Although China and the United States are both at the forefront of the global race for autonomous driving technology, they are taking completely different paths.
One follows a top-down government-led approach, while the other leans toward market-driven, regulation-follows innovation. This divergence not only reflects differences in culture and governance philosophy, but it also directly determines the deployment path, speed, and business model of L4-level projects such as Robotaxi in both countries.
So, where do the differences lie exactly? Let’s break them down through the following key dimensions:
1. Regulatory Framework Structure: Centralized Control vs. Federal Decentralization
🇨🇳 China: Centralized Policy, Unified Standards, Fast Coordination
In China, autonomous driving regulation is centrally coordinated by ministries such as the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, with local governments responding rapidly with supporting policies. For example:
- The Ministry of Transport issued the Guidelines on the Safety Service of Autonomous Vehicle Transportation (Trial);
- MIIT leads the development of standard systems;
- Cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen have established “autonomous driving demonstration zones” with synchronized policy updates.
The advantage is speed and coordination, with tech companies able to anticipate rules. The downside is a permit-centric model that limits openness.
🇺🇸 United States: Layered Regulation, More Freedom but Slower Pace
The U.S. regulatory logic involves a three-tier system of federal, state, and municipal regulation. The federal government (e.g., NHTSA) provides broad guidance, but actual deployment approval lies with state and local authorities:
- California DMV sets detailed rules for testing and commercialization;
- Arizona is more lenient on AV testing, attracting early trials from Cruise and others;
- Cities like San Francisco impose restrictions on Robotaxi operation times and routes.
Under this model, companies have more room for innovation, but uneven local policies slow national-scale deployment.
2. Tech Validation Pathways: China Emphasizes Closed Testing, U.S. Favors Open Roads
| Comparison | China’s Approach | U.S. Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Test Mode | More reliant on closed zones or “semi-closed” urban roads | Encourages open-road testing with real data |
| Safety Review | Often government-organized (e.g., CATARC) | Companies self-publish safety reports (NHTSA) |
| Safety Driver Requirements | Mostly require onboard safety drivers | Some states allow fully driverless testing |
| Data Reporting | Mandatory upload to government platforms | Voluntary at the federal level; states may require more |
Take Baidu Apollo as an example: in Beijing’s high-level autonomous driving zone, they’ve logged over 100,000 trips with onboard safety drivers and remote monitoring.
In contrast, Waymo in Phoenix has fully removed safety drivers and now offers public Robotaxi service.
3. Municipal Government Attitudes and Roles Vary Greatly
🇨🇳 In China, Local Governments Are “Enablers”
From Beijing Yizhuang to Wuhan Economic Zone, local governments often act as partners, promoters, or even investors in AV projects. For instance:
- Wuhan city co-invests in Apollo Go’s Robotaxi joint venture;
- Nansha District of Guangzhou lists Robotaxi as a “smart transport pilot project”;
Authorities proactively provide road access, signal data, and infrastructure—creating a policy support loop.
🇺🇸 In the U.S., Cities Are More “Gatekeepers”
San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors has repeatedly opposed expansion by Cruise and Waymo, citing:
- Unclear accident liability;
- Robotaxis blocking intersections or misreading construction zones;
- Lack of public transparency.
Even with technical maturity, companies must actively engage in PR and earn the trust of residents and local governments.
4. Deployment Speed vs. Safety Caution: Which Suits AVs Better?
China: More Cities, Faster Rollout by 2025
As of June 2025, over 20 cities in China have launched Robotaxi pilots, with more than 10 allowing fully driverless operation (no safety driver), mainly in:
- Beijing (Yizhuang, Shunyi)
- Wuhan (Economic Development Zone)
- Shenzhen (Nanshan District)
- Guangzhou, Shanghai, and others
U.S.: Slower but More Defined Commercial Models
Waymo and Cruise may have slower rollouts, but in a few cities (e.g., Phoenix, San Francisco), they now have full commercial licenses:
driverless rides, paid service, integration into ride-hailing platforms.
In other words, China leads in geographic scale, while the U.S. leads in commercial framework.
How Are Robotaxis Reshaping Urban Transportation?
5. Industry Leadership Models: State-Led in China, Market-Driven in U.S.
| Comparison | China Model | U.S. Model |
|---|---|---|
| Key Players | Baidu Apollo, Pony.ai, WeRide, Didi | Waymo, Cruise, Aurora, Zoox |
| Policy Driver | Strong government involvement, with public procurement and funds | Company-led; lobbying for policy flexibility |
| Joint Testing Zones | Often built by public-private-academic consortia | Independently deployed by companies or on private land |
Conclusion: Two Routes, Each with Strengths—Will They Converge?
- China’s model is better suited for scalable replication, supporting multi-city deployment and public-private coordination;
but remains cautious in legal clarity and innovation risk. - The U.S. model enables disruptive innovation, supporting tech breakthroughs and commercial testing;
but national consistency is hard, and expansion is slow.
Looking ahead, as L4 Robotaxis move toward true commercialization, both countries may evolve toward a more “open innovation + risk-controlled + rule-transparent” hybrid model.
After all, this isn’t just a race to move fast—
it’s a journey to safely and efficiently reshape urban mobility.
