China's goal of mass-producing self-driving cars by the end of this year has effectively been postponed. After a fatal accident involving a self-driving car, road approvals for level 3 (L3) autonomous vehicles were sharply curtailed, leading to projections that China's so-called "self-driving car rise" strategy will inevitably face setbacks.
Earlier, the Chinese government conditionally approved highway access for L3 autonomous vehicles from Changan Automobile and Arcfox last week. But of the nine automakers that submitted sales plans for self-driving cars, only those two received L3 approvals. The two companies were allowed to operate autonomous taxis on three highway sections located in each firm's home base, but the operating scope is so limited that the decision is effectively seen as permitting only additional pilot runs.
Autonomous Driving technology is classified from level 0 to level 5. Level 3 allows a driver to sit in the seat without directly operating the vehicle, but the driver must always be ready to take control immediately if needed. Unlike level 2 (L2), where responsibility for driving lies entirely with the driver, L3 can hold the manufacturer liable for accidents.
On the 23rd (local time), the New York Times (NYT) said of the Chinese government's move, "Lane changes are not permitted under computer control, and on all other roads the driver must directly control the vehicle," adding, "This is effectively an acknowledgment by the Chinese government that its roughly five-year-old goal of starting mass production of self-driving cars for general consumers by the end of this year was overly ambitious."
According to the NYT, some Chinese automakers including Geely Automobile expected L3 autonomous systems to be approved soon and had already begun mass-producing vehicles equipped with the cameras and various sensors required for L3 vehicles. But as the Chinese government maintains a cautious stance on approvals for self-driving cars, for now they can sell only L2 vehicles, in which only some functions are automated and the driver must keep hands on the wheel.
A fatal accident involving a self-driving car was the direct trigger that put the brakes on the Chinese government's "self-driving car rise." In March, three female college students were killed when Xiaomi's SU7 electric car, driving in "highway self-driving" mode, crashed into a highway guardrail. Xiaomi said the vehicle, traveling at 72 miles per hour (about 117 kph), detected a lane closure due to construction and sounded a warning to the driver, after which the driver took over, but about one second later the vehicle collided with the guardrail.
Doubts about the safety of self-driving cars then spread quickly in China. The Chinese government moved to clarify that the driver-assistance technologies installed in vehicles currently mass-produced in China are different from full Autonomous Driving. At the time, the government warned drivers of self-driving cars that "using a mobile phone, sleeping, making calls, or eating while driver-assistance functions are on not only violates road traffic safety laws but also seriously threatens the safety of other road users."
Reports have also emerged that deepen questions about the safety of Chinese self-driving cars. Earlier, state broadcaster CCTV reported in July on the results of a test by a Chinese automotive media outlet that examined 36 models across 20 brands to see whether L2-level driver assistance (collision avoidance) technology could avoid crashes with trucks near nighttime construction sites. Fewer than half of the tested vehicles successfully avoided collisions, and only two Tesla models showed relatively reliable driver-assistance systems across various safety scenarios.
Bill Russo, a Shanghai-based electric-vehicle consultant, said, "L3 autonomous driving was perceived as imminent, but in reality marketing got ahead of governance, insurance frameworks, and public trust, and the pace became excessively fast." He called the government's decision "not a move to halt the development of self-driving cars, but a kind of 'official pause' to set clear safety standards while modulating the pace and limiting the scope of deployment."