Indeed. It's another example of a law that sounds good and obvious, but has no thought put into what it would actually end up doing to the world.

So many other problems. If we apply this law to cruise control - simple outcome. We get no cruise control.

We still have guns and knives and nail guns and even cars. They automate something, but also have potential to injure and kill. You just weigh the pros and cons. You don't just not do something because there's a risk of death. Cars are basically metal coffins. Just don't drive when drunk, etc? Basic competence and operational safety and responsibility? If cruise control made you free from blame everyone would just be driving drunk off their ass with cruise control on. How is that more thought out?

I hate to break it to you, but you are currently still responsible for killing somebody while driving a car on cruise control, especially if you act recklessly.

EDIT: to be less snarky, there are obvious exceptions if a manufacturer defect is involved. But I still imagine it turns on things like foreseeability and proximate cause (IANAL). Nevertheless, if you were asleep at the wheel, you're getting held responsible.

Do you think you are liability free if you’re operating a car on cruise control and it kills someone?