The technological developments in automative industry lead German legislator to issue a couple of new regulations on Road Traffic Law. Within the framework of these developments, the German legislator need to regulate the relationship between the autonomized motor vehicles and the driver and to regulate the limits and the scope of this relationship. In order to meet these needs, the German legislators made some additions and amendments in German Road Traffic Code (GRTC) that entered into force in 21. 06. 2017. These modifications regulate the definition of autonomized motor vehicles at the third and fourth levels, rights and obligations of the driver, the relations between the driver and these motor vehicles. In this context, GRTC §1a II regulates the basic characteristics of the autonomized motor vehicle at third and fourth level, including the definition of such vehicles. According to GRTC §1a II, once the system has been activated, the autonomized motor vehicle at fourth and third level will be able to manage the vehicle’s driving (including steering, speed and braking control) ( GRTC §1a II b.1); to comply with the traffic rules required for driving during driving (GRTC §1a II b. 2); to recognize the requirements for the takeover of the driving by the driver (GRTC §1a II b.4); to enable driver that the driver may take over or deactivate the control at driver’s pleasure (GRTC §1a II b. 3), to warn the driver via visual, audible, sensible or perceptible stimulation to take control of the vehicle and to give the driver the time required to take control of the vehicle (GRTC §1a II b.5) and to indicate the usage contrary to the usage defined in the system (GRTC §1a II b. 6). Moreover, GRTC §1a IV identifies the driver as the person who is able to switch on and off the features which enable autonomized driving at the third and fourth levels, even if the driver has not taken over control of the motor vehicle within the intended use of the motor vehicle’s features. This provision reveals that the driver can dominate on the system of the autonomized motor vehicle. As a resut, these amendments determines generally relations between the driver and the autonomized motor vehicle. However, the German legislators make no modification related to that the operator will be liable for compensating damages caused by these vehicles, because of fact that the German legislator has already regulated liability of the operator in GRTC §7. In Turkish law, there is no need for any modification in the definition of motor vehicles in TRTC, considering the characteristics of the autonomized motor vehicles at all levels. However it should be examined whether the definition of the driver should be modificated in TRTC. In the autonomized vehicles at third and fourth level, the driver can leave driving to system of the autonomized motor vehicle. Even in this case, considering that the system is disabled by the driver and the driving is taken over by driver if necessary, it is possible to conclude that the ultimate control over the vehicle is on the driver,. For this reason, it should be considered mandatory to adhere to the concept of the driver, despite the system. Therefore, there is no need to modificate the definition of the driver in Turkish Law, since the presence of a driver is compulsory in the autonomized motor vehicles at third and fourth level and the final dominance will be in the driver. However, the driver may not be mentioned in the autonomized motor vehicles at fifth level. Because of fact that this definition of the driver in TRTC will not cover this level of motor vehicles. The drivers has various obligations according to national regulations. For the drivers of autonomized motor vehicles at third or fourth level, obligations of the drivers derived from the national regulations continue to exist. The stuation is the same in German Law for the motor vehicles at these level. The Turkish judge determines what kind of actions the driver should take, which of the doing or the non-doing behavior is necessary to ensure the control of the vehicle and traffic safety according to the provisions related the general liability in Turkish Tort Law by taking into account the autonomized motor vehicle’s specifications, However, even if the accident is caused by technical malfunctions or by the defective behaviour of the driver, the liability for the damages will remain on the operator regarding all levels of the autonomized motor vehicle. In this sense, when the accidents occurs due to the defective behaviour of the driver or the technical failure of the autonomized motor vehicle at all level, these will not exculpate the operator. Consequently, it should be stated that technical features of the autonomized motor vehicle determines the relations between the driver and the autonomized motor vehicle. It should also be discussed whether autonomisation has a radical effect on the liability of the operator. In our view, autonomisation itself can not be deemed as the basic element for deciding the liablity of the operator. First of all, it is not accurate to make a different assessment of the factors that cause the risk of the operation between the autonomous vehicles and the non-autonomous vehicles in terms of speed and weight. However, it may be argued that the autonomized motor vehicles may have fewer operational risks, unlike typical vehicles, given that they accurately assess the risks that may occur in traffic, minimize risk, or include systems that assist the driver in this regard or take over the temporary or permanent drive. As a result, the autonomized motor vehicles lead to occur risk rates of operating subduedly in any case. Thus, it is necessary to make an assessment based on the nature of the circumstances of the case.