The Chinese government recently submitted a draft amendment to its Road Traffic Safety Law for review by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. This proposed update introduces specific provisions related to autonomous vehicles and delineates clear distinctions between “autonomous driving” and “assisted driving.”
A new chapter titled “Specific Provisions for Autonomous Vehicles” has been added, explicitly defining these terms and the respective responsibilities associated with each. The draft specifies that in the event of a traffic accident while the autonomous driving feature is engaged, the vehicle manufacturer or importer will be held accountable.
“This amendment is significant because it clarifies responsibility,” explained Cui Dongshu, secretary-general of the China Passenger Car Association. “Previously, the driver was fully liable, but now, when the autonomous driving function is active, the manufacturer bears responsibility. This provides a legal foundation for fault determination and resolving consumer disputes.”
This proposed legislation elevates responsibility standards from industry norms to national law, Cui added. An earlier national standard issued by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology indicated that in Level 2 self-driving mode, the driver bears full responsibility for accidents, whereas in Level 3, the automaker assumes primary safety responsibility.
Cui believes that, over time, autonomous driving will become safer and more compliant with traffic rules—less prone to arbitrary lane changes, red-light violations, or tired-driving. As technology advances from Level 2 to Level 4, both the frequency of traffic accidents and congestion are expected to decline.
The revision also aims to help the public better understand the differences between assisted and autonomous driving, reducing safety incidents caused by misuse or misunderstanding. Industry insiders noted that manufacturers will now face increased requirements to ensure their systems accurately recognize traffic signals, speed limits, lane markings, and other road rules when operating in autonomous mode.
Furthermore, holding manufacturers liable for autonomous driving accidents is expected to motivate technological improvements, focusing on operational stability and redundancy across systems. This should curtail some companies from marketing “smart driving” features merely as sales gimmicks to dodge responsibility in accident cases.
However, the draft does not address scenarios where autonomous systems disengage moments before a crash, a boundary case that remains to be clarified through future regulations and legal interpretations.
Establishing clear legal liability is viewed as essential for the widespread commercialization of Level 3 and Level 4 autonomous vehicles. The maturation of self-driving technology, combined with well-defined legal responsibilities, is seen as key to transforming vehicles from specialized tools for a few into accessible mobility solutions for all. This progress could ultimately boost vehicle ownership rates across the country.