The automotive industry is advancing toward a significant breakthrough in self-driving technology: vehicles that permit drivers to divert their attention from the road for activities like texting or working on laptops, until the car signals them to resume control.
For years, automobile manufacturers have been improving driver-assistance features that automatically manage speed and steering. Allowing drivers to multitask while driving could represent the next advancement that helps car companies profit from their substantial investments in autonomous technology.
“We can start saving them time immediately, and do it in a very affordable way,” said Doug Field, Ford Motor’s chief electric vehicle, digital and design officer. Ford plans to launch an eyes-off system on budget-friendly electric vehicles beginning in 2028.
However, a heated industry discussion continues about whether this eyes-off capability – known in the automotive sector as Level 3 autonomous driving – is worthwhile to develop. Several executives and industry specialists contend that transferring control between vehicle and human driver is impractical or dangerous, creating complex liability concerns.
Many also wonder if sufficient consumers will buy the technology to warrant its expensive development expenses.
“We don’t know if Level 3 ever makes financial sense,” Paul Thomas, president of the North America business at automotive supplier Bosch, told Reuters at the CES consumer-technology show in January.
COMPANIES RETREATING FROM LEVEL 3 PLANS
Ten years ago, automotive leaders forecasted that self-driving vehicles would be commonplace today, but technical obstacles, budget overruns and regulatory confusion have postponed widespread implementation. Meanwhile, automakers have been bundling the components of completely driverless vehicles into progressively advanced driver-assistance capabilities that demand continuous human oversight.
Eyes-off Level 3 technology occupies the middle ground on the industry’s autonomous driving spectrum, ranging from basic features like cruise control at Level 1, to complete driverless functionality under all circumstances at Level 5.
Presently, nearly all assisted-driving technologies available, including Tesla’s Full Self-Driving, are categorized as Level 2 systems, which demand drivers maintain road awareness. Besides Ford, manufacturers that have revealed intentions for eyes-off Level 3 technology include General Motors and Honda Motor.
The expense to create a Level 3 system for highway operation reaches $1.5 billion, approximately twice the cost for Level 2 systems that can function even on urban roads, according to a recent industry survey by consulting firm McKinsey.
“Those carmakers who have attempted an L3 system, and the consumers who have tried it, are finding that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze,” said John Krafcik, the former CEO of Waymo and current board member of EV maker Rivian.
Some companies have already retreated from their Level 3 goals due to cost worries, McKinsey reported, and have instead intensified efforts on improving their less expensive Level 2 systems.
Germany’s Mercedes-Benz, the sole automaker to launch Level 3 technology in the U.S. so far, recently stopped its program because limited speed, restricted conditions and geographic limitations reduced demand. Currently, the company is concentrating on deploying autonomous driving features for urban roads that require driver oversight. Mercedes intends to launch an improved Level 3 system in several years, a spokesperson confirmed.
In August, Reuters reported that Stellantis abandoned its Level 3 development work due to high expenses, technical difficulties and worries about consumer interest.
While Tesla’s Full Self-Driving capability can function on city roads, it demands the driver remain attentive to traffic. The Elon Musk-led company has not yet launched an eyes-off Level 3 option for personal cars, and is instead concentrated on delivering completely autonomous driving.
Tesla has started a small robotaxi service and plans to expand to several U.S. cities by early 2026, placing it in direct rivalry with industry leader Waymo, owned by Alphabet.
A significant technical hurdle with Level 3 involves designing a system capable enough to recognize the need for human involvement, deliver that alert, and continue driving until the operator takes control, explained Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor specializing in autonomous-driving regulation.
“That’s going football fields down a road, minimum 6 seconds, probably much more,” he said. “What makes more sense from a regulatory perspective is being able to provide Level 4 under a significant enough set of operating conditions that people will actually find it useful to use.”
Joel Johnson, a strategist who has collaborated with GM on autonomous programs, said eyes-off systems create cost and liability obstacles for car manufacturers.
“Automakers only have a reason to deploy autonomy strategically to fight Waymo and keep them at bay, or to be able to charge more money” through upfront payments or subscriptions, he said.
LIABILITY SHIFTS WITH EYES-OFF CAPABILITY
Industry experts indicate that adopting eyes-off technology raises the probability that the vehicle manufacturer would face liability during a collision.
The issue of who might bear responsibility in an accident involving Level 3 technology – the driver or the manufacturer – remains unclear today, according to research published last year in the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal.
“If a publicly acceptable regulatory solution is not quickly implemented, this technology may never reach the market,” the research stated.
Increasing pressure on automakers to launch more advanced assisted-driving capabilities comes from the swift advancement of Chinese manufacturers. China’s government in December approved a vehicle with Level 3 capability for the first time.
Chinese brands including Leapmotor and BYD are already incorporating advanced Level 2 driver-assistance capabilities in their vehicles’ base prices. This could trigger a worldwide pricing competition if U.S. and European consumers expect identical features from their models without monthly fees.
“This is a war of global business models,” said Johnson, the strategist who has worked with GM.
