{"id":270506,"date":"2025-11-04T08:17:09","date_gmt":"2025-11-04T08:17:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/270506\/"},"modified":"2025-11-04T08:17:09","modified_gmt":"2025-11-04T08:17:09","slug":"eyes-off-driving-is-coming-and-were-so-not-ready","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/270506\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Eyes-off driving\u2019 is coming, and we\u2019re so not ready"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last month, General Motors added its name to the growing list of automakers who are pursuing a novel type of partially automated technology called \u201ceyes-off driving.\u201d<\/a> What they didn\u2019t do, though, is provide a thorough description of how they\u2019ll take responsibility when something goes wrong.<\/p>\n

Not to be confused with the type of \u201ceyes-off\u201d distracted driving that many drivers seem to be practicing these days<\/a>, GM\u2019s system would be a step toward the automaker\u2019s ultimate goal of selling privately owned, fully autonomous cars. Some GM-produced cars already include the company\u2019s Super Cruise system, which allows drivers to take their hands off the steering wheel but uses gaze-tracking technology to make sure they keep their eyes on the road. The new system, at Level 3 of the six-level scale of autonomy<\/a>, would allow drivers to take their hands off the steering wheel and their eyes off the road on some US highways.<\/p>\n

GM says it aims to bring its Level 3 system to market by 2028, starting with the Cadillac Escalade IQ. From there, the technology will likely spread to the automaker\u2019s other brands, like Chevy, Buick, and GMC. Soon, drivers will be able to look at their phones without shame or risk of traffic violation. In some cases, drivers are encouraged to play video games or watch YouTube while their vehicle handles the driving.<\/p>\n

But only sometimes. Crucially, in a Level 3 system, drivers still need to stand ready to take over control of the vehicle if prompted. And if they fail to do so quickly, they could be held responsible when something goes wrong. And when it comes to driving in the world today, something always goes wrong.<\/p>\n

\u201cWith conditional automation, Level 3 automation, things get messier,\u201d said Dr. Alexandra Mueller, a senior research scientist at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. \u201cAnd that\u2019s where I think a lot of concerns are coming from, because there\u2019s a lot we just simply don\u2019t know when it comes to Level 3 driving automation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The uncertainty is even more concerning when you go down the list of automakers actively pursuing the technology. In addition to GM, Ford, Jeep parent Stellantis, and Honda have all thrown in their chips with Level 3. Mercedes-Benz already has a Level 3 system<\/a>, which it is calling Drive Pilot \u2014 but it\u2019s only legal to use on specific highways in California and Nevada.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s the catch. The industry is actively planning for the release of a new technology that is still broadly prohibited in most places. Germany and Japan both have some temporary allowances for BMW and Honda, respectively. But to date, Level 3 is highly restricted and is likely to remain so until lawmakers can figure it out.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s an incredibly tricky problem for many regulators. How do you assign liability in a system that can bounce back and forth between an automated driving system and a human driver? In Drive Pilot\u2019s case, Mercedes says it will accept liability for crashes caused by its technology when the system is active. But this is inherently conditional, and the driver is still responsible if they fail to take control when prompted or misuse the system.<\/p>\n

Tesla already uses this ambiguity to its benefit with its Level 2 systems, Autopilot and Full Self-Driving. An investigation into dozens of Tesla-involved crashes found that Autopilot will disengage \u201cless than one second\u201d before impact. Investigators didn\u2019t find any evidence<\/a> suggesting Tesla was trying to shirk its responsibility \u2014 but it certainly looks bad for the company.<\/p>\n

The sensors guiding these system, like cameras, infrared trackers, and torque sensors, can also be used by the companies to present evidence, in the event of a crash, of who was in control and when. At the event announcing its new \u201ceyes-off\u201d system, GM CEO Mary Barra pointed to the increasing number of sensors as potentially exculpatory for the company in these cases. \u201cWe\u2019re going to have so much more sensing that we\u2019re going to know pretty much exactly what happened,\u201d she said when asked about the liability concerns with Level 3 automation. \u201cAnd I think you\u2019ve seen General Motors, you know, always take responsibility for what we need to.\u201d<\/p>\n

The very definition of Level 3 presents a contradiction: Drivers are told they can disengage, yet must also remain available for rapid reengagement. When the transitions are planned, such as when a driver is entering or exiting a mapped zone, the handoff should be seamless. But unexpected events, like sudden weather or road changes, could make these systems unreliable. Research has shown that humans generally struggle with this type of \u201cout-of-the-loop\u201d task recovery.<\/p>\n

Research has shown that humans generally struggle with this type of \u201cout-of-the-loop\u201d task recovery<\/p>\n

When people have been disconnected from driving for a longer period of time, they may overreact when suddenly forced to take control in an emergency situation. They may overcorrect steering, brake too hard, or be unable to respond correctly because they haven\u2019t been paying attention. And those actions can create a domino effect that has the potential to be dangerous or even fatal.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe mixed fleet scenario, which is going to exist probably well beyond our lifetime, offers a highly uncontrolled environment which a lot of highly automated systems and even partially and conditionally automated systems will struggle with,\u201d Mueller said. \u201cAnd they\u2019ll struggle with [it] indefinitely because frankly, we live in a very chaotic and dynamic environment where stuff is constantly changing.\u201d<\/p>\n

We\u2019re already starting to see the emergence of case law that puts the onus on the human driver over the automated system.<\/p>\n

In Arizona, the safety driver in an Uber robotaxi pleaded guilty in response to a charge of negligent homicide for a 2017 fatal crash that occurred when the autonomous system was engaged. Before that, a Tesla driver pleaded no contest to negligent homicide for two fatalities stemming from a crash when the company\u2019s Autopilot system was in use. In both cases, prosecutors pursued criminal charges against the human behind the wheel, theorizing that despite the presence of an automated system, the driver was the one that was ultimately responsible for the vehicle.<\/p>\n

Automakers are likely thrilled with the outcomes of these cases. But there have been other cases that have found the car company could share the liability when something bad happens. Take for example the recent jury verdict in Florida, where Tesla was held partially responsible for a crash that killed two people. In that case, the owner of the Model S who was using Autopilot was also found liable \u2014 but it was Elon Musk\u2019s company that was ordered to pay $243 million to the victims\u2019 families.<\/p>\n

Mike Nelson, a trial attorney who specializes in mobility, notes that legal precedent for automation-related crashes is still embryonic. Cases about Level 2 systems will be used to inform rulings on Level 3 and beyond. But judges, lawyers, and jurors tend to lack technical expertise, making for a future that will be dictated mainly by unpredictability.<\/p>\n

As we move into this chaotic middle period, when human drivers find themselves sharing the road with more and more robots, automakers would be well advised to be as transparent as possible, Nelson said. The reason? Juries tend to like it when companies don\u2019t try to cover up their misdeeds.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m not happy about the chaos, but this is not unforeseen,\u201d Nelson said. \u201cThis has happened every time we\u2019ve had an industrial revolution.\u201d<\/p>\n

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Andrew J. HawkinsClose\"AndrewAndrew J. Hawkins<\/p>\n

Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All by Andrew J. Hawkins<\/a><\/p>\n

Autonomous CarsCloseAutonomous Cars<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Autonomous Cars<\/a><\/p>\n

Electric CarsCloseElectric Cars<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Electric Cars<\/a><\/p>\n

GMCloseGM<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All GM<\/a><\/p>\n

LawCloseLaw<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Law<\/a><\/p>\n

PolicyClosePolicy<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Policy<\/a><\/p>\n

TeslaCloseTesla<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Tesla<\/a><\/p>\n

TransportationCloseTransportation<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Transportation<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Last month, General Motors added its name to the growing list of automakers who are pursuing a novel…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":270507,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[9745,6144,25237,9746,1343,74,1019,6145],"class_list":["post-270506","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-technology","tag-autonomous-cars","tag-electric-cars","tag-gm","tag-law","tag-policy","tag-technology","tag-tesla","tag-transportation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270506","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=270506"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270506\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/270507"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270506"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270506"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270506"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}