Draft regulations for enhancing auto reliability

Editor’s note: The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and three other departments have released a draft regulation aimed at strengthening the management of innovative design and R&D testing and verification of automobile products, and invited the public to comment on the proposal. Ji Xuehong, head of the research center of automobile industry innovation at North China University of Technology, and Sun Yuhao, a managing partner of Sunwell Law Firm in Shanghai, shared their observations on the initiative. Below are excerpts of their comments as reported by Beijing Daily. The views don’t necessarily represent those of China Daily.

From the perspective of regulatory authorities, product innovation is allowed, but all related functions and technologies must undergo thorough and comprehensive verification. The draft regulation outlines the specific requirements for human-machine interaction, rotating seats and other innovative designs for automobiles. These requirements are necessary to mitigate potential safety hazards posed by these designs, which could lead to accidents and even casualties.

Product innovation is a key feature of the automotive industry’s evolution. But while innovation is necessary, it cannot be unconditional and should be anchored in safety and quality. These are prerequisites for innovation. New functions and designs, such as those involving door handles, seats, car lights interaction, over-the-air updates and rooftop tents, should be subjected to strict technical standards, testing and verification so that they meet safety requirements before entering the market. The primary goal of innovation is to serve consumers, not endanger them.

Product development cycles have shortened in the automobile industry. In the past, an entirely new vehicle model usually took four years to develop, but nowadays this process is completed in roughly two years for many models. The compression of development cycles makes adequate testing and verification a critical concern, as insufficient testing may lead to component fatigue and structural aging failures.

Auto companies should not treat over-the-air updates as a substitute for thorough pre-launch verification. They should avoid first launching functions and products and then fixing defects via OTA updates. They should not treat consumers as guinea pigs.

The draft rules may change the pace of auto R&D. But the change should be viewed with a balanced perspective. Shorter development cycles allow consumers to access new products earlier, but they also introduce potential risks. Focusing too much on R&D speed is not a good thing. Automakers should strive for a balanced development pace.

Previously, some automakers blurred the boundary between “assisted driving” and “autonomous driving”, using expressions such as “fully autonomous driving” and “no human intervention”. Others created misleading self-defined classifications such as “L2.9”, “near-L3” and “high-level intelligent driving” and failed to fully inform their customers when the phased or OTA-enabled future functions of their automobiles would actually be activated. Such practices may constitute false advertising and infringe on consumers’ right to be informed.

In the future, car companies should align their terminology with national standards and clearly disclose the operational conditions, environmental requirements and system boundaries of their designs. They must provide customers with explicit information about the schedule for phased or OTA-enabled functions upon vehicle delivery, ensure test and verification data are traceable, and avoid exaggerating test mileage and scenario coverage.