China's Safety Crackdown: The End of Default One-Pedal EV Mode?
However, one of the largest EV markets is becoming much more strict about groundbreaking tech, as experts in the region raise red flags about its efficacy.
According to a new report by the Chinese state-owned broadcaster CCTV News, the regulators at the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology recently released some new regulations that will see some changes to the passenger cars sold in the country.
Under the terms of GB 21670-2025, in the new edition of the "Technical Requirements and Test Methods for Passenger Car Braking Systems," regulators state that upon startup, "the vehicle cannot be slowed down to a stop by releasing the accelerator pedal, and the driver must use the brake pedal to stop the vehicle."
To put it into plain English: one-pedal driving hasn't been entirely banned in China, but drivers must go through menus or toggle a switch to select it each time they drive, which regulators feel is much safer.
The new regulation, which will come into effect in 2027, comes as many drivers in China, particularly older drivers, have been having a tough time with regenerative braking and one-pedal driving, which became the default setting in many Chinese-market EVs, particularly those made by Tesla. This effect caused some strange crashes labeled as "sudden unintended acceleration" (SUA), where drivers who thought they hit the brakes ended up stomping the throttle and causing some serious accidents.
After a number of crashes, regulators ordered Tesla to recall its cars and update the driving system, switching the default braking mode from "Hold" to "Creep" to encourage drivers to use the brake pedal to keep the car still. However, regulators weren't completely happy with the fix and decided to change the rules. Last year, they announced this decision with a draft bill, and it's now been approved as part of the national standard.
In addition to the new one-pedal rule, starting next year, new EVs sold in China must have brake lights that illuminate when deceleration caused by energy recovery exceeds 1.3 m/s². This addresses a common concern with drivers following behind EVs, who might not realize a car is slowing down without the conventional brake light cues. The new rules also indicate that anti-lock braking systems will become mandatory on new EVs in China starting in 2026, which is considerably later compared to the US (which mandated them in 2011) and the EU (which mandated them in 2004).
The sophisticated tech that goes into EVs is cool and all, but as someone who is technically part of the social media-savvy and technologically adept Generation Z, regenerative braking and one-pedal driving are my least favorite features in today's EVs and hybrid vehicles.
A string of videos about Uber passengers who get carsick in Teslas never fails to reach my 'for you' page on TikTok. Still, after watching many of them, it is easy to tell that their grievances lie with the regenerative braking system that Uber and other rideshare drivers somehow do not know how to use.
"What the hell does Elon Musk put in his cars to make me feel so violently ill every single time I'm in one?" asked TikToker Gabe Escobar in an October 2024 video. "I don't get carsick or motion sick ever in my life; I've been on 12-hour car rides, and I've been totally fine. I've been on a shrimp boat for an entire day and did not get sick."
I am not entirely against regenerative braking, but in my experience driving cars with this kind of feature, including hybrids like the Toyota Crown and EVs like the Tesla Model Y, Rivian R1S, or Genesis GV60, it takes a while to adjust to each car's re-gen "intensity."
China is halfway there by regulating regenerative braking to be turned on in order to use it, but I think they should also mandate controls that adjust the level of "assistance" a driver gets. A seasoned fare-taking driver's ability to go from gas to brake is muscle memory, and they will need the ability to either make the assistance low or turn it off altogether.
Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 Serious Tesla Problems Investors Aren't Talking Enough About
Key Points Lawsuits continue to mount for Tesla and Elon Musk. There has been a flurry of executive departures from the company. Losing revenue from zero-emission credit sales is a big blow to EV makers. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › It's been a bumpy ride for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) investors in 2025. The EV maker is feeling the heat from all angles: media, consumers, analysts, you name it. But for all the consumers leaving the brand, and the media frustrated with Elon Musk's political antics, there are a few problems that have gone unnoticed. Let's take a look at recent lawsuits, the talent exodus, and the loss of valuable zero-emissions credit sales. 1. Lawsuits keep mounting Just earlier this month, Elon Musk and Tesla were sued by shareholders who accused them of securities fraud for hiding the serious risk its self-driving vehicles posed. The proposed class action lawsuit was filed earlier this month and was a black eye after the automaker's first public test of its robotaxis in late June in Austin, Texas. These lawsuits have a wide range of driving forces, many seemingly from the actions of Musk himself. In fact, as of August 2023, Tesla was already party to over 1,750 lawsuits, a big chunk of them in China, where the company is already struggling to protect market share and profits amid a brutal price war and increased competition from domestic Chinese automakers. Also earlier this month, a federal jury found Tesla partly liable in a 2019 car crash that killed a pedestrian and left another badly injured while the automobile was on Autopilot. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $43 million in compensatory damages for pain and suffering, plus another $200 million in punitive damages. These lawsuits are certainly difficult to keep track of, but investors would be wise to remember that these lawsuits are adding up, and some can be very costly in brand image or directly through damages. 2. A concerning talent exodus Amid the flurry of negative news facing Tesla, many investors brushed off the peppering of executive departures throughout the year. But this is a talent exodus that has become, and should be, concerning to investors. Here's a look at key departures, to name a few: Omead Afshar (VP/Head of Sales and Manufacturing, North America/Europe) Milan Kovac (Head of Optimus Humanoid Robot Team) Vineet Mehta (Head of Battery Architecture) Troy Jones (VP of Sales, Service, and Delivery, North America) Pete Bannon (VP of Hardware Engineering, Chip Tech, and Dojo Supercomputer) Piero Landolfi (Director of Service, North America) Those were just a handful of high-profile executives and key personnel departing, and its leaders in key areas such as service, sales, engineering, and even the robotics team. The departures raise concerns about Tesla's leadership, operational challenges, and its current ability to remain competitive. 3. Companies in this space are losing valuable revenue To say that Tesla and some of its EV competitors are about to lose a significant revenue source is putting it lightly. That's right: Tesla, Lucid, and Rivian, among others, are about to see billions of dollars in revenue disappear seemingly overnight as U.S. policy essentially ends the zero-emission credit market. Essentially, the government formerly penalized automakers with lower average fuel economy, or those that produced more gasoline-guzzling vehicles and fewer EVs, but that is no longer. Without penalties being enforced, those companies failing to meet emissions standards are no longer incentivized to purchase zero-emission credits from EV makers to meet standards. And as the market for those zero-emission credits dried up, so too did a significant chunk of revenue for EV makers with a surplus of such credits. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has already stopped issuing compliance letters to automakers that violate the fuel economy standards. What it all means When it rains, it pours -- at least that's how it seemed for most of Tesla's developments this year. But savvy investors would be wise to keep abreast of developments with Tesla lawsuits and its massive talent exodus, in addition to losing valuable revenue from zero-emission credits. These haven't been covered enough and raise uncertainty surrounding the EV maker. Long-term investors should try and weather the storm and stay focused on the company's business long term. But it's also fair to say Tesla is at a crossroads with its future strategy, and investors will have to revisit their investment thesis to see if they are still aligned. Don't miss this second chance at a potentially lucrative opportunity Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $472,031!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $43,882!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $671,466!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of August 18, 2025 Daniel Miller has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 3 Serious Tesla Problems Investors Aren't Talking Enough About was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.'
Business Insider
24 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Leading Indian automaker returns to Africa's richest car market after six years
India's Tata Motors has re-entered South Africa's passenger vehicle market after a six-year hiatus, unveiling three SUV models and a budget hatchback in a bid to compete with Chinese rivals. Tata Motors has re-entered South Africa's passenger vehicle market after a six-year absence. The company introduced four combustion-engine models: Punch, Curvv, Tiago, and Harrier. Tata aims to achieve a 6%-8% market share and become a top-five passenger car brand in South Africa. The relaunch occurs amidst competition from Chinese rivals and dynamics in South Africa's automotive industry. India's Tata Motors has re-entered South Africa's passenger vehicle market after a six-year hiatus, unveiling three SUV models and a budget hatchback in a bid to compete with Chinese rivals. The company introduced the Punch compact SUV, the Curvv coupe-inspired SUV, the Tiago hatchback, and its flagship Harrier premium SUV, all powered by combustion engines and set to go on sale in September. Tata, which quit the market in 2019 after mixed reviews of its Indica hatchback, is betting on rising demand for affordable cars in Africa's most industrialised economy, according to Reuters. Thato Magasa, the newly appointed head of Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles in South Africa, said the company aims to rank among the country's top five passenger car brands in the mid-term, targeting a 6% to 8% market share. The relaunch puts Tata in direct competition with Chinese manufacturers, including Chery, BYD, BAIC, and Great Wall Motors, which have gained ground in recent years with competitively priced offerings. As part of its second phase, Tata plans to introduce the Nexon and Sierra SUVs and expand its dealership network from 40 to 60 by 2026. Distribution will be handled exclusively by Motus Holdings, South Africa's largest automotive group. Industry growth, mounting challenges Interest in South Africa's automotive sector is growing. Alongside Morocco, the country is Africa's top vehicle producer, according to the International Organisation of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers. South Africa built 599,755 vehicles in 2024, a 5% decline from the previous year, ranking 20th globally. The output still falls short of the 784,509-unit target set under the South African Automotive Masterplan 2035. The industry already hosts seven major manufacturers, including Volkswagen, Toyota, and Mercedes-Benz. Business Insider Africa recently reported that Japanese automaker Isuzu Motors is also positioning South Africa as its continental hub for commercial truck production. However, there are also challenges. Low domestic sales of locally assembled cars, coupled with sluggish local content levels, have already forced 12 company closures
