Automakers are accelerating toward a key milestone on the path to fully autonomous driving: the introduction of systems that allow drivers to take their eyes off the road. These systems enable activities such as texting or using a laptop, with the driver only required to retake control when the vehicle issues an alert.
For years, car manufacturers have been enhancing driver-assistance systems that can automatically manage speed and steering. The next evolutionary step involves enabling drivers to engage in other tasks while the vehicle is in motion, a development that could help companies monetize their substantial investments in self-driving technology.
Doug Field, Chief EV, Digital, and Design Officer at Ford, stated, "We can deliver immediate time savings for users at an affordable cost." Ford plans to integrate this eyes-off-the-road technology into its affordable electric models starting in 2028.
However, the industry is divided on whether this technology, classified as Level 3 (L3) automation, is viable for mass production. Some executives and experts argue that frequent transitions of control between the vehicle and the human driver are impractical and unsafe, while also raising complex questions about liability.
There are also doubts about whether enough consumers will be willing to pay for the technology to justify its high development costs.
Paul Thomas, President of Bosch's North American operations, commented at the CES trade show in January, "We are uncertain if Level 3 automation makes sound commercial sense."
Several companies have slowed their L3 development efforts. A decade ago, industry leaders predicted widespread adoption of self-driving cars by now, but technical hurdles, cost overruns, and regulatory uncertainty have repeatedly delayed large-scale deployment. In the interim, automakers have packaged core autonomous technologies into increasingly capable driver-assistance systems, though these still require constant human supervision.
L3 systems represent a middle ground in the automation spectrum, which ranges from basic Level 1 features like cruise control to full Level 5 autonomy requiring no human intervention.
Nearly all driver-assistance systems available today, including Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) package, are classified as Level 2, requiring the driver to remain attentive at all times. Besides Ford, other automakers like General Motors and Honda have also announced plans to launch L3 systems.
A recent McKinsey survey of industry players estimated that developing an L3 system for highway use could cost up to $1.5 billion—approximately double the cost of a sophisticated urban-focused Level 2 system.
John Krafcik, former CEO of Waymo and current board member at EV maker Rivian, noted, "Automakers that have experimented with L3, and consumers who have experienced it, have found the benefits do not outweigh the costs."
McKinsey pointed out that some companies have abandoned L3 plans due to cost concerns, opting instead to enhance more affordable Level 2 systems.
Mercedes-Benz is currently the only automaker offering an L3 system in the United States, but it recently paused the program due to limited demand, which was attributed to speed restrictions, usage conditions, and geographical constraints. The company is now focusing on developing urban driving functions that still require driver monitoring. A Mercedes spokesperson stated that an upgraded L3 system is planned for release in a few years.
A Reuters report in August indicated that Stellantis had shelved its L3 development work over high costs, technical challenges, and doubts about consumer demand.
While Tesla's FSD can operate on city streets, it still mandates driver attention. Tesla has not introduced a Level 3 eyes-off feature for its consumer vehicles, instead focusing its efforts on achieving full autonomy.
Tesla has launched a limited robotaxi service and plans to expand it to several U.S. cities by the first half of 2026, competing directly with industry leader Waymo, which is owned by Alphabet.
Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina specializing in autonomous vehicle regulation, highlighted a key technical challenge for L3 systems: the vehicle must accurately determine when human intervention is needed, provide adequate warning, and maintain safe operation until the driver resumes control.
"The vehicle will continue for at least several dozen meters, a process taking a minimum of six seconds, often longer," he said. "From a regulatory perspective, a more sensible approach may be to offer Level 4 automation in sufficiently broad scenarios so users perceive genuine utility."
Joel Johnson, a former strategy consultant for General Motors' autonomous vehicle projects, noted that eyes-off systems present automakers with dual challenges of cost and liability.
He stated, "Automakers have only two strategic motivations for pursuing autonomy: to compete with and contain Waymo's growth, or to generate additional profit through one-time payments or subscription models."
The shift to eyes-off technology significantly alters liability dynamics. Analysts suggest that if an accident occurs, automakers are far more likely to be held responsible.
A 2023 article in the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal noted that liability in accidents involving L3 vehicles remains unclear, questioning whether fault lies with the driver or the manufacturer.
The article concluded, "Without a publicly acceptable regulatory solution soon, this technology may never reach the market."
Adding pressure on Western automakers is the rapid progress of Chinese competitors. In December, Chinese regulators granted the first approvals for vehicles with L3 capabilities to operate on public roads.
Chinese brands like Leapmotor and BYD have begun including advanced Level 2 features as standard, bundled into the vehicle's base price. If Western consumers begin demanding similar all-inclusive pricing instead of monthly subscriptions, it could trigger a global price war.
Johnson, the former GM strategist, remarked, "This is a battle of global business models."
Comments