Summary of Key Points
This article highlights the contradiction between the "marketing rhetoric" and the "responsibility boundaries" associated with Level 2 assisted driving systems. Automakers use exaggerated terms such as "intelligent driving," "advanced intelligent driving," and "autonomous driving" to attract consumers, making them believe the vehicles can drive themselves. However, in the event of an accident or when regulatory authorities get involved, they emphasize the "assisted" nature of the system and shift the responsibility to the driver. After the 2025 Xiaomi SU7 accident, regulators required more transparent advertising practices, and many automakers changed their terminology. Yet, this change is merely superficial; the deeper issues lie in the lack of transparency in marketing, lagging regulation, and misconceptions among users. Solutions require a multi-faceted approach that includes increased transparency, standardized guidelines, and timely regulatory intervention.
Detailed Analysis
1. **Why Did Automakers Suddenly Change Their Language After the Accident?**
The March 2025 accident involving the Xiaomi SU7 on the highway drew public attention, prompting the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology to convene a meeting to require automakers to clearly define the capabilities of their systems and avoid exaggerated claims. Subsequently, brands like Li Auto, Xiaomi, and NIO revised their promotional materials, replacing terms like "intelligent driving" with "assisted driving," and removing descriptions like "advanced intelligent driving" and "autonomous driving."
The reality is that the technology has not declined; the change was merely a return to more accurate marketing language. Using terms like "intelligent" and "automatic" makes the vehicles seem more sophisticated and desirable to consumers, while emphasizing "assisted" functions after an accident or when faced with regulation highlights the driver's responsibility. This is similar to how health products are marketed as having miraculous effects but are later described as merely supplementary treatments.
2. **Can the Name Really Affect Your Driving Behavior?**
The name of a technology significantly influences drivers' expectations and behavior. The AAA Foundation in the United States conducted an experiment with two names for the same assisted driving system: "AutonoDrive" (which sounds more autonomous) and "DriveAssist." The results showed that:
- 42% of respondents believed the system was more advanced than it actually was when it was called "AutonoDrive," compared to only 11% when it was called "DriveAssist."
- 65% of the participants in the first group were willing to eat or use their phones while driving, whereas only 27% and 13% were comfortable doing so in the second group.
The reason is that names that suggest greater autonomy make drivers more relaxed, potentially leading to a lack of vigilance in case of unexpected issues.
3. **Why Is Regulation Always Lagging Behind?**
The penetration rate of Level 2 assisted driving systems has exceeded 70% (as of 2026), but the mandatory national standard (GB 47955-2026) is not expected to be implemented until 2027. This delay results in consumers becoming "guinea pigs" for untested technologies, as they purchase vehicles without knowing about their limitations (e.g., the system may not function properly in rainy weather or on highways with tight lanes).
4. **Changing the Name Is Not Enough: Other Real Issues Need to Be Addressed**
Replacing "intelligent driving" with "assisted driving" is just the first step. Four additional actions are necessary:
- Transparent advertising: Clearly explain the conditions under which the system operates (e.g., only on closed highways, clear weather, and without traffic congestion).
- Regulate sales rhetoric: Ensure that both official websites and sales personnel provide accurate information; do not mislead customers.
- Make accident data public: Independent organizations should have access to records of system responses and driver actions during accidents to ensure accountability.
- Proper user training: Provide comprehensive education when vehicles are delivered, explaining which roads the system can handle and how it alerts the driver (since most drivers are not technical experts).
5. **Who Should Bear the Responsibility?**
No one group can escape responsibility:
- Drivers: Under Level 2 assisted driving, you must always be prepared to take control of the vehicle; even with the system active, you remain responsible for safe operation (as determined by legal precedents).
- Automakers: They must provide accurate information about the system's capabilities and limitations.
- Regulators: They should establish clear rules before the technology is widely adopted, ensuring that consumers are aware of its limitations.
The biggest injustice is that automakers focus on selling vehicles as if they offer complete autonomy but then expect drivers to understand the technical intricacies only after an accident occurs.
Conclusion
Assisted driving can indeed reduce some driving burdens, but most current vehicles are not yet at the level of full autonomous operation. In a mature industry, the competition should not revolve around who can make the biggest claims; instead, it should focus on who can explain the rules clearly and effectively. After all, safety is far more important than flashy marketing.