Stellantis Shelves Level 3 Driver-Assistance Program (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0178920702
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/08/28/2052249/stellantis-shelves-level-3-driver-assistance-program
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/stellantis-shelves-level-3-driver-assistance-program-it-downscales-software-2025-08-26/
> As recently as February, Stellantis said its in-house system, which is part of the AutoDrive program, was ready for deployment and a key pillar of its strategy. The company said the system, which enables drivers to have their hands off the wheel and eyes off the road under certain conditions, would allow them to temporarily watch movies, catch up on emails, or read books. That Level 3 software was never launched, the company confirmed to Reuters. But it stopped short of saying that the program was canceled.
>
> "What was unveiled in February 2025 was L3 technology for which there is currently limited market demand, so this has not been launched, but the technology is available and ready to be deployed," a Stellantis spokesperson said. The three sources, however, said that the program was put on ice and is not expected to be deployed. When asked how much time and money was lost on the initiative, Stellantis declined to say, responding that the work done on AutoDrive will help support its future versions. [...] Stellantis said it is leaning on aiMotive, a tech startup it acquired in 2022, to deliver the next generation of the AutoDrive program. Stellantis declined to say when that program would be ready for market or if it would include Level 3 capability.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/stellantis-shelves-level-3-driver-assistance-program-it-downscales-software-2025-08-26/
hahaha no. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is essentially unlimited demand for this technology when it works.
There is no demand for the technology if it does not work.
What they are telling us is that it does not work.
Given that it's Stellantis, it comes as even less than no surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
> There is no demand for the technology if it does not work.
That was my first thought as well. "We spent ungodly amounts of money to get this to work. It's ready to ship, works perfectly, but we're not going to release it because nobody wants it" just doesn't pass the smell test. I'm going to guess it's more along the lines of they spent ungodly amounts of money to get it 95% done, realized it was that last 5% that was going to double their budget, and then shelved it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why expend that budget when there is another company out there very close to FSD likely to get it done (already demonstrating it in use) with far cheaper hardware in the car that doesn't make the car look ridiculous or damage phone(or other) cameras and is willing to licence it to you
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that's fair. Obviously you don't expect full transparency from a high-level execu-type at a major corporation. It would be refreshing to hear someone at that level saying publicly "Yeah, we fucked up. Our hardware and software work, but our competitor figured out how to do it with way cheaper hardware. We obviously can't compete on a per-unit basis, so we're just going to license theirs and stuff it in our vehicles." instead of trying to pretend that they only reason they aren't releasing thei
Re: (Score:2)
> There is essentially unlimited demand for this technology when it works.
False. A technology working does not generate infinite demand. You left out cost. Cost is an important factor here, especially since their system was only slated for inclusion with top of the line EQS models which start at around $125k in the USA, and it wasn't clear that trim included it at that price either.
They were relying heavily on China to make money on this as high end luxury sedan sales cratered around the world. The Chinese government recently put the brakes on that for all car makers by putting a
Re: (Score:2)
> Not only have they demonstrated it working plenty of times
You fell for the demo?
> The downside in Germany was they were only approved for operation at up to 95km/h which is a non-starter for many people looking to use this since the Level 2 driver assist systems was approved to 150km/h. America, Canada and the UK did not place this condition on them.
[1]They only even claimed it worked up to 37 mph [stellantis.com], and further only claimed it would work up to 59 mph. Nobody had to place this condition on them, they placed it.
[1] https://www.stellantis.com/en/news/press-releases/2025/february/stellantis-unveils-stla-autodrive-hands-free-and-eyes-off-autonomous-technology-for-a-new-era-of-driving-comfort
Re: (Score:2)
I did not fall for anything, they made a demonstration which worked as shown and they have a certification for their system from multiple regulators. People with far more knowledge on the matter have said it works and even certified it to be activated on public roads.
What do you have? I mean other than a baseless hate boner and ignorance?
Re: (Score:2)
> What do you have? I mean other than a baseless hate boner and ignorance?
A citation and logic. Both are pretty neato in my book.
What do you have besides insults and appeals to authority which don't even come with the identities of the supposed authorities?
Re: (Score:2)
> There is essentially unlimited demand for this technology when it works.
This is exactly why the BC Skytrain is so popular (and Detroit could also leverage this if they bothered to expand the Peoplemover, which was basically built with surplus Skytrain equipment).
Re: (Score:2)
I've often said that we've had the tech for self steering since the 1800s, and that really reduces the tech needed for self driving, as you have pointed out here.
I still will go ahead and spend my karma pointing out (as I have done previously) that we could be building PRT on an ultralight rail to make use of these technologies on a scale similar to existing automobiles, and even keeping the automobile companies in the loop on it, but big oil won't have it because it makes it easy to cut out the fossil fuel
Re: (Score:2)
PRT doesn't scale up. Even the Morgantown PRT as more or less permanently switched to traditional circulation because demand service doesn't keep up. Also why the Vegas Loop doesn't work. Also why freeways don't work in cities. You either need to make the vehicles as close to individual size as possible, or make them as high capacity and predictably scheduled as possible, but trying to split the difference just gets you long headways and traffic jams. Also why low-stress bicycle routes clear more peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Cars can function if you have shitloads of road, there's no reason why car-sized vehicles can't work if you make the track a lot cheaper. The Vegas loop doesn't work because it uses shitty cars on tires on roads in tunnels. Morgantown PRT has too-expensive track requirements that you can't conveniently mix with other forms of transport.
Re: (Score:2)
> Everyone on ArsTechnica told me 10 years ago we would all be driven by autonomous vehicles and human drivers would be obsolete?
> Did they lie?
Not me, I was telling everyone that it wouldn't
happen for at least 20 years. I am impressed
at how far it's come, but I think it will still be
another decade before it really works.
Possibly even another 20 years.
As for lying, that would be Stellantis.
They are "shelving" the technology
--- by which they mean cancelling their
project and getting out of the business --
not because it WORKS, but because
THEY COULD NOT GET IT TO WORK.
"No demand for self-driving cars."
That excuse is beyond absurd.
"No demand for self-dr
Re: I can't believe it (Score:2)
Elon lied to you
Re: (Score:2)
> Did they lie?
They didn't know what they were talking about, they lied about their powers of prognostication, or both.
Self-driving cars may one day obsolete human drivers, I even believe that they potentially could in my lifetime. But I don't think it will happen soon, and I don't think it's a particularly worthwhile goal either. Instead we should eliminate most of the need to drive, and get down to lighter vehicles (think SxS or NEV) for most of the remaining (rural, recreational, emergency) use. We could delete a lot o
Good call (Score:3)
I have a Stellantis car and its driver assistance is dreadful, the worst part is the lane assistance, l have to turn that junk off on every journey so it doesn’t try to kill me. The lane assistance picks up on repairs to the road surface and wrongly follows these as phantom lanes, pushing you into oncoming traffic in the other direction!
Another stupid thing is using the speed limiter, you can be driving 60mph on a main road and all of a sudden the car slams on the brakes reducing speed to 30mph because the camera has picked up a sign in a side street while driving past. Even when it is working properly it is very rough, unlike a human driver that sees a lower speed sign up ahead and eases off to smoothly slow down while approaching the lower speed section, the automatic system waits until it reaches the sign and then brakes hard increasing risk of being rear ended.
Seems more complex than necessary (Score:2)
> ...reducing speed to 30mph because the camera has picked up a sign in a side street while driving past...
Are you sure it reads road signs? That seems vastly more complicated and much less reliable than simply getting the speed limits using GPS coordinates and a map. Every car I've driven that has a speed limit display seems to use this approach and while it does mean that you have to keep the maps up to date I'd think that would still be much more reliable that reading road signs for reasons similar to what you mention. In fact, you will have to use GPS to know how to interpret the signs: Canadian speed limi
Re: (Score:2)
In many countries/areas GPS doesn't know the speed limit of all roads (Ford starting reading signs thing a few years back) it also accounts for temporary changes such as road works to be able to read the signs. A true FSD needs to able to account for items not in GPS that means all kinds of signs posted for whatever reason
Re: (Score:2)
> Are you sure it reads road signs? That seems vastly more complicated and much less reliable than simply getting the speed limits using GPS coordinates and a map.
I googled "stellantis level 2 driver assistance reads road signs -stla" (I added that last on there to avoid getting a shitload of stories about the cancellation this story is about) and the top result is about the [1]Jeep Compass [stellantis.com] and how it can read road signs. Learn to internet, bro.
> Every car I've driven
Why do you think the cars you've driven are relevant?
> So if you have to have a GPS map to know how to read the signs why not just use it to get the limits too?
Because speed limits can be changed faster than the database gets updated.
[1] https://www.media.stellantis.com/em-en/jeep/press/new-jeep-compass-born-to-surprise-pr
Re: (Score:2)
Temporary speed restrictions for road works is one example, where GPS information would not be accurate. Another is variable speed limits, roads such as the M25 in London UK, the speed limits vary according to traffic volume throughout the day.
Re: (Score:2)
If a human driver drove like that he would lose his license.
Yet these cars are allowed on public roads.
Re: (Score:2)
So you based your judgement on the fact that you have experience with a different car, without the feature in question, without the hardware in question, in a different model class, bought at a different time.
I'll run with this line of thinking: my dog is stupid, my dog is also a mammal and so are you therefore you are stupid?
No you're probably not stupid but you did make a very stupid post.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is simple, if Stellantis shows an inability to get the basic driver assistance features working well, then there is a high probability that they will have failed to build a more advanced system. People like me that has had this poor experience with two Stellantis brand vehicles that are their top of the range latest models will have zero confidence in any autonomous driving capability from the company. Once they can show competence in basic safety features, then I may reconsider.
Level 3 (Score:2)
When the SAE defined the levels for AVs the immediate feedback was that L3 in particular didn't seem like a great idea, as the manufacturer has the liability for accidents, yet the driver is supposed to take over when requested.
Re: (Score:2)
Really I think 3/4 should be illegal. 2 requires continuous attention by the driver. It is well known that when you are in a 3/4 situation by the time the human can assess the situation and do something, they are dead . 5 on the other hand says the car is as good or better than the human in all circumstances. So until we have 5, 3/4 is just accidents waiting to happen.
I can't see insurance companies (Score:2)
Allowing us to drive much longer. Once self-driving cars are common and assuming our wider civilization doesn't collapse for a laundry list of reasons then insurance companies are going to make it prohibitively expensive for you to be able to take your car off self-driving mode.
A self-driving car will follow every rule to the letter and it will refuse to speed.
I do wonder if you will see higher speed limits though. Most speed limits are set intentionally low with the understanding that everyone is g
Drank the Flavor Aid (Score:2)
> Allowing us to drive much longer. Once self-driving cars are common and assuming our wider civilization doesn't collapse for a laundry list of reasons then insurance companies are going to make it prohibitively expensive for you to be able to take your car off self-driving mode. A self-driving car will follow every rule to the letter and it will refuse to speed. I do wonder if you will see higher speed limits though. Most speed limits are set intentionally low with the understanding that everyone is going to go 10 mph over. Hell I had to do a long drive today and it been a while since I did a really long one so I was driving slower than usual to be careful but found I was still 10 over while people were passing me on the freeway
> Allowing us to drive much longer. Once self-driving cars are common and assuming our wider civilization doesn't collapse for a laundry list of reasons then insurance companies are going to make it prohibitively expensive for you to be able to take your car off self-driving mode.
You'd have a point if this were a fantasy world, but in the real world, if you can't drive as well as glorified cruise control, you shouldn't have a license in the first place. These glorified cruise controls drive about as well as a teenager with a learners permit and ADHD at best. On a good day. And now that tech companies and car companies are all in on generative AI, you're seeing the peak capabilities, it's all downhill from here until gullible people (you included in this case) come back to their s
Re: (Score:2)
> A self-driving car will follow every rule to the letter and it will refuse to speed.
You really should watch that video of a Tesla plowing right through a fake wall.
Which also brings me to: Have you ever actually priced insurance for a Tesla? It's horribly expensive. It's like the insurance companies know you're likely to be distracted by the touch screen UI or eating a meal with the self driving enabled, and wind up upside-down in a ditch.
By the time self driving tech works well enough to deploy on a large scale, you won't own a car anyway. You'll just summon one via an app and insuran
Re: I can't see insurance companies (Score:1)
Meh. Dumb humans arenâ(TM)t going to get dumber (I hope). Risk for a human driver among smarter AI drivers should be lower than the current model which is all average monkey brain drivers. If insurance is based on real risk, then humans should get a slight discount as AI drivers increase, whereas AI drivers will get a steep decrease. The main change will likely be that insurance for AI drivers might prevent you from taking manual control. This is all only if it ever gets good enough though.