各位乡亲父老，让我们继续用最通俗的方法来读懂英语文章吧！

关于语法的、关于知识的、还有你懂的~

求转发、请点赞、快涨粉，GO！

---

原文版

This month, Germany’s transport minister, Alexander Dobrindt, proposed the first set of rules for autonomous vehicles. They would define the driver’s role in such cars and govern how such cars perform in crashes where lives might be lost.

The proposal attempts to deal with what some call the “death valley” of autonomous vehicles: the grey area between semi-autonomous and fully driverless cars that could delay the driverless future.

Dobrindt wants three things: that a car always chooses property damage over personal injury; that it never distinguishes between humans based on age or race; and that if a human removes his or her hands from the driving wheel — to check email, say — the car’s maker is responsible if there is a crash.

“The change to the road traffic law will permit fully automatic driving,” says Dobrindt. It will put fully driverless cars on an equal legal footing to human drivers, he says.

Who is responsible for the operation of such vehicles is not clear among car makers, consumers and lawyers. “The liability issue is the biggest one of them all,” says Natasha Merat at the University of Leeds, UK.

An assumption behind UK insurance for driverless cars, z&xxk introduced earlier this year, insists that a human “ be watchful and monitoring the road” at every moment.

But that is not what many people have in mind when thinking of driverless cars. “When you say ‘driverless cars’, people expect driverless cars.”Merat says. “You know — no driver.”

Because of the confusion, Merat thinks some car makers will wait until vehicles can be fully automated without operation.

Driverless cars may end up being a form of public transport rather than vehicles you own, says Ryan Calo at Stanford University, California. That is happening in the UK and Singapore, where government-provided driverless vehicles are being launched.

That would go down poorly in the US, however. “The idea that the government would take over driverless cars and treat them as a public good would get absolutely nowhere here,” says Calo.

---

分析版

This month, Germany’s transport minister（minister这个词的意思是“大臣”。我记得之前看到过一个说法，说因为mini是表示“小”的词缀，ster表示“人”，所以minister就是大臣的自称，也就是“小人”… …我觉得提出这种说法的人估计是劣质古装电视剧看多了… …虽然这样可以帮助我们记住这个词的意思，但刚才的说法完全是胡说八道。mini的确是表示“小”的词缀，但这个“小”还有“少”的意思，也就是说，minister从构词的角度来说，是指“人尖子”）, Alexander Dobrindt, proposed the first set of rules for autonomous vehicles（这个很好理解，autonomous是“自动的”，所以这个autonomous vehicles就是“自动驾驶的车辆”，也就是我们说的“无人车”）. They would define the driver’s role in such cars and govern（government认识吧，是“政府”的意思，这个govern就是它的动词，“管理”。这里要管理的是“在可能造成死亡的碰撞中，这种车的表现如何”） how such cars perform in crashes where lives might be lost.

The proposal attempts to deal with what some call the “death valley”（字面上看，这就是“死亡谷”，如果用更加口语化的方式翻译，就是“命门”，当然咯，好像这个并不怎么口语化… …） of autonomous vehicles: the grey area（这就是字面的意思，“灰色地带”） between semi-autonomous and fully driverless cars that could delay the driverless future（也就是说，这里有一个重要的问题，“半自动的无人车”和“全自动的无人车”之间啊，有一个“灰色地带”，而正是这个灰色地带的存在，可能会导致“无人驾驶汽车时代的到来大大推迟”）.

Dobrindt wants three things: that a car always chooses property damage over personal injury（就是说，汽车得知道，如果非要撞，那就撞东西别撞人，不能犯傻）; that it never distinguishes between humans based on age or race（在汽车眼里面呢，不能把不同年龄、不同种族的人区别对待，不可以挑那种“容易撞的人”撞，不能犯混）; and that if a human removes his or her hands from the driving wheel — to check email, say — the car’s maker is responsible if there is a crash（要是真撞了，比如说开车的人正在干别的事儿呢，那好，造车的人承担责任，不能犯怂）.

“The change to the road traffic law will permit fully automatic driving,” says Dobrindt. It will put fully driverless cars on an equal legal footing to（这个footing就是“基础”的意思，所以an equal legal footing to就是“一种平等的法律基础”，也就是说，得“一视同仁”） human drivers, he says.

Who is responsible for the operation of such vehicles is not clear among car makers, consumers and lawyers（是啊，“谁对无人车的造作负责呢？是造车的人、买车开车的人还是律师呢？”这事儿还没折腾明白… …不过我好奇的问题是，这里面有律师什么事儿啊… …）. “The liability（这个词的意思是“责任”，这里指的就是“法律责任”咯） issue is the biggest one of them all,” says Natasha Merat at the University of Leeds, UK.

An assumption behind UK insurance for driverless cars, introduced earlier this year, insists that a human “ be watchful and monitoring the road” at every moment（说“人应该时时刻刻关注着路面情况”，那估计很多人要问了：我要这破车有何用… …）.

But that is not what many people have in mind when thinking of driverless cars. “When you say ‘driverless cars’, people expect driverless cars（对吧，我说什么来着… …）.” Merat says. “You know — no driver（老司机就此退隐江湖… …）.”

Because of the confusion, Merat thinks some car makers will wait until vehicles can be fully automated without operation（那就是说，写这篇文章的时候，真正可以“无人驾驶”的车还没有造出来。不知道现在的情况怎么样了哈）.

Driverless cars may end up being a form of public transport rather than vehicles you own（敲黑板，划重点啦，rather than的意思是“而不是”。所以，这句话指的是“无人车啊，到最后很可能变成一种公共交通工具，而不是谁谁谁个人的车”）, says Ryan Calo at Stanford University, California. That is happening in the UK and Singapore, where government-provided driverless vehicles are being launched.

That would go down poorly in the US, however. “The idea that the government would take over（take over的意思是“接管”，结合前几句话，就是说，在这种情况下，车可就不是你的咯） driverless cars and treat them as a public good would get absolutely nowhere（get somewhere不是“到哪儿”的意思嘛，这个get nowhere就是“哪儿也到不了”，在这里的意思就是“没戏”。比如，Messi gets nowhere，“梅西没戏”… …是不是会得罪梅老师的球迷… …不过我要说明，我是阿根廷二十多年的球迷，但我从来不是梅西的球迷… …我支持冯潇霆！… …） here,” says Calo.