Play semantic games, get attention from supposedly reputable news source?<p>> <i>Actions need to be taken to start the vehicle, enter instructions regarding destination and route, and engage the self-driving function. These actions constitute driving</i><p>Shit, so taking a cab is still drunk driving? (hail cab <i>check</i>, tell driver destination <i>check</i>, shut door <i>check</i>). Because that is what people mean by <i>self driving cars</i> - a cab without a human, and most likely without even a steering column. By this guy's self-promoting definition, we've had "self driving" cars ever since <i>cruise control</i>.<p>> <i>Moreover, there are serious issues concerning the possible situations where a driver in an autonomous vehicle needs to intervene due to an emergency or system malfunction</i><p>Or not. Such a thing would be unsafe with even a sober and completely alert driver. They would be unconnected from how the car responds, and thus unable to operate it at a moment's notice. The only workable solution is to fail safe by pulling over.
The attitude expressed by Faulks in the article seems to be precisely backwards if you genuinely believe that driving while intoxicated is a bad thing. The harm comes from the impaired reflexes and judgment, not someone punching in a command to drive home on a touch screen console. Making the two scenarios legally equivalent will only discourage responsible behavior.