legal responsibilities and liabilities cause issues. So it's likely a driver will be kept in the loop, at least for a decade or two. Given this statement, how do we design automation that keeps the driver in the loop? The driver must be aware of the car surroundings at all times so he can take over in case of an emergency. Consequently the automation must be designed to maintain him active, and naturally on alert (like a "manual" driver), an automation that is like "yeah, do nothing... humm, oops I don't know what I put myself into, please take over, you have 2 seconds to analyze the situation and take the correct actions or someone will die, kiss, goodbye" is not the correct answer.