各位鄉(xiāng)親父老，讓我們繼續(xù)用最通俗的方法來讀懂英語文章吧！

關(guān)于語法的、關(guān)于知識的、還有你懂的~

求轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)、請點(diǎn)贊、快漲粉，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這個詞的意思是“大臣”。我記得之前看到過一個說法，說因?yàn)閙ini是表示“小”的詞綴，ster表示“人”，所以minister就是大臣的自稱，也就是“小人”… …我覺得提出這種說法的人估計(jì)是劣質(zhì)古裝電視劇看多了… …雖然這樣可以幫助我們記住這個詞的意思，但剛才的說法完全是胡說八道。mini的確是表示“小”的詞綴，但這個“小”還有“少”的意思，也就是說，minister從構(gòu)詞的角度來說，是指“人尖子”）, Alexander Dobrindt, proposed the first set of rules for autonomous vehicles（這個很好理解，autonomous是“自動的”，所以這個autonomous vehicles就是“自動駕駛的車輛”，也就是我們說的“無人車”）. They would define the driver’s role in such cars and govern（government認(rèn)識吧，是“政府”的意思，這個govern就是它的動詞，“管理”。這里要管理的是“在可能造成死亡的碰撞中，這種車的表現(xiàn)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，這就是“死亡谷”，如果用更加口語化的方式翻譯，就是“命門”，當(dāng)然咯，好像這個并不怎么口語化… …）?of autonomous vehicles: the grey area（這就是字面的意思，“灰色地帶”）?between semi-autonomous and fully driverless cars that could delay the driverless future（也就是說，這里有一個重要的問題，“半自動的無人車”和“全自動的無人車”之間啊，有一個“灰色地帶”，而正是這個灰色地帶的存在，可能會導(dǎo)致“無人駕駛汽車時代的到來大大推遲”）.

Dobrindt wants three things: that a car always chooses property damage over personal injury（就是說，汽車得知道，如果非要撞，那就撞東西別撞人，不能犯傻）; that it never distinguishes between humans based on age or race（在汽車眼里面呢，不能把不同年齡、不同種族的人區(qū)別對待，不可以挑那種“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，比如說開車的人正在干別的事兒呢，那好，造車的人承擔(dān)責(zé)任，不能犯慫）.

“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（這個footing就是“基礎(chǔ)”的意思，所以an equal legal footing to就是“一種平等的法律基礎(chǔ)”，也就是說，得“一視同仁”）?human drivers, he says.

Who is responsible for the operation of such vehicles is not clear among car makers, consumers and lawyers（是啊，“誰對無人車的造作負(fù)責(zé)呢？是造車的人、買車開車的人還是律師呢？”這事兒還沒折騰明白… …不過我好奇的問題是，這里面有律師什么事兒啊… …）. “The liability（這個詞的意思是“責(zé)任”，這里指的就是“法律責(zé)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（說“人應(yīng)該時時刻刻關(guān)注著路面情況”，那估計(jì)很多人要問了：我要這破車有何用… …）.

But that is not what many people have in mind when thinking of driverless cars. “When you say ‘driverless cars’, people expect driverless cars（對吧，我說什么來著… …）.” Merat says. “You know —?no driver（老司機(jī)就此退隱江湖… …）.”

Because of the confusion, Merat thinks some car makers will wait until vehicles can be fully automated without operation（那就是說，寫這篇文章的時候，真正可以“無人駕駛”的車還沒有造出來。不知道現(xiàn)在的情況怎么樣了哈）.

Driverless cars may end up being a form of public transport rather than vehicles you own（敲黑板，劃重點(diǎn)啦，rather than的意思是“而不是”。所以，這句話指的是“無人車啊，到最后很可能變成一種公共交通工具，而不是誰誰誰個人的車”）, 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”，結(jié)合前幾句話，就是說，在這種情況下，車可就不是你的咯）?driverless cars and treat them as a public good would get absolutely nowhere（get somewhere不是“到哪兒”的意思嘛，這個get nowhere就是“哪兒也到不了”，在這里的意思就是“沒戲”。比如，Messi gets nowhere，“梅西沒戲”… …是不是會得罪梅老師的球迷… …不過我要說明，我是阿根廷二十多年的球迷，但我從來不是梅西的球迷… …我支持馮瀟霆！… …）?here,” says Calo.