China has proposed adding autonomous driving to its national traffic law, marking the first time the new technology has been addressed at the national legal level. 

The draft, submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for its first reading on Aug. 25, introduces a legal framework for when self-driving vehicles can use public roads, which party is responsible when such vehicles violate traffic rules, and how insurance liability should be handled.

China’s autonomous-driving rules have largely remained at the level of national standards, regulations, and local legislation, leading to inconsistencies when assigning responsibility in traffic accidents involving self-driving cars. The lack of a national law has also made it difficult to enforce regulations regarding self-driving cars on public roads.

In 2021, China introduced a new national standard that established a driving automation classification system, which allowed vehicles to be categorized into six levels based on their degree of automation, but did not legally address autonomous driving. Cities including Beijing and the southern tech hub Shenzhen have introduced local rules for autonomous driving, which state that autonomous driving is permitted in limited locations.

The proposed amendment is based on a basic distinction between autonomous driving vehicles and cars with driver-assistance functions.

The draft law states that autonomous vehicles can continuously perform all driving tasks without a driver. If a violation occurs when an autonomous-driving function is active, the manufacturer or importer is thus legally responsible. If the manufacturer or importer argues that a violation was unrelated to autonomous-driving functions, it would have to provide evidence to support that claim. 

Driver-assistance functions, by contrast, only provide help during select maneuvers. Under the new amendment, a vehicle operating in driver-assistance mode is therefore still treated as a conventional vehicle.

Legal scholar Zheng Fei, a professor at the Institute of Evidence Law and Forensic Science at China University of Political Science and Law and a government advisor on the autonomous driving provisions, told Sixth Tone that the amendment is the first time the country has addressed responsibility in accidents involving autonomous vehicles.

Zheng said the amendment considers whether autonomous driving functions are active at the time of an accident, not just whether a vehicle has the capacity for autonomous driving. He said the distinction is intended to address problems with the country’s existing traffic law, which was written under the assumption that a human driver is always in control of a vehicle.

For consumers, Zheng said, such a distinction can also protect consumer rights and interests, allowing them to clearly judge the vehicle’s capabilities and clarify their own responsibility.

The draft amendment also addresses insurance liability for autonomous driving accidents, proposing that autonomous vehicles be subject to China’s compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance system. It also encourages manufacturers, importers, and owners of autonomous vehicles to purchase commercial insurance.

To prevent consumers from confusing driver assistance with autonomous driving, the amendment also requires manufacturers and importers to clearly define self-driving and driver-assistance functions.

The move comes in response to previous disputes in which carmakers were accused of equating the term “intelligent driving,” or zhineng jiashi, to autonomous driving as a marketing tactic. Critics say such claims have led consumers to overtrust these systems’ capabilities, contributing to serious accidents.

However, Zheng said that the provisions do not fully address civil compensation, product liability or criminal liability. He pointed to the unresolved issue of liability during “handover” — the period when a person takes the wheel after full self-driving mode, and vice versa. 

He also cautioned that autonomous driving systems can be deactivated by automakers, and could be tampered with by automakers in cases of accidents to avoid liability. Rules regarding data storage duration and anti-tampering also need clarification, he said.

Editor: Marianne Gunnarsson.

(Header image: Vectorstock/VCG)