The rise of automotive technology has transformed the experience of owning a car, and that of driving one.
Change and "progress" have brought enhanced comfort, convenience, safety, luxury... But even as these benefits grow, some things are lost.
Who controls our cars?
For most of the 20th century, cars were passive, fairly simple machines. The average enthusiast had a pretty good grasp of how their car worked, and quite a lot of people could largely maintain their own cars with just a modest tool kit and a Haynes manual. It was a hobby for many.
These days, while many of us still understand the basics of how an internal combustion engine works, we don't have a clue about the electronic systems that are equally vital to the vehicle's operation. Even the familiar petrol engine at the heart of the car is rapidly being replaced by the electric motor.
Thoroughly maintaining a modern car, with all its sensors, circuit boards and computer chips requires access to eye-wateringly expensive, computerised diagnostic equipment. For most of us, DIY is no longer an option.
Who drives whom?
Technology also affects the way we drive. Cruise control, which has existed for decades, was the first step toward the autonomous or self-driving cars that are now becoming a reality on the world's roads. In the UK, taxi service operators already have the go-ahead from the government to begin carrying passengers in driverless vehicles in the next 12 months.
Even in human-driven family cars, gadgets and systems can make a number of decisions over things like speed, steering, braking, whether or not the car can be driven if seatbelts aren't fastened and even whether the car will start if the driver has consumed alcohol. To one or another extent, all these things, and more, can be controlled automatically.
One of the claims made to justify the UK leaving the EU was that doing so would reduce bureaucracy, and free us from what was depicted by some as a stifling, extended nanny state. The claim about reducing red tape has yet to be proved, and we still choose to follow a surprising number of EU regulations - including new ones that have appeared since Brexit.
Whether we eventually rejoin the EU or cling to our perceived (but debatable) independence, it's probable that a lot of EU regulations and standards will remain relevant to UK motorists.
A large number of those regulations and standards pertain to safety, and automotive safety rules make increasingly stringent demands of car manufacturers. When one compares the resilience demonstrated by new cars in crash tests to the devastation wrought on cars a few decades ago by similar tests, there is no denying that regulation has made our vehicles a lot safer. Minimum standards for braking systems, lights, seatbelts and airbags, etc., all contribute to increased car safety. In efforts to enhance that safety even more, the EU has turned its attention increasingly to the constant developments of sophisticated in-car technology.
In 2019, the EU finalised a set of rules called New Vehicle General Safety Regulation 2 (GSR2). Basically, GSR2 set out a range of measures that car makers would have to incorporate into new cars sold in the EU from 2022. The range of cars affected by the regulation was expanded in 2024. The most recent update to the GSR2 requirements took effect in July 2026.
The UK version
Since Brexit, the UK government has not automatically adopted every law or regulation introduced by the European Union. However, when Brexit was negotiated, Northern Ireland was treated somewhat differently to the rest of the UK, and special NI rules and conditions agreed. Those conditions meant that GSR2 compliance became mandatory for cars sold in the EU and in Northern Ireland, but not those sold in the rest of the UK.
The British government was involved in the pre-Brexit formulation of GSR2, so the regulation's contents were evidently acceptable in principle at the time. That being the case, and due to the inconvenience and expense of having different new car safety standards in NI and the rest of the UK, the government launched a consultation in January 2026 seeking opinions regarding the UK adopting the GSR2 rules for new cars. The consultation period ended in May 2026.
The upshot of all this is that the UK is moving to adopt 19 technologies, representing most of the requirements of GSR2. These new features for new cars will be made mandatory under amendments to what is called the GB type approval scheme.
The new technological features and systems include:
- Advanced emergency braking New systems use various sensors and/or cameras to detect pedestrians, cyclists and other hazards. They can alert the driver and/or apply the brakes automatically.
- Driver drowsiness and attention warning Cameras monitor the driver’s face and eyes to detect signs of distraction or drowsiness. Warnings alert the driver to the danger and can remind the driver to take a break.
- Emergency lane keeping system This feature monitors the vehicle's position in its lane on the road. It can issue alerts if drifting is detected, or autonomously apply steering corrections where necessary.
- Event data recorder This is analogous to the ‘black box’ on an aircraft. The car's event data recorder stores details of a collision, including driver state and behaviour and vehicle movements.
- Intelligent speed assistance This is already a common feature in new vehicles, but under GSR2 it becomes a requirement. Intelligent speed assistance (ISA) uses cameras and GPS data to detect when a vehicle exceeds the speed limit. Warnings are issued, and some systems can automatically reduce the vehicle’s speed to comply with the limit. In current systems, the driver can override ISA.
- Reversing detection Cameras and/or sensors detect hazards when reversing and trigger alerts to the driver. Some systems can also apply brakes to prevent a collision.
The American take: spying in the name of safety?
Commentators in the USA have taken quite an interest in Europe's GSR2. Automotive expert Michael Harley, writing for Forbes.com, said, "This EU precedent strongly suggests similar technologies are coming to the US, prompting questions about their ultimate scope beyond safety."
One of the technologies the Americans seem most wary of is the requirement for in-car-facing cameras that monitor the driver. What GSR2 intends to be part of an automated system to detect fatigue and distraction on the part of the driver, some in the US see as a possible Trojan Horse assault on in-car privacy. Harley considers it likely that similar technology may appear in America's cars.
To many in the US, this would be another in a series of dystopian surveillance steps being taken by business and government to spy on citizens.
Automated licence plate recognition technology (ALPR - the American version of ANPR) from the private US company Flock Safety has proved extremely controversial, partly due to data being used in ways the public did not expect, and are not happy about. In addition to being accessed by law enforcement, Flock's cameras have been illicitly accessed by the company's own employees.
There have been instances of cameras being deployed without correctly set user and password details, meaning that they could, potentially, have been easily hacked and accessed. Even when installed and accessed as officially approved, the system has been found to be able to zoom in on car occupants' faces, not just on the cars or their licence plates. This was confirmed by footage viewed by YouTuber Benn Jordan while investigating Flock and its ALPR system.
In another development, it was recently revealed that US defence contractor Leonardo has developed a system, SignalTrace, that can track the phones, smartwatches, wireless earbuds and other electronic devices of car occupants and cross-reference that data with ALPR information that identifies cars. Those accessing the system's data could thus know the identities of the people in a car without stopping the vehicle or asking the occupants for their ID. Regtransfers reported on this system in our June 2026 world motoring news blog post.
When considered together, these developments paint a fairly unsettling surveillance picture. It is really not hard to see why many Americans would be wary, if not hostile, to the thought of yet another camera peering at their faces as they drive.
Data sharing and "mission-creep"
Personal data is money and power. We complain about its misuse, but we willingly sign contracts to give it away whenever we buy a phone, install apps and software, sign up to a social media platform etc. Even the NHS shares your data with commercial companies under certain circumstances. The data we leak, often without a second thought, is used to inform the marketing and advertising policies of countless businesses and corporations.
Each of us has an online data profile made up of fragments we have shared or leaked in countless places. There are ways to locate and combine those fragments into comprehensive data dossiers for each individual that would shock and possibly terrify the average technology user. Nevertheless, those data profiles exist for nearly all of us. An increasing number of commercial and political entities have departments or consultant partners whose job it is to find and assemble those pieces of data and assemble them into digital life stories. Businesses may know more about you than your closest friends do.
This is why a degree of paranoia about surveillance in our vehicles may not be as crazy as it seems at first. Cameras installed to monitor faces for signs of drowsiness could potentially observe much more after a future software or firmware update. The microphones installed to allow phone calls or interaction with voice assistants are physically capable of listening to other sounds, including private conversations.
The laws governing the collection and use of data change frequently. The powers given to government departments, law enforcement and other agencies to collect data also change. Since 2025, online selling platforms have to share information about users' earnings with HMRC - a change that went almost unnoticed by some.
Even without permission or legal requirement, data still leaks. How often do we hear that one of another database has been hacked and personal information stolen? We even occasionally hear that governments suspect that other nations may be supplying us with compromised technology that threatens our security. Those under suspicion are the very countries that manufacture many of our cars!
But of course, scary though it may be, these hazards and scenarios are largely speculation.
A matter of perception ... and imagination?
There is no doubt we want our cars to be as safe as possible. It is not unreasonable for regulations to legally require car makers to install advanced safety technology. The average driver would probably not consider those two statements controversial.
Whether we believe that there is a conflict between personal safety and personal privacy in our cars depends on many things. How well do we understand what data is collected and stored about us? How likely do we consider it that the monitoring features in our cars could, in the future, be used to spy on us by businesses or state agencies? There are many more considerations.
For those who do feel that the concerns some media are presenting are valid ones, the obvious follow up question is ... What can we do about it?
