China Proposes National Autonomous Driving Rules, Putting Traffic Violations on Automakers

Responsibility would follow who was driving

China is proposing a national legal framework that would require manufacturers or importers to handle traffic violations committed while a vehicle's autonomous driving function is active. The revision to the Road Traffic Safety Law, submitted for its first reading on August 25, 2026, would leave vehicles using driver assistance under the rules for conventional cars.

The distinction is central to a proposed new chapter covering Articles 95 through 103. Rather than assigning responsibility simply because a car contains autonomous technology, the draft asks whether that technology was actually controlling the vehicle when the violation occurred. A manufacturer or importer arguing that the violation was unrelated to the autonomous function would have to provide evidence.

The proposal also sets conditions for production approval, imports and operation on public roads, brings autonomous vehicles into compulsory traffic accident insurance, and gives traffic authorities access to vehicle data for accident investigations. It does not automatically make automakers responsible for compensation in every crash. Civil compensation, product liability and criminal responsibility remain separate questions.

The distinction would affect a market where driver assistance is already widespread. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology reported that Level 2 combined driver assistance reached a penetration rate of 70.5% in passenger vehicles during 2026. Most vehicles with these features would remain outside the provision requiring companies to handle violations during autonomous operation.

The draft has not become law. Its first reading and subsequent discussions mark the start of legislative scrutiny, with lawmakers already seeking more detail on driver obligations, responsibility at different automation levels and the connection between traffic enforcement and accident compensation.

A national framework beyond local pilots

The proposed revision contains 170 articles in nine chapters. It would be the first comprehensive revision of the Road Traffic Safety Law since the law took effect in 2004, following narrower amendments in 2007, 2011 and 2021.

Justice Minister He Rong, presenting the proposal to lawmakers, said changes in transport technology and economic development meant existing provisions no longer fully met practical needs in traffic safety responsibilities, management, enforcement and legal liability.

Autonomous driving has until now been governed largely through technical standards, administrative measures, pilot programmes and local legislation. Municipal testing zones began issuing supervised permits in 2017. China introduced a national classification standard with six automation levels in 2021, while Shenzhen adopted a local autonomous vehicle liability law in 2022. Beijing has also established rules permitting operation in designated areas.

Those measures allowed testing and deployment to advance, but did not create a single national answer to every question about public road access or responsibility. The new chapter seeks to establish that legal foundation without treating all vehicles marketed as intelligent as autonomous.

Wang Ying, a professor at Renmin University of China's law school, described the proposal as a framework covering admission, road use, accident investigations, vehicle data and insurance. She said its broad approach leaves room for technical change and further rules. That flexibility also means some practical answers would depend on later measures rather than the law alone.

Driver assistance is not autonomous driving

Article 95 defines an autonomous vehicle as one that can continuously perform all dynamic driving tasks instead of a human driver within its designed operating conditions. Dynamic driving tasks mean the work of controlling the car and responding to the road, including steering, braking and monitoring surrounding traffic.

Driver assistance, by contrast, helps a person perform only some of those tasks. A vehicle equipped solely with assistance, or an autonomous vehicle whose autonomous function is not activated, would be managed as a conventional vehicle.

This separates capability from actual use. A car's equipment would not, by itself, determine who handles a traffic violation. Its operating mode at the relevant moment would matter.

The automation levels help explain the boundary. Level 2 systems assist with vehicle control but require the driver to supervise the road. Level 3 systems can perform the driving task under specified conditions but may require a human to take control. Level 4 systems can operate without a human taking over within their permitted operating conditions. The draft's definition depends on the driving function and its use, rather than a marketing label alone.

Road access would come with operating limits

Article 96 would require autonomous vehicles seeking production approval or import permission to pass tests confirming compliance with road traffic rules. Approval would therefore involve demonstrating lawful driving behaviour, not simply showing that the technology can move a vehicle without human control.

After registration, autonomous functions could be activated only within the conditions for which they were designed. Manufacturers and importers would have to prevent activation outside those conditions. Such limits can concern where or under what circumstances a system is designed to operate; permission would not amount to unrestricted autonomous driving everywhere.

The draft also prohibits unauthorized modifications and requires companies to protect road safety, cybersecurity and data security. These duties connect approval with continued safe operation, including protection against changes that could undermine a vehicle's permitted functions.

A separate mandatory technical standard, Safety Requirements for Autonomous Driving Systems of Intelligent Connected Vehicles, is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2027. Announced by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology on August 4, it covers Level 3 and Level 4 systems and requires safety at least equivalent to that of a qualified, attentive driver. Level 3 systems must also monitor whether the driver is capable of taking control.

The standard and the proposed law address different questions. Technical requirements set a safety threshold for systems. The traffic law would establish conditions for lawful road use and principles for handling violations. Neither should be mistaken for a blanket authorization to use autonomous functions on any road.

Traffic violations and crash compensation are different

Article 97 would place the manufacturer or importer in the position of handling a traffic violation when an autonomous function is active. If the company disputes the connection between the violation and that function, the burden of supporting its argument would fall on the company.

Zheng Fei, a professor at the Institute of Evidence Law and Forensic Science at China University of Political Science and Law and a government adviser on the provisions, said the distinction addresses a basic assumption in existing traffic law: that a human driver is always controlling the vehicle.

However, handling a traffic violation is not the same as paying all losses after an accident. A collision can involve several legal questions, including whether a traffic rule was broken, whether a product was defective, who must compensate an injured person and whether conduct amounts to a crime. Zheng cautioned that the draft does not fully resolve civil compensation, product liability or criminal liability.

Article 99 would apply China's compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance system to autonomous vehicles, with detailed arrangements to be set by the State Council. Manufacturers, importers and owners would also be encouraged to buy commercial insurance. The proposal establishes an insurance framework, but does not settle every dispute about coverage or the final allocation of losses.

Vehicle data would become central evidence

Determining whether autonomous driving was active will require evidence about what the vehicle was doing at the relevant time. Article 98 would allow traffic management authorities to obtain autonomous vehicle data for accident investigations and require manufacturers, importers or entrusted organizations to cooperate.

That provision goes beyond brief descriptions of the proposal that leave data access unexplained. It establishes an investigation power and a cooperation duty, although it does not answer every question about how records would be preserved, checked or used in a contested case.

Zheng identified data retention and protection against tampering as issues needing further clarification. He warned that automakers can deactivate autonomous systems and raised concerns about possible manipulation after an accident to avoid responsibility. This is a concern about the reliability of evidence, not an allegation that a particular manufacturer has done so.

A related problem is the transfer of control between a system and a person. An incident may occur while a driver is taking over after autonomous operation, or while the system is assuming control. Knowing that a function was switched on or off may not fully explain whether the transfer was safe or who failed to act.

The chapter also includes vehicle data and personal information protection, risk assessment, owner training and operating manuals. Accident investigators need usable records, while vehicle users need protection for personal information. The final rules would have to make those duties work together.

Lawmakers seek clearer duties for drivers and companies

During group deliberations on August 28, members of the National People's Congress Standing Committee proposed changes addressing responsibility, terminology and driver assistance. Their suggestions are not adopted provisions.

Committee member Wang Tiemin called for responsibility to be differentiated by automation level. He proposed that system developers and vehicle manufacturers bear the main responsibility for violations and accidents in highly and fully automated operation, with clearer obligations for drivers to take control when using assistance.

Committee member Xu Hui argued that safety also depends on vehicle maintenance, system operation and the ability of relevant organizations to provide safeguards. He sought explicit duties for drivers, owners or managers and other parties responsible for safety, alongside connections to civil, product and insurance liability.

Li Huiqiong, another committee member, proposed specific obligations for assistance systems: drivers should retain control rather than rely completely on the technology, and manufacturers should prominently explain limitations and conditions of use. Xian Tie ke suggested broadening the chapter's title and provisions to cover driver assistance more directly.

These proposals expose the gap between the draft's broad distinction and difficult individual cases. A system may fail to warn about an obstacle, or a driver may fail to respond to a warning. Classifying a car as assisted or autonomous does not, by itself, settle every responsibility arising from those events.

Marketing claims face a stricter boundary

The draft would require manufacturers and importers to distinguish autonomous functions from driver assistance and prohibit false or exaggerated claims. That responds to disputes over the use of terms such as intelligent driving, which can encourage buyers to assume a vehicle needs less supervision than it actually does.

A regulatory campaign in 2025 restricted the use of autonomous driving terminology for Level 2 systems, with reported fines of up to 1 million yuan for exaggerated claims. The proposed national law would extend the distinction into the broader framework governing road use and responsibility.

Cui Dongshu, secretary general of the China Automobile Dealers Association's passenger car market information council, said clearer rules and mandatory standards would make it harder to overstate capabilities or avoid responsibility. Explaining his view of safety standards, he said:

"Mandatory standards are not meant to restrict innovation, but to set a safe track for the autonomous driving industry," Cui said.

The commercial pressure behind those claims is substantial. Manufacturers showcased their autonomous driving ambitions at the Beijing Auto Show in April as domestic passenger vehicle sales fell 17% in the first quarter. Software and automated functions have become a way to compete as vehicle margins come under pressure.

The ministry's reported 70.5% penetration for Level 2 assistance compares with 34.2% for navigation on autopilot, a gap of 36.3 percentage points. These figures describe feature adoption, not the share of cars legally permitted to operate without driver supervision. A navigation function's name does not establish its legal status.

The legislative timetable and deployment record

The proposal follows several years of permits, local laws and technical rules. The draft publication identifies August 28 to September 26, 2026, as the public consultation period. No date for final passage or commencement has been announced.

• 2017: Municipal testing zones began granting supervised autonomous vehicle permits.
• 2021: China introduced a national standard classifying driving automation into six levels.
• 2022: Shenzhen adopted a local autonomous vehicle liability law.
• December 2025: Deepal and Arcfox models received China's first Level 3 market access approvals for conventional passenger vehicles. Beijing also issued Level 3 road use permits to Changan and BAIC.
• August 25, 2026: The national traffic law revision was submitted for its first reading.
• August 28, 2026: Lawmakers held group deliberations, and the stated public consultation period began.
• September 26, 2026: The stated consultation deadline.
• July 1, 2027: The mandatory Level 3 and Level 4 safety standard is scheduled to take effect.

Deployment has also encountered reliability problems. More than 100 Baidu robotaxis reportedly stalled in Wuhan in March 2026. New Level 4 permits were reportedly frozen for three months and resumed gradually from late July. The cause of the outage was not publicly explained in those accounts, so the incident does not establish a technical cause or a legal finding against the company.

The wider traffic law revision would also address human driving risks. Using handheld phones or watching videos while driving, where this causes an accident or other serious consequences, could bring fines of 200 to 500 yuan and a possible three month licence suspension. The autonomous chapter is part of a broader revision, rather than a replacement for conventional driving duties.

Key Points

• The draft would require manufacturers or importers to handle traffic violations occurring while autonomous driving functions are active.
• Driver assistance and autonomous vehicles operating without their autonomous functions activated would remain under conventional vehicle rules.
• Companies disputing a violation's connection to autonomous driving would have to provide evidence.
• Production and import approval would require traffic rule compliance tests, with activation limited to designed operating conditions.
• Traffic authorities could obtain vehicle data for accident investigations, while preservation and evidence safeguards still need clarification.
• Compulsory accident insurance would cover autonomous vehicles, but the draft does not automatically transfer all crash compensation to automakers.
• The proposal is not yet law. Public consultation is listed as closing on September 26, 2026, and a separate mandatory safety standard takes effect on July 1, 2027.