Yes, that is what the legal system is set up to handle. Sometimes things are clear cut and there is no issue, but cases are often ambiguous, and that’s when you have a trial to determine the outcome. Both parties get to present their case, and a judge makes a decision based on their best judgement of the law and common sense (at least that is the intent). Ambiguity is not a gotcha, it is very much to be expected and what the system is built around.

Of course there can be cases where the law really is too vague to be reasonably followed, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.

Sometimes I wonder where we could be if all the AI money was spent on e.g. fusion energy research instead.

Frankly, foul folly feels fitter.

Not exactly the first time, given the incident a few years ago where a dog ran into the street and was struck by a Waymo. It got some publicity at the time but was forgotten relatively quickly, presumably since it was quite clear there wasn’t much any driver could have done in that situation. I expect this case will go over similarly, although maybe it will generate a bit more discussion since there are at least some imaginable ways this could have been prevented.