Commentary: What the Fatal Xiaomi Crash Reveals About the State of Smart Driving in China

Xiaomi Corp. is under intense public scrutiny following a tragic crash involving one of its electric vehicles (EVs) [para. 1]. The accident, which occurred in Tongling, Anhui province, involved a Xiaomi SU7 sedan that caught fire after colliding with a concrete divider, resulting in the deaths of three university students [para. 2]. Xiaomi confirmed its cooperation with the police investigation into the incident, and CEO Lei Jun expressed condolences to the victims' families, acknowledging that many questions about the crash remain unanswered [para. 3].

The accident has raised significant concern about the safety of EVs and the reliability of smart driving technology, as well as questions about responsibility when incidents occur involving these systems [para. 4]. By the end of 2024, China had 31.4 million new energy vehicles (NEVs) on the roads, with pure EVs accounting for 70.34% of this segment [para. 5]. As smart driving becomes a competitive focus in the EV market, some companies prioritize speed and performance, potentially sidelining safety [para. 6].

Autonomous driving is categorized into five levels, from basic driver assistance (L1) to full automation (L5), but no automaker has yet achieved L3 (conditional automation) [para. 7][para. 8]. Marketing terms like "L2+", which are not official, could mislead consumers into overestimating the system’s capabilities, often leading to over-reliance on technology [para. 8][para. 9]. Complaints about smart driving systems have surfaced, indicating issues with system misjudgments and exaggerated advertising [para. 10][para. 11].

Despite some claims that NEVs have a lower fire rate compared to gasoline vehicles, experts remain divided. The fire rate for NEVs reportedly decreased, yet some argue that older gasoline vehicle comparisons may skew these results and highlight that EV battery fires are difficult to extinguish [para. 12][para. 13][para. 14]. EVs sold today have passed crash tests without battery fires, but real-world scenarios may present different challenges [para. 15].

Experts caution that existing smart driving systems could pose hidden dangers, particularly in emergency control situations where users must manually intervene [para. 16][para. 17]. There is no third-party data management for investigations, and manufacturers control their data, questioning the credibility and verification of incidents [para. 18]. Misunderstandings of assisted versus full automation are common, leading to improper use [para. 19].

For smart driving systems to be truly safe, adherence to defined safety standards is crucial [para. 20]. Stringent rules such as mandatory features and extensive testing should be prerequisites for market entry [para. 20][para. 21]. Better consumer education about the capabilities and limitations of smart driving systems could prevent unrealistic expectations and subsequent accidents [para. 22].

China reportedly has high safety standards modeled after the EU, yet there's room for automakers to focus more on features that enhance post-accident safety [para. 23][para. 24]. Marketing that highlights safety instead of raw performance could boost consumer confidence [para. 24][para. 25]. Liability in accidents involving autonomous systems usually falls on the human driver even when such features are enabled, based on government guidelines [para. 26][para. 27].