In Depth: Who Takes Responsibility When Self-Driving Cars Crash?
By Zhai Shaohui and Ding Yi
Smart-driving technology is the latest battleground in China’s auto industry. Carmakers are eager to claim the high ground in intelligent mobility and have accelerated the rollout of vehicles fitted with advanced driver assistance technology. But amid the industry hype, a fatal car crash disrupted the competition, serving as a stark reminder that the road to self-driving cars is paved not only with innovations but also with risks and uncertainties.
Amid this rapid investment in more and more advanced self-driving technology, policymakers are under pressure to swiftly enhance frameworks to clarify accountability when the tech goes awry and accidents happen. On March 29, a Xiaomi SU7 electric sedan carrying three university students smashed into a concrete divider on a highway in East China. The vehicle, which had been operating under the company’s intelligent driving system, erupted into flames, claiming the lives of all three passengers.
The tragedy sparked a nationwide discussion on the proper use of assisted driving systems and marketing-driven misconceptions about their capabilities. Yu Kai, CEO of Horizon Robotics Inc., a Chinese designer of self-driving computing chips, told an industry forum on April 12 that he was deeply concerned about car companies overstating the ability of driver assistance systems and called for more government efforts to protect consumers from being misled by flashy marketing claims about the technology.
Smart driving craze
Since the middle of 2024, competition in China’s auto industry has entered a new phase, where new-energy vehicle (NEV) makers were scrambling to launch mass-market models equipped with assisted driving solutions for highway and city driving.
In July 2024, Guangzhou Automobile Group Co. Ltd.’s (GAC) EV marque Aion was the first to lower the price of a smart car to 160,000 yuan ($22,000) with the launch of a pure electric SUV that touted an advanced smart driving system.
The move prompted many of its domestic competitors to follow suit, continuing into 2025, with EV giant BYD Co. Ltd. in February launching 21 budget models fitted with its God’s Eye intelligent driving system, whose sticker price ranges from 70,000 yuan to 200,000 yuan, further lowering the bar for buying a smart car in China and triggering a new round of price war joined by nearly all major industry players.
This heated competition has caused concern among industry experts that carmakers are blurring the boundaries between assisted driving and autonomous driving when advertising their driver assistance systems.
Car companies have tended to emphasize the “self-driving” ability of their assisted driving systems in marketing while their user manuals state that drivers must keep their hands on the steering wheel and be ready to take control in the event of an emergency while the autopilot feature is engaged, said Zhu Xichan, a professor at Tongji University’s School of Automotive Studies. The different wording in the manuals is due to legal requirements and accident liability concerns.
On April 16, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) summoned about 60 representatives from dozens of car companies for a meeting and told them to rein in the hype about the capability of driver assistance technology as well as to standardize the use of over-the-air (OTA) software updates to improve or fix features, according to the meeting’s minutes.
OTA updates have become a key selling point for carmakers. In China, it is commonplace for car companies to deliver less advanced smart driving functions to customers and improve them later by OTA updates to stay ahead of competitors.
OTA updates give automakers an opportunity to use immature smart driving technologies in their cars, which an executive at a smart car tech supplier said would be detrimental to the healthy development of the industry.
‘Autonomous driving’ responsibility
During the MIIT meeting on April 16, carmakers were told to stop using words including “autonomous driving” and “advanced smart driving” when advertising driver assistance systems that are equipped with Level 2 self-driving capabilities. They were also required to carry out rigorous tests to verify the reliability of any upgrades and new features in the systems and receive government approval before rolling them out via OTA updates, according to the minutes.
Autonomous driving capabilities are ranked from Level 0 to Level 5, based on U.S. engineering standards group SAE International’s classifications. Level 1 and Level 2 are considered driver assistance technology that requires a human to be in control of the car the whole time. Level 4 is met if the technology allows a car to drive itself almost independently in most conditions. Level 3 refers to features that enable a car to drive itself only under certain circumstances and require a person to be ready to take control in the event of an emergency.
The Chinese government classifies self-driving technology in a similar way, with Levels 0 to 5 based on the extent of human intervention and environmental conditions.
About 59.7% of new passenger vehicles sold in China in 2024 were fitted with a Level 2 assisted-driving system, domestic media reports said, citing data from research firm IDC.
In 2020, the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planner, and other government agencies published an autonomous vehicle development plan, which set the goal of China mass-producing vehicles with “conditional” self-driving capabilities by 2025. “Conditional” driving automation refers to Level 3 technology.
In June last year, the MIIT approved nine automakers including BYD, GAC and SAIC Motor to carry out road tests on vehicles equipped with Level 3 autonomous driving systems.
The Chinese government has already established a policy framework to support the development of smart vehicles, which involves road tests, market access and pilot operations of passenger and cargo transportation services on highways and urban roads.
But if more vehicles powered by Level 3 technology hit the roads, regulators will need to revise the rules used to identify who should be held accountable for traffic accidents involving smart cars, according to a person working at a car company.
During the annual “Two Sessions” gathering of lawmakers in March this year, XPeng Inc. CEO He Xiaopeng, who is also a deputy to the National People’s Congress, proposed that the government should amend traffic laws to clarify accident liability for different levels of smart vehicles and establish industry standards for related insurance products.
Chinese regulators are still studying how to certify vehicles powered by Level 3 technology, an industry expert said. “In the past, regulators set the certification requirements and automakers worked to meet them. Now, when it comes to what requirements a Level 3 vehicle needs to meet, it needs the government, certification bodies and car companies to work together to discuss the issue,” the expert said.
“If a certified Level 3 vehicle is involved in a traffic accident occurring with the autonomous driving system engaged, should the certification body, in addition to the automaker, be held accountable?”
Guidelines issued by the MIIT and three other government departments in 2023 state that when traffic accidents occur with autonomous driving systems activated, the driver remains the primary responsible party, even when assisted driving features are enabled.
So far, automakers and self-driving technology developers including GAC, XPeng and Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. have announced timetables for the launch of their Level 3 autonomous driving systems. Huawei plans to launch the fourth version of its Advanced Driving System this year, which is capable of Level 3 self-driving.
Contact reporter Ding Yi (yiding@caixin.com) and editor Jonathan Breen (jonathanbreen@caixin.com)
caixinglobal.com is the English-language online news portal of Chinese financial and business news media group Caixin. Global Neighbours is authorized to reprint this article.
Image: arobinson343 – stock.adobe.com