A Tesla owner, who drove "no hands" on the M50 with his arms folded, has been cleared of dangerous driving after a court heard he had activated the car's autopilot system.
Noel Bourke, 37, of Bramley Hall, Diswellstown Avenue, Castleknock, Dublin 15, who pleaded not guilty, was pulled over on the motorway on the afternoon of 22 March 2021.
The defence accepted he was driving with no hands.
However, he testified that he was monitoring the car's autopilot driver assistant system and he gave an in-depth explanation of how it worked.
The mechanical engineer who works for a firm that develops military products and devices for autonomous vehicles was acquitted following a contested hearing before Judge John Hughes at Dublin District Court.
Garda Colin McCluskey told the court that he and a colleague were driving on the M50 when he noticed a Tesla car at 2.05pm heading northbound near the Ballymun junction.
Garda McCluskey said: "I looked to my left and two lanes across, I observed a male. He had his arms folded at the time, high across his chest, quite high, almost to his chin. It was quite obvious."
He alerted his colleague that the accused "was driving with no hands".
He accepted that there was nothing dangerous about the driving, which he described as "a bit mechanical". He told the court he then saw Mr Bourke with his hands interlocked on his lap below the steering wheel.
The gardaí pulled him over and asked him what he was doing, and he replied, "I was using autopilot".
Garda McCluskey then cautioned Mr Bourke not to drive without his hands on the steering wheel.
He said the defendant drove a considerable distance like that, and there was some traffic on the motorway then.
The garda was concerned that the man could not control the car if he had to swerve, adding that holding the steering wheel gave stability to the car and the driver's body.
The court heard that Mr Bourke had no previous convictions, had a clean driving licence and had been driving within the speed limit.
Cross-examined by defence solicitor Mark O'Sullivan, the garda agreed that traffic was not very heavy, and it was a dry day with good visibility.
The garda accepted nothing about the car's condition caused concern, and Mr Bourke cooperated.
In evidence, Mr Bourke agreed with the garda that some vehicles were on the road, but it was "not rush hour" traffic.
He said he bought the Tesla in March 2020 and had a previous automated vehicle.
He said he had 15 years of experience in his role and was a member of various technical societies.
He said the autopilot had to be engaged by the driver and only under acceptable conditions.
Mr O'Sullivan asked his client if the vehicle itself could disengage the autopilot. He replied: "It can if there is a visibility issue with the cameras or the system detects a situation it cannot handle."
But Mr Bourke explained that there were visual and auditory notifications when the autopilot disengaged.
A screen displays a picture of the steering wheel to indicate the driver to take control immediately, and an alarm sounds to get the driver's attention, and it repeats if the driver does not respond.
He said if another vehicle started to move to the lines between the lanes, his car would slow to accommodate that vehicle.
However, the system, he said, did not respond like a human, so while driving, he paid close attention to other vehicles' movements and "I try to monitor that and intervene if necessary".
Under cross-examination with a State solicitor, it was put to him that it was unsafe to drive using no hands on a public road. He replied, "Not with the correct systems," but added that without an automated system to control the car, it would be dangerous.
He accepted his knowledge was based on the instruction manual.
Asked if the unexpected happened, would he be able to react as quickly as a person with their hands on the steering wheel, he said, "I would be unsure of that."
Pressed, he was asked if a vehicle in front stopped suddenly or veered into his lane; he said it would slow the human reaction time but not the vehicle.
In later exchanges with the judge, he explained how the driver regained control, including moving the steering wheel or using a switch.
He said that if the driver ignored or were unresponsive to the visual and audio notifications to disengage the autopilot, the car would slow down in the lane, stop and activate the hazard warning lights.
Judge Hughes accepted the car was armed with various sensory devices that knew its environment. A car braking in front or changing lanes would be expected, but quoting the Road Safety Authority's maxim, "expect the unexpected", he asked Mr Bourke, "What about the unexpected?".
"What of, for instance, a rapid loss of control, a blowout of a tyre, a stray dog running erratically through the traffic, a child chasing a ball, for some reason, a projectile being thrown hitting the windscreen?".
Mr Bourke replied, "For some of those situations, Judge, for example, an animal or child, the cameras recognise those things; a blowout is quite a different story; that is the reason the human being is there. It is an automated, not an autonomous vehicle. It is not capable of driving without supervision of a competent driver."
The judge asked if he accepted that it would be better to have two hands on the wheel to take control of the vehicle, and he answered: "Probably yes".
Judge Hughes agreed with the defence solicitor that case law definitions of dangerous driving said there had to be a serious direct risk to another person.
Judge Hughes remarked that while having two hands on the wheel was optimal, he believed the accused was truthful and accepted Mr Bourke was monitoring the autopilot system.
Dismissing the case, he also noted the evidence describing the driving and amount of traffic at the time and held there was no direct risk to other people.
