When it comes to encouraging the development of cutting-edge technology, the Chinese government takes a pragmatic approach to policymaking. In the realm of autonomous driving, the government has made significant progress in establishing the criteria and constraints for service providers, eliminating legislative uncertainty, and allowing industry participants to test the embryonic technology.
The Ministry of Transport has released trial rules for AV services such as robotaxis, self-driving trucks, and robobuses. The revelation came approximately 16 months after the agency started soliciting public feedback on the regulatory framework, and lawmakers have agreed that self-driving cars would be subject to stringent monitoring procedures to guarantee maximum safety.
Prior to the implementation of the national guidelines, policymaking for AVs in China had been more decentralized, with local governments developing their own laws for service providers on their territory. Major IT centers, such as Beijing, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou, have been pioneers in enabling corporations to test AVs with minimal human intervention.
There are a few significant things in the new rules, and a thorough reading exposes some fascinating discrepancies between Chinese and US authorities’ attitudes toward young technology.
For one thing, the laws state that AVs, regardless of their degree of automation, are only permitted to function inside certain zones. For example, autonomous buses should operate on “enclosed roads with relatively simple conditions.” The prohibition seems to be significantly less stringent for robotaxis, which are permitted under “controlled and safe traffic conditions.” The most specific limits apply to robo trucks, which are limited to “point-to-point highways or good traffic conditions.”
In addition to getting permits for their AVs, operators also need to apply for the necessary licenses for public transportation service providers. To inform other drivers on the road, AVs should be prominently identified.
The rules only contain one mention of software, requiring that over-the-air updates follow Ministry of Industry and Information laws to assure their safety.
The standards also outline the responsibilities of safety operators at varying levels of automation. Autonomous freight trucks should “in principle” have in-car safety operators. One in-car safety operator is required for robotaxis with sophisticated automation. Additionally, given that the cars only operate in specific areas, remote safety operators who should not be in charge of more than three vehicles may oversee robotaxis with complete automation.
Unlike US authorities, who compel AV operators to report incidents, China takes a more active, surveillance-based approach. AVs are supposed to monitor and store vehicle status while also communicating critical data in real-time to both service providers and applicable local regulatory bodies, according to standards handed forth by China’s Ministry of Transport. They should also reach an agreement with car makers and safety operators on the extent of each party’s duties.
So, what information should regulators anticipate in the event of an accident? The laws require that AVs have at least 90 seconds of recorded event data, which includes the vehicle’s license plate number, control mode, location, speed, acceleration, and direction. It should also include the car’s awareness of the environment and subsequent reaction, signal status, a 360-degree camera picture of the car’s surroundings, and, if applicable, remote instructions or fault diagnostics.
The data should, in particular, comprise in-car video and audio records of driver behavior and human-machine interaction. In contrast, Cruise and Waymo only capture videos and activate audio recordings during live support conversations. The audio requirement for AVs isn’t all that shocking, considering that Chinese ride-sharing firms like Didi already record in-car discussions for safety reasons, a regulation that has sparked worries about passenger privacy.
