Saw mention of the operator of a motor vehicle claiming he wasn't DRIVING but, rather TRAVELING (as an argument against needing a driver's license to do so).
Wondering what wack-a-doodle logic this entailed:
Though, in an era of driverless cars, how might the notion of "driving" evolve -- as any occupant could have been the one who "ordered" the trip...
I'm picturing them screaming down the highway, completely lacking in vehicle...
The courts are already struggling with this one. It's not about who requested the ride (think of a limo with a driver) it's about who's responsible if something happens.
The wonderful, wacky, looney, completely shut down in any court it's arguments have appeared in, world of sovereign citizenship. Google that phrase if you want some twisted reasoning.
I think in all cases except hiring for some illegal purpose, the "driver" is clearly the operator and "in control of" the vehicle. The individual who hired the service has no direct control of the vehicle.
But, when the "driver/operator" is a piece of software, who, then, assumes responsibility for "control" of the vehicle? Do you fudge the issue by requiring "someone" to sit in the driver's seat and assume control if the vehicle does something "wrong"? [If so, then will truly driverless vehicles ever exist?]
I think simply falling back on "the operator of the vehicle" is the person responsible -- and avoid terms like "driving/driver", "traveling/traveler", "hallucinating/hallucinator", etc.
I think "driver" is just a colloquialism and the law refers to *operators* so the double-talk is just that...
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required