China is reportedly banning carmakers from using terms like "autonomous driving" and "smart driving" when it comes to advertising driver assistance tools, and plans tighter regulation around such features.

That’s according to a report in Reuters, which saw a transcript of a meeting between the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and dozens of car industry representatives this week.

The move by Chinese regulators comes weeks after three people were killed in a fiery crash. In the incident, a Xiaomi SU7 sedan slammed into a guardrail at 60mph, bursting into flames.

Preliminary findings suggest the accident happened immediately after the driver retook control from the car’s advanced driving assistance system (ADAS), and the company has said the car didn’t have the full LIDAR set up of more advanced models.

What can "driverless" cars actually do?

It’s not yet clear what caused the incident, but the reaction from Chinese regulators is clear: drivers need to know what their car can actually do.

"We’ve seen from dozens of crashes over the last decade that one of the big risks with this technology is from confusion over what it can and can’t do," said Jack Stilgoe, a professor at University College London. “Some people seem to believe that driver-assistance systems make their cars 'self-driving'.”

A survey from 2022 suggested more than half of consumers thought ADAS was the same as a fully automated, self-driving system, conflating the terms assisted driving, driver assistance and semi-autonomous.

And, Stilgoe says, some companies are adding to the confusion.

"Tesla, for example, has been charging its customers thousands of dollars for technology they call 'full self-driving' that is nothing of the sort," Stilgoe said. “If the US took an approach that worked like China’s new rules — demanding testing before release of new software — then Tesla’s approach, which most experts think is reckless, would suddenly become impossible.”

He notes that this is why the UK government’s 2024 Automated Vehicles Act has made it an offense to use misleading language in marketing such technologies.

A better way to describe driverless than five levels?

Generally, when it comes to driverless technologies, many academics and regulators turn to the "levels" laid out by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) — but "partial level 2 driverless" doesn’t exactly make for compelling marketing. Consider Chinese carmaker BYD: it calls its ADAS “God's Eye.”

We need to come up with a solution that’s clear for consumers, says Saber Fallah, professor of Safe AI and Autonomy at the University of Surrey.

"I believe the terminology used to describe automated driving technologies plays a crucial role in shaping public perception and expectations," says. "Terms like self-driving, autonomous, or smart driving can be highly misleading — especially when used to market vehicles that are not capable of full autonomy (i.e. below SAE Level 4). Such language can create a false sense of security, leading users to overestimate the vehicle’s capabilities and underestimate their own responsibilities behind the wheel."

But Fallah argues that using the technical terms laid out by the SAE may be too complex for the general public to grasp easily.

Instead, he argues for a more intuitive framework. For example, "hands on, eyes on," for no automation with the driver in full control, and "Hands off, Eyes on ," for driver assistance such as adaptive cruise control. For systems with some or total automation, it could be "Hands off, eyes off", with additional conditions.

"Such human-centric terminology could help bridge the gap between technical definitions and public understanding, ensuring users are not misled about what the technology can or cannot do," noted Fallah. “I also believe regulators worldwide should consider stronger oversight of how these terms are used in marketing.”

Driverless no more?

While China is ditching "smart" and "autonomous", perhaps we should also consider leaving behind the idea of "self driving" or "driverless" in favour of the idea of driver assistance, says Stilgoe.

"Even the most technologically advanced companies need to be much clearer about what engineers call the ‘operational design domain’ — the conditions in which the vehicle can operate safely," he adds. “There aren’t any cars (and probably never will be) that can go everywhere at any time in any conditions.”