RICHARD A. BROOKS/AFP via Getty Images
Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism has announced it will amend the Road Transport Vehicle Act safety standards as early as September 2026, requiring driver monitoring systems on every new vehicle sold in the country from September 2031. Existing production models — cars already approved but still in volume production — will have until September 2033 to comply. The rule applies equally to domestically manufactured and imported vehicles, meaning every global automaker selling in Japan must meet the same bar as Toyota and Honda.
The announcement arrives exactly seven weeks after the European Union’s own landmark requirement took full effect, when ADDW systems became mandatory in every new passenger car, truck, and bus sold in Europe. Two of the world’s largest automotive markets now require cabin-facing cameras as standard safety equipment. The question being asked in Detroit, Seoul, and Shanghai is not whether to include driver monitoring, but when their own regulators will follow.
Japan has tried the legal route. Following a wave of high-profile accidents, the country revised its Road Traffic Act in 2019 to substantially raise the cost of distracted driving. Drivers found using a handheld device while moving now face up to six months’ imprisonment. Maximum fines jumped from ¥50,000 (approximately $314 USD) to ¥100,000 (approximately $629 USD). Even minor violations — where a driver pays a penalty ticket rather than facing criminal proceedings — tripled in cost, reaching ¥18,000 (approximately $113 USD) for a standard-size vehicle. Penalty points for phone-use violations rose from one point to three.
The initial effect was real. Fatal and serious-injury accidents caused by smartphone use fell after the 2019 revision, then fell further during the COVID-19 years as travel dropped. But the trend reversed, and it has not looked back since.
According to Japan’s National Police Agency, serious injuries and fatal automobile accidents caused by drivers using smartphones reached 148 cases in 2025, including 26 fatal accidents — the highest figure since records were first kept in 2015. The number of such accidents has been increasing for five consecutive years since 2021. Fatal accidents account for 2.7% of all smartphone-related crashes, compared with 0.8% for crashes not involving smartphones — making a smartphone-related crash approximately 3.4 times more likely to be fatal.
The worsening numbers are particularly stark against Japan’s otherwise improving road safety record. Japan’s traffic deaths fell to 2,547 — the lowest figure since comparable statistics were first recorded in 1948. Smartphone distraction is now one of the few categories still moving in the wrong direction.
Japan’s term for the behavior — nagara unten (ながら運転), or “while-doing” driving — captures what the data confirms: the most common mechanism is not answering a call but taking eyes off the road to look at a screen. Research cited by the National Police Agency shows that a vehicle traveling at 60 km/h (37 mph) covers approximately 33.3 meters (109 feet) in the two seconds it takes to glance at a phone — the distance of a full intersection.
Why Penalties Alone Did Not Work
The failure of legal deterrence is not unique to Japan. Across jurisdictions, studies have found that the relationship between fine severity and driver behavior weakens sharply when the risk of detection is low. Japan’s smartphone enforcement depends on police observation — a physical bottleneck that cannot scale to match the volume of distracted driving occurring at any given moment. The 2019 revision raised the price of being caught; it did not change the odds of being caught.
The data reflect this dynamic. After an initial deterrence effect and pandemic-era reduction in total driving, smartphone accident rates resumed their climb as road traffic returned. By 2025, the absolute number of fatal smartphone-related accidents was tracking at the highest rate on record, even as Japan posted its safest year in traffic deaths overall. Legal penalties alone had reached the limit of what they could accomplish.
The mandate announced today represents a structural shift in Japan’s approach: moving from deterrence after the fact to physical interruption in the moment. A driver monitoring camera does not depend on police presence. It operates continuously, in every vehicle, on every trip.
How the Camera Works
The systems at the heart of the mandate are not new technology. Driver monitoring systems use infrared LED illuminators paired with a camera — typically a CCD or CMOS sensor mounted on the steering column, dashboard, or instrument cluster — that tracks the driver’s face continuously. Because infrared light is invisible and does not interfere with night vision, the camera operates in all lighting conditions.
From the image stream, DMS software computes several biometric signals in real time. The primary measure for drowsiness is PERCLOS — the percentage of eyelid closure over a given time interval. A PERCLOS threshold of 80% closure for a sustained period is a validated psychophysiological signal for drowsiness onset, developed from research in the early 1990s. For distraction detection — the behavior targeted by Japan’s mandate — the system calculates gaze direction and head orientation. Under the EU’s Advanced Driver Distraction Warning standard, if a driver’s eyes deviate from the road ahead for more than 3.5 seconds, the system is required to issue an audible and visual alert.
The alert cascade is escalating by design. A brief visual cue appears first. If the driver does not reorient, an audible warning follows. Some implementations add haptic feedback through the seat or steering wheel. The EU standard and Japan’s expected implementation both require the system to process all data on-device — no images are transmitted to external servers, and the data is deleted in real time rather than stored.
Toyota was first to integrate this technology in a production vehicle, fitting an infrared driver monitoring system to its Lexus GS 450h, in 2006. Since then, DMS has spread through premium and semi-autonomous vehicle lines globally: Nissan’s ProPILOT 2.0, Honda Sensing, Mazda’s Driver Monitoring, and the Level 3 systems requiring mandatory DMS in Japan already. MLIT has, in effect, taken the logic it applied to automated vehicles and extended it to the entire fleet.
A 2025 peer-reviewed study published in Transportation Research found that driver monitoring systems reduce real-world crash rates by 14% — second only to Lane Keeping Assist (-19.1%) among the major ADAS categories studied.
Following Europe’s Lead
Japan’s announcement comes seven weeks after the EU’s General Safety Regulation made ADDW systems mandatory in every new passenger car, truck, and bus sold in Europe. The requirement had been phased in: new vehicle type-approvals needed ADDW from July 2024; the July 7, 2026 date extended the requirement to all new vehicles, regardless of when their platform was approved.
The European Commission estimates the full General Safety Regulation package — which includes AEB for pedestrians and cyclists alongside ADDW — will save more than 25,000 lives and prevent at least 140,000 serious injuries by 2038.
The convergence of EU and Japanese mandates creates a practical reality for global automakers: designing a platform without DMS is no longer commercially viable at scale. Most manufacturers will standardize on a compliant system across their entire global production rather than maintaining separate specs for different markets — meaning DMS is on a trajectory to become a de facto global standard even in regions with no legal requirement.
What the Rule Requires
Under the planned amendment, DMS will be mandatory equipment on all newly type-approved vehicles — new model designs introduced to market — from September 2031. Existing production models, sold under type approvals already on file, will have until September 2033 to comply. Both timelines apply to domestic and imported vehicles alike.
Systems must be capable of detecting at minimum two categories of driver impairment: visual distraction (such as looking at a smartphone screen) and drowsiness (detected through PERCLOS and head-drop patterns). When either condition is detected, the system must generate a driver alert. MLIT’s final technical specifications are expected to follow the September 2026 legislative amendment.
Japan’s existing regulatory trajectory already pointed in this direction. Under current MLIT rules, Level 3 and above automated vehicles must use DMS to confirm a driver’s readiness to retake control from the autopilot. By 2026, Emergency Driving Stop Systems — which require DMS to detect incapacitated drivers and bring the vehicle safely to a halt — had become de facto standard for any vehicle targeting a five-star J-NCAP safety rating. Monday’s announcement extends that existing infrastructure logic to the full vehicle fleet.
A Global Market in Rapid Growth
Regulatory momentum is already visible in market data. The global driver monitoring system market was estimated at $3.03 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $8.10 billion by 2033, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 11.7%. Software — covering real-time in-cabin analytics, AI-based monitoring platforms, and over-the-air update capabilities — accounted for 53.2% of revenue in 2024, reflecting the intelligence layer on top of the hardware.
Major suppliers including Bosch, Continental, Seeing Machines, Smart Eye, Valeo, and DENSO are already competing for supply contracts as automakers redesign dashboards and sensor clusters around the new requirements. Seeing Machines reported 4,818,731 DMS-equipped vehicles on the road globally as of Q2 2026, up 67% year-on-year. In November 2025, it secured its first Japanese contract — a program with Mitsubishi Electric Mobility Corporation for a leading Japanese carmaker, beginning production in 2028.
Privacy and the Always-On Cabin Camera
The inside of a car has traditionally been treated as a private space, and the introduction of an always-on cabin camera is not universally welcomed. Survey data suggests more than 70% of drivers express concern about in-cabin camera surveillance. Regulators in both Japan and the EU have sought to address that concern by requiring local data processing: the system analyzes the image stream on-device and discards the data rather than storing or transmitting it.
That architecture limits the most obvious misuse scenarios — an insurer or government agency cannot routinely pull cabin footage from a mandated ADDW system because no footage is retained. But concerns persist about potential future changes to data-handling requirements, about what automakers and insurers may do with aggregated behavioral metadata, and about whether the hardware now embedded in every vehicle could be repurposed under future laws.
Different automakers have committed to different standards. Consumer Reports research found that BMW, Ford, and GM confirmed their DMS systems do not transmit in-cabin images off the vehicle. Subaru’s DriverFocus system uses facial recognition to identify drivers but has stated it does not record the data.
For buyers, the practical question is not whether the camera will be present — from 2031 in Japan, it will be — but what their automaker does with the data the camera generates.
What DMS Does Not Catch
One limitation that the public framing of these mandates tends to obscure: driver monitoring systems detect visual distraction, not cognitive distraction. A driver whose eyes are aimed at the road while their mind is absorbed in a hands-free phone call will pass the eye-tracking check — even though research consistently shows that cognitive distraction from phone conversations produces reaction-time impairments comparable to those from looking at a screen.
This means DMS addresses the most common and measurable form of smartphone distraction — the screen glance — while the cognitive dimension of the problem remains outside its reach. Japan’s 2031 mandate represents a significant step, but the engineering solution it deploys is matched to one type of distraction, not all of them.
(Exchange rate as of August 24, 2026; conversions are approximate.)
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a driver monitoring system, and how does it work?
A driver monitoring system is an in-vehicle safety device that uses an infrared camera — typically mounted on the steering column or dashboard — to track a driver’s face, gaze direction, and eyelid closure in real time. The camera is invisible in normal light and works in all lighting conditions. Software processes the image stream on the device itself and computes whether the driver’s eyes have left the road for too long (the distraction trigger) or whether their eyelids are closing more than 80% over a measured interval (the drowsiness trigger, measured by a validated metric called PERCLOS). When either threshold is crossed, the system issues escalating audible and visual alerts. No data is stored or transmitted under EU and Japan’s expected implementation frameworks.
When will Japan’s driver monitoring requirement take effect?
Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism has announced a mandate that will apply to all newly type-approved vehicles — new model designs receiving fresh regulatory approval — from September 2031. Existing production models (vehicles already in production under previously approved designs) will have until September 2033 to comply. A legislative amendment to the Road Transport Vehicle Act is planned for September 2026 to set the formal legal basis.
Is a driver-facing camera an invasion of privacy?
The privacy question is real but more limited than it first appears under the current regulatory design. EU rules — which Japan is expected to mirror — require that DMS data be processed entirely on-device and deleted in real time. No cabin footage is stored or transmitted to servers, insurers, or governments as part of the baseline mandate. The concern regulators and privacy advocates flag is “mission creep”: whether the hardware now embedded in every vehicle could eventually be required to retain data under future laws. Automakers’ commitments to data minimization vary, and buyers should review their vehicle’s specific privacy policy.
Does a driver monitoring camera catch all forms of distracted driving?
No — and this is the most important limitation to understand. Camera-based DMS catches visual distraction: a driver whose eyes leave the road to look at a phone screen. It does not catch cognitive distraction, the mental engagement with a conversation or complex thought that impairs reaction time even when a driver’s eyes are pointed at the road. Research shows hands-free phone calls produce cognitive impairment comparable to handheld use. Japan’s mandate will address the most measurable form of smartphone distraction but cannot reach the form that laws are also powerless to detect.
