死者是一位49歲的婦女，正在推著腳踏車過馬路，走在斑馬線之外。肇事者是亞利桑那州核准行駛的Uber無人駕駛車，車型是Volvo XC90。

這輛無人駕駛車上還是有一個駕駛，Rafael Vasquez，現在還不知道他有沒有采取任何阻止車禍的行動。

Uber 已經全面暫停使用自動駕駛。

一位美國律師的觀點是，這個案子要分民事和刑事，民事很容易，他會以 Uber為主要控訴目標，其次是准許無人駕駛車上馬路的亞利桑那州Tampa市政府。

刑事則相當困難，什麼環節的錯誤造成致命車禍，需要抽絲剝繭調查才有可能釐清。

Matt Henshon, a Boston lawyer who has written and spoken widely on artificial intelligence and self-driving cars, said that while a civil suit would be fairly straightforward, the question of potential criminal liability is much more complicated.

Could the human driver have intervened? Were developers negligent in their design and rollout of the software? Was a nonworking sensor missed by inspectors?

“The analogy is autopilot, in the airline case, where you put it on autopilot but the pilot still remains legally responsible,” he said. “Would they have been able to do something?”

He said it raised a key question: “Who had ultimate responsibility, the human driver or the car itself?” he asked. But even if the car was deemed responsible, mechanical and software-related questions would also come up.

“What bug was in there?” he said. “Was it reasonable for somebody to miss the bug?”

A civil case would be much more straightforward.

“If I’m representing the decedent … I’m suing the city for allowing everyone to do it,” he said. “But Uber’s my main target.”

無人駕駛的車能開嗎？車上有人嗎，有人為什麼不控制一下，撞人之死，與殺人有什麼不同！所以這車是誰的就要這車主賠償一切，還要把這車主以法抓捕，該判刑還得判刑！所以現代人死在無人車上，真的說不過去，今後還會出事，駕駛不應該沒人管，車是移動的物體，應該要人在旁控制，造出無人駕駛的車，是給駕駛員減輕勞動為，但一定還是要用人來控制，不應該沒人駕駛！否則真的還會死人，車上的人也會死！