When the numbness of alcohol meets the convenience of autonomous driving, some people even try to use technology to excuse drunk driving. Recently, the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court concluded a related case. In this case, Yan, the perpetrator of drunk driving, argued that the use of the "autonomous driving function" did not constitute the crime of dangerous driving or argued that the responsibility should be reduced, but both were rejected by the court in accordance with the law. In the end, the court sentenced Yan to three months of detention and fined him 6000 yuan for dangerous driving. it happens that there is a similar case. In August of this year, a man drove under the influence of alcohol on the Chengdu Chongqing Ring Expressway and activated the intelligent assisted driving function. The vehicle then stopped on the overtaking lane, seriously endangering the safety of high-speed driving. Afterwards, the man also attempted to use "intelligent assisted driving" as a shield, but was still dealt with according to the law. This case sends a clear signal: technology is not an excuse for illegality, and the driver is always the first person responsible for safety. No matter how technology develops, the legal red line cannot be crossed. However, in reality, there are many people who have misunderstandings about autonomous driving. When cars are labeled as "autonomous driving", some people mistakenly believe that they can rely on autonomous driving technology to "fully manage" vehicles after drinking. This misreading of technology is essentially a disregard for the law and a disregard for life. Imagine, how can a person who is drunk and hazy make accurate judgments in emergency situations? Not to mention, the current intelligent driving systems on the market are only low-level assisted driving and still highly rely on the driver's full and wholehearted control to ensure driving safety. If the driver uses the assisted driving function after drinking alcohol, it is likely that the alcohol will paralyze the brain and prevent timely and effective control of the vehicle and emergency response, leading to accidents. In this way, even if the assisted driving function is activated, the danger of drunk driving will not disappear or decrease. On the contrary, wearing the cloak of "technology" will make people more relaxed and vigilant. The original intention of technology is to alleviate burdens, not to become accomplices to indulgence. We must not sacrifice safety while enjoying the convenience brought by technology. Whether it is the Road Traffic Safety Law or the Criminal Law, the recognition of "drunk driving" or "drunk driving" in Chinese law emphasizes the driver's overall control over the vehicle. As explained by the court in the judgment, "even after the activation of the driving assistance system, the driver is still performing dynamic driving tasks and needs to supervise the system and always participate in the driving tasks to ensure driving safety." Therefore, attempting to use "assisted driving" and "autonomous driving" as excuses to play a legal "borderline" and evade illegal liability is naturally not feasible. However, autonomous driving technology will eventually mature. If higher-level intelligent driving systems are popularized in the future, and driving rights are completely controlled by the system, how can we deal with possible drunk driving and drunk driving under autonomous driving conditions? It is also worth exploring. With the rapid development of technology, building a more refined system of rules should also be put on the agenda as soon as possible. To resonate with technological progress, the law must be prepared in advance. We look forward to a smarter future, but the bottom line of social security must not be broken. The controversy between drunk driving and autonomous driving is essentially a reflection on the relationship between human nature and technology. For this, it is necessary to clarify the most fundamental point - no matter how technology iterates, the reverence for life and compliance with the law should not change. (New Society)