Analysis-China urges caution - and speed - on assisted-driving technology
Yet, Beijing has a nuanced message for its rising stars: move fast - but be careful.
Regulators this week have been finalising new safety rules for driver-assistance systems as Beijing sharpens scrutiny of the technology following an accident involving a Xiaomi SU7 sedan in March. That incident killed three occupants when their car crashed seconds after the driver took control from the assisted-driving system.
While Chinese officials want to prevent carmakers from overselling the capabilities of such systems, they are also threading the needle between innovation and safety to ensure their automakers don't lose out to U.S. and European rivals.
Setting clear regulations for assisted-driving tech without slowing its advancement could give China's industry an edge over global competitors, analysts say. This approach is in stark contrast to the U.S. market, where companies pursuing autonomous cars have expressed frustration that the government has not implemented a regulatory system to validate and test the technology.
Markus Muessig, auto industry lead at Accenture Greater China, said China's regulators and industries have long followed former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping's "feel the stones to cross the river" philosophy. The expression means to steadily explore new, uncertain technologies, which "has proven very successful for this market," he said.
Current Chinese regulations allow systems that automatically steer, brake and accelerate under certain conditions while requiring the driver to stay engaged. For that reason, marketing terms such as "smart" and "autonomous" are banned.
The new rules will focus on hardware and software designs that monitor a driver's state of awareness and their capacity to take control in time.
To do this, regulators enlisted Chinese automaker Dongfeng and tech giant Huawei to help draft new rules and have sought public input over a month-long period, ending Friday.
At the same time, government officials are pressing Chinese automakers to rapidly deploy even more-advanced systems, known as Level 3 assisted-driving, which allow drivers to take their eyes off the road in certain situations. Level 3 is the midway point on the industry's autonomous-driving scale, from basic features like cruise control at Level 1, to self-driving capability under all conditions at Level 5.
The Chinese government had tapped state-owned Changan to be the first automaker to begin Level 3 validation tests in April, but the plan was paused after the Xiaomi crash, said a source familiar with the regulatory planning process.
Beijing still hopes to resume such tests this year and approve the country's first Level 3 car in 2026, the source said.
China's Ministry of Industry of Information Technology and Changan did not respond to requests for comment. Xiaomi has said it is cooperating with a police investigation into the accident.
Driver-assistance systems are seen by industry analysts as the next big battleground in China's hyper-competitive car market.
Over the past decade, Level 2 systems have proliferated in China, including Tesla's Full Self Driving system, as well as the Xiaomi feature involved in the March crash. The capability ranges from basic vehicle following on highways to handling most tasks on busy urban roads, under driver supervision.
Automakers have pushed down hardware costs to levels that allow them to offer Level 2 features at little or no extra cost. China's No. 1 automaker BYD has rolled out its "God's Eye" assisted-driving software for free across its entire product line-up. More than 60% of new cars sold in China this year will have Level 2 features, according to an estimate from research firm Canalys.
GLOBAL RACE
In its push for assisted-driving technology, and ultimately fully self-driving cars, Beijing is seeking to help homegrown carmakers just as it supported China's rapid rise to become the world's electric-car juggernaut.
Last year, China's government lined up nine automakers for public tests to advance the adoption of self-driving cars.
In their Level 3 push, Chinese regulators also are upping the regulatory ante by holding automakers and parts suppliers liable if their systems fail and cause an accident. Legislation passed in Britain last year adopted a similar approach to liability.
At the Shanghai auto show in April, several companies touted progress toward rolling out vehicles with Level 3 capability. Tech giant Huawei said it is ready to introduce a Level 3 system for highways after simulated testing of more than 600 million kilometers. It showed a video of drivers and passengers singing karaoke as the car drove itself.
Geely's Zeekr brand debuted the luxury SUV 9X, featuring Level 3 software the automaker said is ready for mass production in the third quarter if regulations allow. Zeekr is also applying to be part of a second batch of automakers to undergo government Level 3 validation tests.
Meanwhile, traditional automakers at the Shanghai auto show such as Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen said they were pushing their most advanced assisted-driving features but stopped short of crossing the Level 3 liability line.
Getting there is a challenge as they are already at a cost disadvantage against their Chinese rivals, analysts say.
Mercedes-Benz CTO Markus Schaefer told Reuters that while chip and computing power prices have fallen, the additional safety required for Level 3 will cost much more.
"It's a moving target," Schaefer said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
21 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why We Live Today In An Age Of Value Creation
Co-founder/co-CEO of Robinhood Vladimir Tenev (Getty Images); its mission to "provide everyone with ... More access to the financial markets, not just the wealthy" getty Despite dire newspaper headlines, the fact is, we live today in an age of extraordinary, sustained value creation. New ways of creating value have enabled fast-growing enterprises of all sizes in most sectors and in many countries to create unprecedented new value in dynamic workplaces with continuous innovation. These enterprises have already transformed the world economy. This is not a theory: it's a fact. It's not something that needs to be invented. It's already happened. Meanwhile, autocrats, grifters and self-interested firms still trying to extract value operate behind smokescreens of worthwhile purposes and experience no more than spasmodic growth, with generally low levels of staff engagement and little if any real innovation. Why don't all businesses realize that they would do much better if they embraced value creation? Some 25 years ago, humanity began a major change. It occurred when some businesses started to think differently. They asked themselves: 'What if instead of aiming to make money, we set out to create value for customers? It's so much easier to make contact with customers with the internet and customers already have much more power than before. So why not accept this and give them what they want and need?' The impact was magic. It happened so rapidly it's hard to recall how dramatically we chose to live differently. Very quickly, with the help of these businesses, we transformed how we work, how we communicate, how we get about, how we shop, how we manufacture things, how we bank, how we receive health care, how we get educated, how we raise our children, how we play and watch games, how we entertain ourselves, how we read, how we listen to music, how we watch theater and movies, how we engage with nature, how we understand history, how we worship; in short, how we live. The transition was accelerated by the COVID pandemic that began in 2020. When firms aimed consistently at value creation, something else remarkable happened: they found that they made much more money than firms that aimed at making money. Not just more money: They made exponentially more money, And their workplaces were generally more engaging because staff believed in creating value for customers. At first, it was just technology firms. But pretty soon, it was occurring in almost all sectors and many countries: Retail, agriculture, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, finance, even fashion. Firms of all sizes: big, medium and even tiny firms. So now perhaps 20% of public firms are focused on creating value for customers. What about the other 80% of firms still focused on making money and extracting value for themselves? Why don't they embrace creating value when it would make them so much more money? In the industrial era of the 20th century, management thinking reflected an internal view of the firm. Management was about making the firm operate more efficiently and effectively within a relatively stable world, with given systems, processes, and practices. The firm did what it could for the customer within the constraints of its existing systems. Top management knew best and issued directives to the rest of the organization, using steep chains of command to ensure order. Car companies competed against other car companies, banks with other banks, and so on. Managers saw themselves as solving the equivalent of familiar jigsaw puzzles. If they could fit the pieces together into the correct pattern, they could extract, and take, the value they believed to be their due. Value creation requires different thinking. The perspective is mainly external. Success depends less on the internal workings of the firm and more on its ability to master a turbulent unpredictable world of exponential technological possibilities and to delight unpredictable customers. Competition can come from anywhere. Innovation is pivotal and involves not merely improving what already exists, but creating what is new. Firms aspire to generate new possibilities of working, operating, interacting, playing, and living for its customers. In the process, the firm can create new experiences for them, just as artists create works of art. Staff, partners, and sometimes customers, are active in the creative process. The firm is not merely copying or learning known rules. Profits are emergent effects of invention and creation. They are the results of making rather than taking, often out of literally nothing but the imagination. When the product itself is digital, firms can grow quickly and attain global reach within a few years. In the industrial era, such scope usually took decades. In digital firms, many of the dis-economies of scale—the difficulties that came from being big—have tended to disappear. Instead, global scale—and the firm being the best in the world at what it does—can become almost mandatory. From Scarcity To Abundance In the digital age, radically different business models have become possible and even necessary: from markets to platforms; from ownership to access, from workers to co-creators of value, from sellers and buyers to providers and users. Firms that mastered the requirements of the new age have benefited from what economists call network effects. Users get more value as other users join the network, both as an increase in value to all other users and as an encouragement of non-users to join the network. Whereas the industrial era was largely based on scarcity, digital services are based on abundance. Exponential technologies can generate an almost infinite array of digital services. It has become possible to make instant contact and converse with anyone from anywhere, buy anything anywhere, access the entire world's information, listen to almost any piece of the world's music, take, share and view unlimited photographs, and create and stream videos, all at zero, or a near-zero cost. The winning firms are those that have found ways to deliver, and monetize, parts of this blizzard of possibilities. The Emergence Of Deep Purpose The dynamic of industrial-era management was all about the brain—measuring and calculating every possible metric, analyzing the past for clues to the future, and studying ratios and relationships. The passion, if any, concerned being rational. Shows of emotion were almost verboten . At most, there was talk of mindset. The heart supposedly had no role. In the 21st century, the heart became exposed. Pervasive access to digital information collapsed the distinction between public and private content, and leaders could no longer hide behind press releases. Casual remarks made in private could become headline news. In the low-trust context, unflattering narratives—both true and false—became pervasive in social media. Some leaders began to see that they needed to present themselves and their firms as they are and express honestly what they believe. There has been a growing recognition that the whole person—including the heart—is key to leadership in this emerging world. Building trust in companies and their leaders isn't easy, given many decades of dissembling. Commerce had become the antithesis of the authentic. Moreover, inside the firm, rah-rah HR workshops compounded the offense by attempting to manipulate the staff's very sense of self, getting them to profess feelings that they had never felt. Fixing The Flaws Of The Digital Winners At the same time, we learned that digital technology can also have potentially devastating negative effects. It can be used to create tighter and more minute monitoring and control than even the worst tyrant, while invading without permission every nook and cranny of individuals' private lives, and turning human connections into zombie-like interactions, as customers and employees find themselves dealing with robotic machines or AI rather than people. Some actors became very wealthy very rapidly, while those less able to adapt fell by the wayside. In a winner-take-most world, big firms grow steadily bigger and are tempted to exploit their dominance. In due course, the winners can be demonized, while the losers exercise political pressure to prevent change and redress their own suffering. These phenomena—familiar to business historians—are now playing out and are frequently—and mistakenly—seen as unprecedented. The lessons of history can be helpful. The rapid accumulation wealth is not necessarily a sign of wrongdoing. Yet the abuse of newly-acquired power is common and must be addressed. Regulations designed for different technologies need to be rethought so as to encourage benefits for everyone while limiting winners' inevitable missteps. Self-regulation by winners to resist the temptation to crush every competitor must be part of the solution. Current bipartisan efforts to regulate big technology firms have assumed a strident tone. These phenomena are common in the transition from one technology to another. The challenge is to understand the facts underlying the claims and counter claims, find ways to depoliticize decision-making, and implement effective regulation. Transitioning To The Age of Value Creation Transitioning from traditional management to the age of value creation involves changes in the way people speak, think, feel, act, and interact with their fellow human beings. It cannot be absorbed by traditional conferences with 'sages on stage', panels of speakers debating the changes, or reading an article or a book. It is mainly learned from encountering the experiences of other practitioners either through live interactions or through narratives. There is a need to learn from practitioners who have lived and practiced the change and learned what worked and what didn't in their context. Yet outsiders can't tell participants what would work in new contexts. Businesses themselves have to discover what the new way of thinking, speaking, feeling, acting and interacting might mean for their own workplace and their own business. And read also: Revolutionizing Business: From Management To Value Creation How Creating Value For Others Has Become The Key To Business Success Appendix 1: Self-interested Organizations and Value Creating Enterprises Summary of prevalent differences between self-interested vs value creating firms Stephen Denning Appendix 2: Firms with a track record of sustained fast growth Appendix 2: Firms with a track record of sustained fast growth and engaged workplaces Stephen Denning; Seeking Alpha
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Keys Inc. Marks a Strong First Half of 2025 with New Features and Industry Growth
TUCSON, Ariz., July 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Keys Inc., the leading all-in-one software platform built specifically for locksmiths, is proud to announce a successful first half of 2025 highlighted by enhanced product offerings, strong industry engagement, and accelerated growth. In May, Keys Inc. participated in the IAAL Auto Lock Expo 2025 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa—a premier event for locksmith professionals. The company gained invaluable feedback from locksmiths nationwide, reaffirming its user-driven approach to software development. One of the requested features, Cash Invoicing, was successfully introduced shortly after the event. This feature complements Keys' existing Digital Payment Method invoicing, providing locksmiths the flexibility to issue branded invoices for cash payments while maintaining a professional look and streamlined payment process. "We built Keys to elevate locksmiths' success by delivering cutting-edge solutions tailored to their unique needs," said Loay Jamal Alyousfi, Founder of Keys Inc. "We are constantly improving and investing in the locksmith space to ensure our platform grows alongside the industry's evolving needs." Keys® is currently developing a QR Code Labeling system to integrate with its inventory management tools, enabling locksmiths to easily track, organize, and manage parts, tools, and keys. This will reduce errors and save valuable time for locksmiths both on the road and in the shop. From real-time payments and branded invoicing to dispatch and inventory control, Keys® continues to evolve based on user feedback, building a platform truly designed for locksmiths. The company remains committed to delivering solutions that enhance operational efficiency and foster business growth. As the second half of 2025 begins, Keys Inc. looks forward to continued innovation, expanded features, and broader adoption within the locksmith industry. Keys® — Built for Locksmiths. Backed by Experience. Driven by Feedback. For more information, visit or contact press@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Keys Inc. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's How Much a House in the US Costs Compared to Mexico, Canada and China
As the world becomes more interconnected, more people are considering living abroad, from countries neighboring the U.S. to across the globe. However, the price of international property is far from consistent, varying substantially by region. Find Out: Learn More: While hopeful homeowners looking in Mexico will find average home prices substantially below the national average, those looking in Canada may have to pay more. China's home prices, on the other hand, are only slightly less per square meter than those in the United States. Here's precisely how much a house costs in the U.S. compared to in Mexico, Canada and China. According to Zillow, the average home value in the United States in 2025 is $367,969, a 0.8% increase compared to last year. The median list price is $409,933 as of May, and in April the median sale price was $357,600. Homes are selling relatively quickly in the country, going pending after around 17 days on the market. The tech real estate company notes that as of spring 2025, the U.S. is in a seller's market. Homebuyers hoping to purchase property south of the border are in luck, considering houses are considerably more affordable in Mexico compared to the U.S. Mexico News Daily, the country's English-language newspaper, notes that the average home price in Mexico was 1.724 million pesos between January and June of 2024, or $92,500 when converted to American dollars. The price, however, did mark a 10% increase in cost compared to the previous year. People looking to relocate to the United States' northern neighbor might be paying more for property compared to what they are used to. According to the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA), the average home price in Canada in 2025 is $691,299. Using today's exchange rate, this means that the average Canadian home price is around $504,787, considerably higher than the national average in the US. The value, however, does represent a 1.8% decrease from the average Canadian home price in 2024. In China, home prices are typically viewed in terms of cost per square meter. According to Global Property Guide, home prices and rent are still declining throughout the region. As of March 2025, the price per square meter for newly constructed property in China was 16,740 RMB or $2,334. The significant difference lies in the average income-to-average house price ratio. In China, housing prices have long outpaced income, making the market nearly unaffordable. New policies have helped to cool the market, bringing down prices for new construction and second-hand homes. Homebuyers looking to move to the U.S. or relocate to another country will also want to be aware of the potential role that tariffs may play in pricing. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that tariffs could affect the cost of a new home by $10,900. Tariffs increase the cost of construction supplies and can negatively impact the supply chain. While some tariffs have been paused, many remain in limbo, leaving construction companies to wonder whether prices for items like Canadian lumber will rise in the near future. International housing markets have also been impacted by these tariffs, driving up the costs of new builds and renovations. More than anything, the tariffs seem to have caused uncertainty in the markets, which is always challenging and tends to deter buyers and sellers from making any significant moves. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 7 Luxury SUVs That Will Become Affordable in 2025 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on Here's How Much a House in the US Costs Compared to Mexico, Canada and China
