Xiaomi SU7 Highway Fire Incident Sparks Autonomous Driving Trust Crisis

The incident was already being discussed on the evening of March 29, but I never expected it to blow up like this.

An industry colleague, known as Lao Ma, who works at a financial self-media outlet in Guangzhou, is also an owner of the Xiaomi SU7 Standard Edition.

At first, Lao Ma thought it was just an ordinary traffic accident. After all, since the Xiaomi SU7 began deliveries, and with the SU7 Ultra also hitting the market, similar incidents had already been widely reported online.

But who could have predicted that just a few dozen hours later, this high-speed collision—which resulted in a fire and claimed three lives—would suddenly become a hot topic across the internet?

After Xiaomi's official account, "Xiaomi Company Spokesperson," initially addressed the incident and shared some details, Xiaomi Automobile issued another response on its public WeChat account on the evening of April 1. Lei Jun, the company's founder, also weighed in on Weibo.

Xiaomi Automobile published an article titled "Answers to Questions Everyone Is Concerned About," addressing hot topics such as "Why hasn’t Xiaomi contacted the families?" and "What exactly happened in the accident?"

Lei Jun's statement echoed Xiaomi Automobile's position, clarifying that the company had not yet had access to the vehicles involved in the accident. He also pledged that "no matter what happened, Xiaomi will never evade responsibility. We will fully cooperate with the police investigation, follow up on the progress, and do our best to address the concerns of the families and the public."

However, by April 3, it was clear that the public's skepticism and online criticism had not subsided despite Xiaomi's official responses.

On one hand, questions arose about the Xiaomi SU7 itself—such as the capabilities of its intelligent driving system and why the automatic emergency braking (AEB) failed to activate—fueling ongoing debates. On the other hand, a deeper question emerged: Does Xiaomi Automobile bear any responsibility in this accident?

Could this incident escalate into a "crisis of trust," unsettling current SU7 owners and potential buyers? To explore these questions, we sought insights through discussions with various stakeholders.

Who Is Really Responsible?

The most critical issue revolves around "liability." In this accident, was the driver primarily at fault, or were there shortcomings in the Xiaomi SU7's product design or performance? Online opinions are sharply divided.

Xiaomi "Not to Blame"

As an owner of the Xiaomi SU7 Standard Edition, Lao Ma believes Xiaomi bears little fault in this incident.

"I’m well aware of the SU7’s capabilities. Take its intelligent driving system—I don’t even fully trust it during the day, let alone at night. I’ve never dared to rely on it completely."

"Also, some bloggers have visited the accident site and confirmed that a long line of warning cones was set up as per construction requirements. Any sensible driver would take manual control in such conditions."

Another prospective buyer, Xiao Lan, also thinks that, based on available information, the driver may bear greater responsibility.

"It’s obvious the driver wasn’t paying attention and crashed. If it had been another car, the outcome might have been the same. Blaming Xiaomi entirely seems unfair."

According to the timeline released by Xiaomi’s official spokesperson, the vehicle’s Navigation on Autopilot (NOA) system had issued a "mild distraction alert," followed by an escalated warning urging the driver to "hold the steering wheel." For some reason, the driver failed to keep their hands on the wheel for an extended period—a clear violation of assisted driving regulations.

Moreover, Xiaomi, like all automakers, has repeatedly emphasized that "intelligent driving" is merely an "assistance feature," not "autonomous driving." The driver remains the primary responsible party when using such functions.

Thus, Lao Ma feels the current public narrative is misguided. Just because the NOA was active before the accident doesn’t automatically make Xiaomi liable.

However, he did mention a side note: Given the persistent issue of electric vehicle fires, his next car might be a gasoline-powered model.

Xiaomi Could Have Done More

Another prospective buyer we interviewed, whose car has yet to arrive, admitted that the overwhelming online backlash has left her confused.

"Many details remain unclear. Some say Xiaomi’s intelligent driving system is unreliable, while others claim certain safety features didn’t activate. It sounds like Xiaomi’s safety measures might be inadequate."

She noted that discussions about the accident in owner groups have been particularly heated.

"I think Xiaomi could do more. Their current responses feel somewhat weak. Netizens are questioning why the doors couldn’t be opened—that’s a serious issue. Simply saying they haven’t accessed the vehicle yet feels like dodging the question."

Even prospective buyers are starting to doubt Xiaomi due to the public outcry, and bystanders are even harsher in their critiques.

"Some media outlets claim the Xiaomi SU7 Standard Edition’s intelligent driving hardware has only 84 TOPS of computing power, lacks LiDAR, and has limited millimeter-wave radar coverage. With such specs, accidents are almost inevitable," remarked "outsider" A Xin, who didn’t mince words criticizing Xiaomi.

After the accident, many self-proclaimed "engineers" online argued that while NOA can function on highways without LiDAR, having it would allow earlier detection of road anomalies and quicker system responses.

Regarding other criticisms—such as "Why did the battery explode?" and "Why couldn’t the doors open?"—if the rumors are true, A Xin believes the Xiaomi SU7 may have design flaws.

"If those three people really burned to death because they couldn’t open the doors, then the Xiaomi SU7 is a terrifying car."

Shifting gears, A Xin also criticized the SU7 Standard Edition’s intelligent driving capabilities.

"According to Xiaomi’s own data, the system issues a warning one second and demands immediate takeover the next. How is anyone supposed to react that quickly? I’ve seen tests by other bloggers where Tesla slows down well in advance and navigates obstacles smoothly. Tesla also relies on camera recognition—why can it detect roadblocks earlier?"

Finally, A Xin pointed out that online sentiment toward the Xiaomi SU7 has been deteriorating.

"Everywhere you look, there are videos of SU7 drivers causing accidents due to reckless driving. It feels like SU7 owners are all rule-breakers. Now, whenever I see a Xiaomi SU7 on the road, I instinctively keep my distance."

He suspects Xiaomi’s marketing might be partly to blame, overemphasizing speed, performance, and handling, which tempts some young drivers to push limits. "If this continues, Xiaomi’s cars will become synonymous with ‘street racers’"—a label with negative connotations.

Trust Remains

Despite the relentless online criticism, which makes it seem like Xiaomi Automobile has plummeted from its peak to a life-or-death crisis, actual owners’ trust in the brand remains largely unshaken.

Knowing the Car’s Limits

"First, I’m fully aware of the SU7’s strengths and weaknesses. When it comes to intelligent driving, I don’t fully trust any brand—Xiaomi or otherwise. I’m always somewhat skeptical."

"At the very least, I’d never use Xiaomi’s NOA at night. I’d rather drive manually or take a break at a service area if I’m tired."

Coincidentally, Lao Ma’s SU7 was lightly damaged a week ago, and he just retrieved it from Xiaomi’s service center in Panyu a few days prior.

While picking up the car, he praised Xiaomi’s service again: "Knowing I needed the car for the Qingming holiday, they prioritized my repair. Now it’s fully charged, cleaned, and ready to go."

Lao Ma believes that, based on the SU7’s demonstrated performance, using it normally and responsibly shouldn’t lead to major issues.

"Many new brands’ first-generation cars have minor flaws or occasional recalls. But the SU7 has been on the market for a year now, with no reports of serious defects."

Plus, Xiaomi’s strong service adds to his confidence.

"Losing faith in a carmaker over one or two accidents doesn’t make sense. And we still don’t know whether the fatalities were directly caused by the car itself."

As a stakeholder, Lao Ma is more eager than anyone for the investigation’s results.

"This will clear our name," he said, not wanting his SU7 to be labeled a "problem car" in the court of public opinion.

Toxic Trends

"I think it’s just an ordinary crash, most likely caused by driver error. Yet it’s turned into a full-blown attack on the automaker—that’s bizarre," said MOMO, a prospective SU7 buyer we interviewed earlier.

MOMO feels the new energy vehicle era has spawned a "toxic trend."

"Cars have been around for ages, and countless accidents have happened. Unless they were caused by defects or quality issues, why don’t we see families blaming Mercedes or BMW and demanding accountability?"

Looking back at past high-profile "new energy vehicle accidents" in China, it’s evident that "blaming the automaker first" has become a reflexive response.

A year ago, a collision involving a Wanjie M7 in Shanxi, where the AEB failed to respond in time, led the victim’s family to immediately accuse Wanjie, attributing the crash to "flaws in the intelligent driving system."

These cases share a common thread: They all involve "intelligent driving" and "improper driver behavior," such as distraction or hands-off driving.

"It feels like passing the buck. In the past, drivers had no one to blame but themselves. Now, with assisted driving, even if they mess up, they can point fingers at the automaker," MOMO observed.

However, it’s worth noting that some NEV companies have occasionally overstated their intelligent driving capabilities in marketing.

While Xiaomi’s official messaging has consistently emphasized that its Highway Assisted Driving (HAD) is merely an "assist" and that drivers remain responsible, its claims about HAD’s "top-tier performance" don’t always distinguish between different SU7 models.

For consumers unfamiliar with NEVs, this could create the mistaken impression that even the Standard Edition—with its modest computing power and hardware—is a "cutting-edge intelligent driving vehicle."

This overhyping of "intelligent driving" is another form of toxic trend.

Escalation

International media, including *The Wall Street Journal*, have covered the Xiaomi SU7 high-speed crash, framing it as a catalyst for global debate about the safety of "intelligent driving" systems.

"While these systems offer potential benefits, they also pose risks if misunderstood or overestimated," the *Journal* quoted a tech expert, indirectly criticizing marketing practices in China’s intelligent driving sector.

Domestically, netizens have resurfaced an old interview clip of an executive promoting an intelligent driving system:

"I drove home half-asleep." "Why do I need a chauffeur? I can work or do anything else while the car drives itself."

Though dated, such remarks highlight how Chinese NEV makers initially underestimated the importance of responsible marketing for intelligent driving.

Additionally, perhaps to avoid undermining their messaging, automakers often highlight the strengths of intelligent driving while downplaying its limitations.

The latest advancements in intelligent driving now enable "parking-to-parking" autonomous travel—where a car exits one parking spot, navigates complex roads, and parks itself at a destination.

In comparing "parking-to-parking" with other intelligent driving scenarios, automakers often use "fewer manual takeovers" as a benchmark. Demo systems are also designed to showcase minimal human intervention.

This implied "near-zero takeovers" might lull users into complacency, making them less vigilant about being ready to regain control.

Moreover, the real-world effectiveness of increasingly touted features like AEB and automatic emergency steering (AES) lacks comprehensive statistical validation.

Currently, NIO is among the few automakers regularly disclosing AES activation rates and outcomes. Overall, automakers’ promotion of "intelligent driving" and "active safety" features still falls short in user education.

Similar points were raised in our earlier discussion about "Why Xiaomi SU7 Ultra Accidents Keep Happening": In China’s NEV market, user safety awareness lags far behind technological advancements.

Time to Slow Down

The past few years have undoubtedly been a golden age for China’s NEV sector. From 2021 to 2024, NEV market shares were 14.8%, 27.6%, 35.6%, and 47.6%, respectively—showing remarkable annual growth. Annual sales have also surpassed 12 million units.

Xiaomi Automobile has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of this rapid expansion.

In March alone, Xiaomi delivered over 29,000 vehicles. Just one year after launch, SU7 deliveries have exceeded 200,000 units, making Xiaomi one of China’s most popular auto brands and the SU7 a bestseller.

Advances in battery, motor, and electronic control systems—collectively known as the "three core technologies"—along with improvements in vehicle size, comfort features, and especially "intelligentization," have been key drivers of NEV adoption.

However, this breakneck growth has also obscured certain issues, leaving Chinese consumers with an incomplete understanding of "new energy vehicles."

This manifests in two ways: "misconceptions" (some consumers distrust electric propulsion, believing NEVs are "unsafe" or "unreliable") and "blind faith" (most notably, an underappreciation of intelligent driving risks). The latter explains why videos of drivers misusing intelligent driving features remain rampant online.

The Xiaomi SU7 high-speed fire incident has reignited debates about whether "blind trust in intelligent driving" has become a societal norm, compounded by insufficient guidance from automakers.

From a macro perspective, this incident may prove to be a pivotal moment in the NEV industry’s evolution.

Moving forward, automakers may market intelligent driving more cautiously and rethink safety measures—such as emergency exits—to prevent similar tragedies.

Slowing down and refocusing on users is key to sustainable growth in China’s NEV market.

For Xiaomi Automobile, a credible, detailed report and a commitment to improvement will matter far more to current owners, the brand, and Lei Jun’s supporters than endlessly "soaring" sales figures.

(End)