論自駕車之「駕駛」概念：以不能安全駕駛罪及肇事逃逸罪為中心

On the“Driving”Concept of Autonomous Vehicles:Focusing on the Offenses of Driving Under the Influence and Hit-and-Run

本文探討自駕車問世之後，刑法分則中交通犯罪之「駕駛」要件應當如何解釋，以切合應然上的規範目的及實然上的技術發展。本文首先概述自駕車之技術分級及其發展歷程，並聚焦討論範圍於第四級和第五級自駕車之使用者適用刑法第185條之3以及刑法第185條之4時可能遭遇的問題。針對此問題，本文參考美國及澳洲的立法討論及學者論述，並回顧我國學說及實務關於不能安全駕駛罪及肇事逃逸罪的討論，進而主張應當實質分析「駕駛」此一要件在各罪規範目的下之涵義，以重新建構自駕車使用者於此二犯罪類型下的責任基礎。考量駕駛要件於構成要件要素之層次不同、規範目的有別，本文認為：不能安全駕駛罪之駕駛，係將因服用致醉物後判斷暨操控能力弱化所生之行車風險形諸於外之行為；肇事逃逸罪之駕駛係權衡確認利益與人身自由後，限縮於事前、通案使用道路交通可能成立事故責任且具有資訊優勢之駕駛。準此，兩者不必做相同解釋，毋寧應在不同的規範目的和解釋策略下加以細緻區別。職是，由自駕系統操控車輛時，使用者縱服用超量酒精，亦無從增加危險性，原則上不成立不能安全駕駛罪；然，自駕車使用者抽象上仍具有責任成立可能且對事故有資訊優勢，而肯認其駕駛地位，進而於其使用自駕車發生事故且有故意過失時，仍應負在場義務。

This paper aims at interpreting the“driving”concept in the era of autonomous vehicles (AV). The current unified interpretation of driving fails to solve the dilemma between the benefit for drunken drivers to use AV and the requirement for AV users to stay at the scene after accidents. Hence, it is necessary to rethink and reinterpret the driving concept for AVs. By decoupling the driving concept under DUI laws and hit-and-run laws, such bifurcation allows us to reconstruct the meaning of driving according to the goal of each offense. This paper claims that driving under DUI law predicates the enhanced risk due to the diminished capacity of maneuvering the vehicle. However, in the context of AVs, it is the automated driving system that takes charge of driving tasks. The diminished capacity can never make driving dangerous when the automated driving system is engaged. On the contrary, the driving concept under hit-and-run law links to the anonymity of traffic, driver’s potential liability, and information advantage. While AV users do not operate the vehicle anymore, she could still be held liable for her negligence and have more information regarding the accident, including the software and the hardware of the vehicle owned by her. In sum, this paper concludes that the AV user shall not be convicted of driving under the influence even the user is intoxicated. The only exception is the teleoperator, who should not operate the vehicle remotely when she is intoxicated, and the user of level-4 vehicle, who is responsible for activating the automated driving system only when conditions permit. The user, however, is normally liable for failing to stop the vehicle and to disclose her identity if she is liable for the accident, except for the case where she is not in the AV. If the user leaves the scene without fulfilling the statutory requirements, she can be held criminally liable. Lacking superior knowledge of vehicles, passengers of dedicated autonomous vehicles and minors are therefore exempted.