Enabling assisted driving while intoxicated, sleeping, or committing a crime will result in criminal liability. The Supreme Court clarifies for the first time: after activating the assisted driving function, the driver still bears responsibility for driving safety.

On February 13, the Supreme People’s Court released the 48th batch of guiding cases (Nos. 268–272), marking the first time the Court has issued specialized guiding cases on road traffic safety criminal matters.

Among them, Guiding Case No. 271, “Wang Mouqun’s Dangerous Driving Case,” clarifies that onboard assisted driving systems cannot replace the driver as the main driving entity. After activating the assisted driving function, the driver remains the person executing the actual driving task and bears the responsibility for ensuring driving safety. Even if the individual uses privately installed accessories to evade system monitoring or does not operate the vehicle from the main driver’s seat, they should still be held legally responsible as the driver.

Image source: Official website of the Supreme People’s Court

Assisted driving systems cannot replace the driver as the main driving entity

The case details show that on September 13, 2025, the defendant Wang Mouqun, after drinking, drove back to the community, then left and activated the assisted driving function, set a destination, and used a privately installed “Smart Drive Tool” to simulate holding the steering wheel, evading system monitoring by removing his hands. He then moved to the front passenger seat to sleep. When the vehicle stopped near the destination, it was found by the public due to occupying the road and reported to the police. Testing showed Wang Mouqun’s blood alcohol content was 114.5 mg/100 ml, indicating intoxication.

The vehicle involved was equipped with Level 2 assisted driving system. According to regulations, if the driver’s hands are off the steering wheel for more than two minutes, the system will prompt for takeover and automatically slow down or exit. Wang Mouqun had studied related safety knowledge and passed exams, clearly knowing that alcohol consumption prohibited the use of assisted driving functions and that the driver must be ready to take over at any time. Nonetheless, he purchased and installed illegal accessories to deliberately evade safety monitoring.

The controversy in this case centers on whether Wang Mouqun’s activation of the onboard assisted driving system while intoxicated, without performing driving operations from the main driver’s seat, constitutes driving behavior and whether his actions amount to a dangerous driving crime.

The national standard “Automobile Driving Automation Levels” (GB/T 40429-2021) classifies driving automation into levels 0 to 5. Levels 0 to 2 are considered driver assistance; these systems cannot operate safely under all road conditions and only assist, with the driver remaining the main driver. In this case, Wang Mouqun’s driving behavior is divided into two phases: the first being traditional drunk driving, and the second, where assisted driving was enabled, involves a Level 2 system. Wang Mouqun still did not relinquish his role and responsibility as the driver. His actions of leaving the main driver’s seat and sleeping are violations but do not change the legal responsibility.

According to observations by the Daily Economic News, prior to this release, there had been discussions within the legal community about whether drivers should be criminally liable if an accident occurs after enabling assisted driving. However, there was no nationwide judicial rule approved by the Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Committee. Although the People’s Court Case Database included the judgment document for this case in November 2025, at that time, it was considered a “reference case,” only archived as an effective judgment without mandatory legal binding. The selection of this case as a “guiding case” signifies that its key points now have binding precedential value.

The Supreme People’s Court pointed out that this batch of guiding cases aims to resolve disputes in the trial practice of road traffic safety criminal cases, clarify case law rules, unify legal application, and improve the quality and efficiency of case handling. It also aims to leverage judicial warning, education, and guidance functions to promote law-abiding behavior among the public and effectively safeguard public safety and people’s lives and property.

With L2 penetration exceeding 60%, assisted driving enters a “strict regulation” phase

Against the backdrop of rapid technological development, the penetration rate of Level 2 assisted driving continues to rise. Data from the China Automotive Industry Economic and Technological Information Institute shows that in the first three quarters of 2025, the sales of new passenger vehicles equipped with combined driving assistance functions (Level 2) increased by 21.2% year-on-year, with a penetration rate reaching 64%.

As the penetration rate rapidly increases, risks of non-compliance are also accumulating. Some automakers, in order to seize market share, promote concepts like “full-scenario intelligent driving” and “zero takeover,” packaging Level 2 assisted driving as “semi-automatic driving” or “high-level intelligent driving close to Level 3,” further exacerbating public misconceptions about the actual capabilities and limitations of the technology. Meanwhile, multiple accidents involving assisted driving and incidents of drivers lying down or sleeping have frequently trended on social media, sparking unprecedented public concern and exposing deep-seated issues in the application of intelligent driving technology.

In the context of intertwined technological and judicial disputes, regulatory authorities began systematic governance of assisted driving in 2025. This included detailed policies early in the year, comprehensive chain-of-responsibility supervision mid-year, and the drafting of mandatory national standards in the second half. The industry’s exaggerated promotion of assisted driving gradually cooled, with “safety” becoming a high-frequency keyword throughout the year.

In February 2025, the State Administration for Market Regulation and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology jointly issued the “Notice on Further Strengthening the Management of Product Access, Recall, and Software Online Upgrades for Intelligent Connected Vehicles,” which for the first time incorporated Level 2 combined driving assistance into product access and manufacturing consistency management, clarified requirements for OTA upgrade classification, and established a “pre-approval, in-process supervision, and post-traceability” linkage mechanism, setting the framework for year-round regulation.

From April to August 2025, regulatory measures intensified. In April, the Department of Equipment Industry of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued an announcement emphasizing the prohibition of exaggerated and false advertising and strict obligation to inform consumers; in August, the State Administration for Market Regulation and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology jointly released a draft “Notice on Strengthening Supervision and Management of Recall, Manufacturing Consistency, and Promotion of Intelligent Connected New Energy Vehicle Products,” outlining red lines with multiple “not allowed” restrictions covering OTA upgrades, defect concealment, and promotional norms.

Image source: Official website of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology

In September 2025, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology released the “Mandatory National Standard for Safety Requirements for Combined Driving Assistance Systems of Intelligent Connected Vehicles” (draft for comments). This is China’s first mandatory national standard targeting Level 2 assisted driving, explicitly stating that combined driving assistance systems can only be activated under designed operational conditions, establishing the legal classification that “combined driving assistance does not belong to autonomous driving,” and mandating detection capabilities for hand and line-of-sight disconnection. It also sets a “30-minute disablement” mechanism for repeated violations. The standard is scheduled to be officially implemented on January 1, 2027, providing key technical support for industry access, quality supervision, and post-market traceability.

Regarding the issuance of this standard, Ji Xuehong, director of the Automotive Industry Innovation Research Center at North China University of Technology, previously told reporters: “Currently, different automakers have varying levels of technological capability and reserves in intelligent driving. The standard’s introduction can prevent consumers from blindly trusting combined driving assistance systems, which could lead to serious traffic accidents.” He pointed out that the standard will guide the healthy development of the industry, regulate excessive marketing claims, and better remind consumers to balance technological innovation with safety.

As the countdown to the mandatory national standard’s enforcement begins, the years-long “packaging race” in assisted driving is giving way to genuine safety and compliance issues. Guohai Securities noted in a research report that 2025 has entered a “new phase of strict regulation of combined assisted driving,” and predicted a three-stage process from 2025 to 2027: “standard formulation—transitional implementation—full enforcement.”

(Article source: Daily Economic News)