tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN March 21, 2016 1:00pm-3:01pm EDT
with another bill currently sitting on a governor's desk awaiting signature. this is the experience that lyft brings to the table as we embark upon a mission on providing autonomous vehicles to the public. with the help of this body, a dedicated effort to tackle hard questions and a commitment to ensure that regulation doesn't inhibit innovation, we can succeed. we look forward to working with this committee to ensure the autonomous vehicles can arrive safely and efficiently on america's roads. i thank the committee for holding this hearing and for working toward this common goal and i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have, thank you. >> dr. cummings? >> thank you. thank you for having me back. good afternoon ranking member thune and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss issues about the future of self-driving cars. i'm the director of the duke robotics program and the laboratory which focuses on the
multi-faceted interactions of humans and autonomous systems and complex with the technical systems. i have conducted driving research and provided future technology recommendations to automotive manufacturers for more than a dozen years including ford, nissan, toyota, google x, and i was the program manager for $100 million navy robotics helicopter that carries the very same sense or sensors that you see on cars today and i'm on the interaction of self-driving cars and pedestrians. while i enthusiastically support the research and development of self-driving cars i'm less optimistic of what i perceive to be a rush to field systems that are really not ready for widespread deployment. here are a few scenarios that highlight the scenarios of self-driving cars. bad weather, including standing water on roadways, drizzling rain, sudden downpours and snow. coupling this these limitations
to follow a traffic policeman's gestures especially on a rainy day in a poncho, means self-driving cars should not be operating near elementary schools at this time. the vulnerability to malevolent and prankster intent, for example, it is relatively easy to spoof the gps of self-driving vehicles which involves hacking into their systems and guiding them off course. without proper security systems in place it is feasible that people can commandeer self-driving vehicles to do their bidding which could be malicious or simply for the thrill of it and such hacking represents a worst-case scenario there are other disruptive problems to be considered. it is not uncommon in many parts of the country for people to drive with gps jammers in the backs of their trunks to make sure no one knows where they are which could be disruptive to the system. additionally, recent research has shown that a $60 laser device can trick self-driving cars into sensing objects that are not there. moreover, we know that people will attempt to game and spoof
self-driving cars, in effect, trying to elicit or prevent various behaviors in attempts to get ahead of the cars or simply to have fun. lastly, privacy and control of personal data is also going to be a major point of contention. these cars carry cameras that look both inside and outside the car that will have telemetry data in realtime including where you're going or your driving habits. who has access to this data, whether it is secure and whether it could be used for other commercial or government purposes are to be addressed. given that these and other issues need to be addressed before wide deployment of these cars take place, but understanding very much that there are clear and economic, and how can we get there with minimal risk exposure? >> it is deficient in its testing program with no leadership that should be provided by nhtsa. google extinguishing as chris told you the cars have driven 1.4 million miles and i applaud this achievement and new york
taxi cabs drive 1.4 million miles in just a little over a day. this assertion is indicative of a larger problem in robotics in self-driving cars and in drones which we discussed before where demonstrations are substituted for principle testing. rand says that to verify self-driving cars are as safe as human drivers, 275 million miles must be driven fatality-free. so that means we need a significantly accelerated self-driving mrm and it is not in southern california or southern texas to accrue miles. nhtsa has to provide leadership for a testing program that ensures that self-driving cars are rig lousily testing for the corner cases which are extreme conditions in which these cars will operate. we know many of the censors on self-driving cars are not reliable in bad weather in urban canyons or in places where databases are out of date. we know that recognition is a problem. we know humans will get in the
backseat while their cars are on autopilot. we know people will try to hack into these systems. given self-driving cars' heavy dependence on reasoning and the shared complexity of the driving domain, there are many unknowns that the systems willen counter and there are many known knowns that we are aware of that are not being openly tested in a rigorous manner that would be expected in similar transportation settings. for example, the faa has clear certification processes for aircraft software and we would never let them accrue it without evidence approved by the faa. >> however, any er is tcertificf self-driving cars until they are disclosed on how they're testing their cars. moreover, they should make such data publicly available for expert validation. let me reiterate thattas a professor in the field of robotics i am wholeheartedly in support of the research and self-driving cars, but these systems will not be ready for
fielding until we move away from demonstrations to transparency and evidence-based testing including human autonomous system interaction and system vulnerabilities in all environment alex treatments. to this end, in collaboration with private industry, nhtsa needs to provide much stronger leadership and guidance in this space. thank you. >> thank you, dr. cummings. i think we do have and we'll try this if you want to turn to the monitor there, this is something that i think, delphi and google. >> you are the first people outside of google to ever drive it? >> there it is. >> oh, wow! >> okay, annie. here we go. let's go. >> there's no steering wheel in the way. >> it's really cool. it was really kind of a space-age experience. >> you sit, relax and you don't have to do nothing. it knows when you need to stop and it knows when it needs to go. >> what she really liked was
that it slowed down before it went around the curve and accelerated in the curve. she's always trying to get me to do it that way. >> that's what i learned in high school driver's ed. >> if i had a self-driving car i could spend more time hanging out with my kids or helping them with their homework. even just tending to them. >> our lives are made up of lots and lots of little things and a lot of those little things for most people have to do in getting from place to place in order to connect and do things and there is a big part of my life that's missing and there is a big part of my life that a self-driving vehicle would bring back to me. >> i love this! ♪ ♪ ♪ >> in 2015, delphi's car drove itself across the country from coast to coast. now 50 terabytes later we're applying all that we've learned
to the next stop. this year at ces in las vegas, delphi's car talked to everything, to the street signs and the traffic lights, to the cars all around us, to the guy who was crossing the street on foot or on bike, to the nearby mcdonald's or the starbucks that's up ahead on the left. why? to make it safer for all of us. >> delphi drive available. >> consumer-based adoption of active safety technology could save approximately 11,000 lives annually. last year we took a lot of active safety technologies that are on the road today and some that we think will be on the road in the next couple of years. radar, vision, for example, and also now equip the car to talk to a variety of different information sources. so vehicle to vehicle, vehicle stop lights and vehicle to pedestrians, for example, and take -- we can call that vehicle to everything, actually and you
are able to take information from a lot of different sources on top of all of the sensors that you have on the car and help complete the scenario better for decision making, for safety purposes and now improve the consumer experience in the cockpit. >> the car is letting us know of everything it sees immediately. i see green. i am seeing this -- and i'm turning now. so that the idea of safety and confidence, we want the passenger to feel comfortable in the car. >> delphi drive ending in 1,000 feet. prepare to take over. >> great. thank you again, all of you, for being here sharing your thoughts on this subject. we'll get into some rounds of questions now and i wanted to start by just asking a general one because i think we're talking about something that
often was thought of as very futuristic and there are manufacturers who expect that these cars will be on the market in just a few years and all of you have different roles in this area, but when do you think these types of cars will be ready and available in the marketplace? i'll just open that up to the panel if anyone would like to respond to that. what's a timeframe we're talking about? [ inaudible ] >> thank you. from jim's perspective, the way we envision introducing this technology into using the public is through the idea of of a ride sharing fleet. we think this gives access to a wide part of the public including underserved communities. we would introduce it originally as vehicles with drivers because we do agree we need to collect data and make sure that the systems are operating as we expect them to before we
actually start deploying the vehicles without drivers. we think this offers a framework that we can develop and deploy this technology in a very safe way. to your question on timing, we would expect the vehicles with drivers to appear within the next up kell of years and when we start working without drivers will depend on how the technology develops and what the criteria agreed with with regulators are. >> mr. apaku, how will lyft's partnership with gm, do you think, on autonomous vehicles more rapidly advance the future of mobility? how does that bear on the timing question? >> chairman thune, thank you for the question. i think the starting point for the answer is the experience and the explosion of the ride-sharing industry. a few short years ago, as i mentioned in my testimony the idea of getting into a stranger's car was pretty much unheard of. it was something that your mother warned you against and the yet through the safety innovations that lyft immremed
we got people comfortable with the idea of riding in a stranger's car and we did so at a scalable rate that allowed us to expand to nearly 200 different cities in less than four years. so it's this ability, not only to use innovation, to enhance the customer experience, to ensure safety and to reach a mass audience that we think we'll be using to ensure the quick deployment of autonomous vehicles to the community at large. we have the ability to reach a nationwide audience very quickly with our technology and frankly, given the cost that will most likely be involved with the firstity rayings of autonomous vehicles, this will be the most cost effective way of getting it to the public, as well. this is the role that lyft envisions to itself as part of the process. >> i just wonder if i can get some of you to react to some of the concerns that were raised by dr. cummings. she mentioned weather, hacking, privacy, obviously the
transparency of the test and that sort of thing, but how do these vehicles you talk about them not performing as well under those types of circumstances and those of you that are involved in the development and testing of these things. how do you respond to some of those concerns? >> i think the first thing to know is when we talk about automated driving cars, we're talking about multiple types of sensors, radar, lydar and v to v. so each of those technologies have strengths and weaknesses, in some cases, vision or lydar may be compromised by weather and similarly with other conditions so the key is to have a multi-sensor approach. you expand your range of coverage in your performance envelope and it's true, sensors have strengths and weaknesses, but by combining those sensors you end up with a better package and a greater perception than an individual driver relying on
vision alone. >> in response to a google inquiry, nhtsa had said motor safety and safety standards would require rule making in order for google itself for car features. >> are you concerned that the ability to develop and employ this ability is what could be a very lengthy rule-making progre progress? >> think that's an important question because many of the companies at the table here have been involved in developing this technology and america is currently in very much a leadership position in this space. that said, we look at what's happening in europe. we look at what's happening in china and japan and they're hot on our heels and in fact, not a day goes by where one company particularly from china is trying to recruit engineers from our team. from our perspective this technology is advancing at an
incredible rate and we need to see the safety benefits and we need to see the access benefits and we need to see the economic benefits in america first and by finding a way to give nhtsa an approval process that would allow them to expedite in a very safe way innovative technology to transportation that will allow us to continue its technology in the united states and this to be to the company. nhtsa determined that google's self-driving system could be interpreted as the driver for the purposes of nhtsa rules. conversely, the california dmv is proposed to be operating a licensed driver so how will the concept of driver change with deployment of self-driving cars and how should we resolve potential conflicts such as the one i just mentioned? >> i think to the point in the technology without the driver at some point, you need to designate the vehicle that can
operate with other drivers so i think the nhtsa interpretation, in order to encourage the rollout of this technology is entirely appropriate. as far as working with the states, we at general motors will continue to work with various states to try and craft legislation, understanding the complimentary roles that the federal government and the states play in this area. >> did you see the federal roil in all of this in terms of where the government plays -- i should say, having a role when it comes to ensuring that there is a nationwide market? >> the federal government have a role in this? >> so what obviously would be an issue for any of us working in this area is that we end up with the states with a widely varied patchwork of regulation that's inconsistent from state to state. obviously, we all when we develop these vehicles we envision them crossing state lines. so we absolutely need and support nhtsa's initiative to
give guidance to the states on legislation in thisiary and look forward to that initiative and that helping with us in working with the states. >> okay. >> time's up, senator nelson. >> we do a lot of neat things to protect the national security. cyber attacks, worms, gps jamming, et cetera. dr. cummings. what are we going to do to protect this technology? >> i think that this problem of cyber physical security is not just unique to drones. it's certainly present in all transportation industries and so i think that there are many lessons to be learned. certainly the military is working on technologies that are helping and there are a lot of companies who are getting into the anti-drone community that are bringing new technologies to
bear. so i think it's a maturity of the industry that we're going to have to see and it's going to be a multi-dimensional solution. it's not going to be easy, but i'm hoping that my peers here at the table, and i'm sure that they will, we're just going to have to start having dedicated focus in these areas instead of just leaving it up to the military, for example, to develop. >> well, it's interesting that you mention drones because tomorrow in this committee we're going to markup the faa bill and one of the things that we're concerned about is you put the drone in the flight path of either an inbound or an outbound airliner and if it gets sucked into a jet engine that's a catastrophic failure. there are technologies that have been demonstrated to the chairman and me of taking over that drone and that is available, and sooner or later we're probably going to have to employ that in the vicinity of
airports. so what is the protection for the autonomous vehicle that these kind of technologies. you saw the "60 minute" program where they completely take over the car. what's the answer? anybody. >> so from jim's standpoint, we think cyber security is obviously an important issue in this area and it's something that we've spent time thinking about. we have more 4g lte data-connected vehicles on the road by far than any other oem. we started an inhouse cybersecurity organization and it's the first one and the only one as far as we know in the industry. inside of that cybersecurity organization we use a technique learned from other industries employing a red team that goes in and actively tries to identify vulnerabilities in our systems. the senior executive in charge
of this and the cybersecurity reports on the regular basis and the board on these matters. it just so happens to be the vice chairman of the committee that was set up to share information amongst oems in the industry on vulnerabilities that committee, we believe, has been very effective. >> so you think that they're going to be the capability of protecting against this. even and without it being extremely -- extremely expensive. let me flip now. what about privacy. mr. opaku? >> yes, senator nelson, thank you very much. lyft, as i mentioned in my testimony, has to be a safe platform for it to work and part of that safety is ensuring the
privacy of its users and its drivers and it's something that we've been 100% committed to since we launched and we devote services to because we know our platform involves a lot of people across the country and we have an internal team, and approximately, one-fifth of our overall team constitutes engineers and a similar number to people trusting the safety and this demonstrates how many resources we dedicate to ensuring the safety and the privacy of our users. >> so what you're saying is technology will allow you to protect the privacy of people even in an autonomous vehicle and all of the gadgets in it? >> senator nelson, i think technology is the means that will use it and first it starts with a commitment and dedication to ensure it and that's the point that i'm trying to make here and it's part of the reason that we wanted to partner with a
company like general motors because we knew of the commitment to ensuring that the deployment of autonomous vehicle his to be done in a way that was safe and protected, not only the safety, but the privacy of the people relying on these services. this is something that we have a lot of experience in over the last three to four years and going from a company that serviced just one state back in 2012 to a company that services nearly 200 cities now. maybe you ought to confer with apple since apple seems to be pretty good on its privacy being able to get in to the ishlgs phone of the terrorist. anybody, is thefeld ral government agency nhtsa, is it prepared to deal with all of this? >> i don't think it's just the responsibility of nhtsa or any one particular part. it will take a collaborative effort between industry and the technology developers as well as the regulatory agencies.
so it really is important that as we talk about those initiatives and we're working together to promote standardization and a uniformed approach and also to do so in an effective, regulatory froim work. the key message for us is it has to be a collaborative activity in order for it to be truly effective. >> thank you, senator nelson. mr. chairman, thank you and thanks for your leadership on this issue. i'm disappointed that i didn't get a chance to see one of the cars this morning. i would have enjoyed that and by the way, thank you for being here and your expertise in this particular area. >> the chairman asked a question that everybody was asking and that's when, when will this be available? i guess the next question is does it -- is it integrated into the current car that you own or do you have to actually buy an
autonomous vehicle in order to use one of these things? >> so we believe very strongly that for some of the cybersecurity reasons that were cited, we need to design a vehicle with this in mind and look at its entire electrical and information system to make sure that we get the highest level of protection into the vehicle. so we believe that going forward, you're going to buy vehicles that may look similar to vehicles on the road and inside, we would have designed in the cyber protection and the redundancy that autonomous vehicles need to operate sifly. >> so it would be a new car? >> yes, it would be a new car. and that's one of the great advantages in applying this ride sharing model is that we can let members of the public experience the technology without having to go out and buy a new car and some of the questions about adoption and how people will react to this technology, i think we can see with real human beings in real settings, again,
without them having to spend money in buying a vehicle. >> what would you anticipate the price range be? >> i think like any technology, the autonomous technologies will be expensive when you start because as was referenced earlier, you need an array of different technologies as well as some pretty sophisticated computing power onboard to make it work. it's hard for me to predict what they're going to cost because as with any new technology, much depends on how quickly we can build to scale and deploy in volume. again, as mr. opaku explained in his testimony, we think this ride sharing model lets us move forward in volume each at a relatively high initial cost of the vehicle. >> you anticipate using this with electric engines or combustion engines. >> we believe electric vehicles because of the environmental benefits. in the ride sharing model we'll
be operating in urban environments, and i think everyone is interested in reducing pollution and the environmental impacts of the automobile. >> thank you. i think nevada was the first to issue a u.s. -- in the u.s. to issue a license for testing, the vehicles for google. in fact i noticed on the screen there that most of those shots were las vegas strip or somewhere new to it. >> very good. it's my understanding, you were also very involved with the testing. is this accurate? working directly with the department of motor vehicles? >> yes, sir. that is correct. >> what was the extent of your exercise and testing? >> the state of nevada wanted to be a leader in this space and pass legislation instructing
their department of motorcycles to create language that would be a first in the nation rule set. >> how important was that? >> i think it definitely placed a line in the sand, i guess, around how important this technology was and brought it to national attention. at the same time i think that it kicked off something they think many of us are worried about with this potential patchwork of state by state reg leggeds that would -- and you know, and potentially lead to a challenge in delivering the technology broadly. >> mr. divos, also based on what dr. cummings said a little bit. you had a vehicle at ces, if i'm not mistaken and i understand you had an unexpected obstruction. can you explain what that unexpected obstruction was? >> sure. one of the reasons we enjoyed testing in las vegas is because it does provide a lot of
diversity of cases and a really challenging environment including some of the pedestrians that are there in that environment who may have either be intoxicated or maybe a little bit unpredictable in terms of where they're going on the roadways. as we were driving around downtown vegas one of the fairly regular basis we had pedestrians coming out into the path of vehicle and the vehicle, of course, seeing them accurately and taking the precautionary measures of slowing down and you know, there's a lot of pedestrian traffic in vegas, so they were at all different points of the vehicle and it highlighted to us that the sensors look all of the way around, 360 around that car at all times. so the car sees much, much better than we as a human driver would actually see, and so it never failed to find the person and avoid them. >> i understand one did step out in front of you and it did avoid that individual.
>> it did. >> thank you. >> your home state and that city would be a good test case for a lot of things. >> it certainly was. [ laughter ] >> thank you. one of the big concerns i've had since coming to washington is that our global economy is being fueled more and more by innovation, and america is by far the global exporter of innovation and ingenuity and we have been for generations in this country and the problem i'm seeing more and more in washington is we're not creating a regulatory regime that cultivates in spurs and i've seen this with the fda, and i've seen this with the faa and what they're doing with drone technology that now is being investigated and innovated upon more outside our country than inside of the country. this is definitely one of those areas where i feel the same
significant amount of concern. my goal obviously is safety, but in this time of great research, innovation and development, it's difficult for me to hear companies say like audi say they describe this current patchwork of rules as an impediment to testing cars in the u.s. and prefer to continue their testing in europe. i just don't like to see us falling behind with creating an environment for testing and especially because if we had regulatory regimes like this i always say, if this was around during the time of the wright brothers we'll would have never gotten it off the ground and into exploring air travel. so we were the first to introduce legislation trying to have the testing of autonomous vehicles and other countries are now leapfrogging over us by offering more flexible companies it test this technology, and the uk, for example is rapidly
moving forward and those wishing that those in the uk are free to drive all over the country and japan has offered nissan and toyota since 2013. so my question really is, is in your experience are we falling behind and because other countries are creating a better regulatory environment for testing? what is the regulatory environment like in terms of dealing with this development of this technology and what can we as -- as legislators do to ensure that our regulations in the space keep up with the pace of innovation, and i don't mean just keep up with the pace of it. ensure that america leads? i'll open that to anybody. >> i think one of the key things has already been done and that's the passage of the stickers act and the fast act because that really sets the stage for adoption of technologies which are foundational for automated driving and so the faster we can deploy that and get the standards increased and get that out there both from a technology and development as well as a consumer acceptance standpoint,
that's good for the u.s. and it's good for these technologies and it builds on success as you do that. i think the other piece that is important is, you know, in terms of how do you support really standing up or evaluating real-life use cases or proof of concepts or pilots, if you will. and that's what we're seeing other countries doing is helping support and actually get these systems up and running to learn from them as quickly as possible? and that takes infrastructure support and the government is best equipped to help execute and manage, and i think that's another big area where we would really welcome the support of these agencies. >> so when you talk about inf infrastructures, we're planning smart cities and we need to be thinking, five years a lead, ten years ahead in terms of the ability for us having smart devices and smart signs and the like. >> the vehicle to infrastructure
piece of it. the markings on the roadways and basically equipping the infrastructure to be ready for these technologies. >> so if we're talking about large investments we should be looking into that. >> federal and state. >> i think the city in ann arbor is going to be an example. they've come together to create a test bed both in ann arbor and the surrounding areas on the campus greens. >> mr. abelson, you were about to chime in? >> we've been encouraged by the way secretary fox has approached us in recognizing that it's important to allow us to work together to develop technology safely and to find ways to deploy it. so we don't -- we certainly don't know at this stage of the development we know all of the answers and i think we've seen flexibility to learn as we go and to respond to what we learn. >> instead of promulgating rules and trying to imagine what the future will look like, shouldn't
we be focusing on testing and the rules creating a good environment for testing? >> we so far have found that we don't have particular challenges with testing and the technology's advancing very rapidly and where we're most concern side about bringing this to market and regulations that would limit the technology and that's where we think that the congress and the federal government can help pave the way. >> thank you. and i wanted to give a public thank you to gm for being such a good partner on the spectrum issue. you all leaned in and worked with us in a cooperative manner and that meant a lot to us. >> we appreciate you on that issue, as well. >> thank you very much, sir. >> thank you, senator booker. senator peters is up next. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i would have to say as a senator from michigan and representing the motor city that i'm very excited about these incredible developments in the auto industry and to see auto
manufacturers coming together with suppliers, with technology companies and all cooperating together to create some partnerships that will ultimately create an awful lot of new jobs that will just lead to some extraordinary breakthroughs in terms of vehicle safety as well as performance and as you've heard from testimony and others deal with some of our mobility challenges generally for various individuals. so i want to thank the witnesses for being here today to discuss this frontier, particularly connected and automated technologies and their life-saving benefits. we know there are still significant challenges that we'll be changing as policymakers. >> i think it's clear that what we are on the cusp of is disr t disruptive technology in the auto sector and unlike anything we've seen for i can't imagine how many decades and it's many, many decades since we've seen this sort of disruptive technology. as we heard today and i think it
is really important to repeat is that we know over 38,000 people died on our highways last year and your companies are developing technologies and that could very well dramatically reduce that number saving tens of thousands of lives and that's why i believe the members of congress and my colleagues here that we have to do everything we can to make sure that your efforts are not delayed or unnecessarily deterred. and that means that congress has to ensure that the fcc, the d.o.t. and the ntia are thoroughly test anything proposal for spectrum sharing in the 5.9 gigahertz band between the dsr safety critical signals and unlicensed wi-fi devices and connected vehicle technologies should not be compromised by someone connected to a toaster or light switch. the technologies of today and tomorrow must be safe from cyber threats and protect user's privacy, as well. we must avoid a patchwork of state regulations that will stunt the development and
deployment of these technologies and instead work to implement consistent national policy and we mist pfrng carefully about the insurance implications, as well and they're connected and automated cars and the possibility of liability shifting to the mefrers as human control of the vehicles dissipates and finally, we must increase our investment in connected and automated vehicle research and development. i support the administration's ten-year $3.9 billion for this purpose and the d.o.t.fy-17 budget request for funding a large-scale pilot program that will accelerate these technologies. and i think it's particularly essential that a portion of this money go towards funding a designated national facility where academia and industry and government can all come together to conduct an automated vehicle research, testing and
certification. >> as we learned countries like sweden, korea, china and japan have established these test sites and we need to do it, as well. we associated with the university of michigan which is involved in some detailed testing on a track which brings all of the manufacturers together and perhaps i'll just get some comment from some in the u.s. to how important it is to have a national testing facility that can bring all of the manufacturers together and suppliers together to make sure that all of these technologies work together and it doesn't do a great job to do the product and if it's not working in conjunction with the toyotas and everyone else out on the road and as was mentioned in all weather conditions, as well. snow and ice is important to te test, but perhaps your comments as to how important it is to us as government officials to focus on creating the national center. >> i can address that, senator?
i think that would be great. my one concern was that the test data was made available to a more academic/expert-based community for that val gagz that these tests are meeting the standards that we think they should. >> so that should be led by academic center? >> an independent group, not necessarily academics, but sure, i'd be happy to. >> i take that you're volunteering. thank you. folks from industry? >> i think to your point, senator peters it is important to thoroughly test these technologies and it will take a lot of work among various companies and suppliers and regulators and so i do think that having a way that we can approach this in a coordinating fashion would be very important to us going forward. >> anyone else? >> we very much value the opportunity to test in all kinds of weather conditions and that's part of the reason why we've
done as much testing as we have in different locations and we'd certainly love to learn more. >> i also wanted to pick up from a report that the department of transportation just released last week that posed to automated vehicles under the current motor vehicle safety standards. report concluded that many of the standards assume a presence as you know of the human driver and the cars that deviate further from this conventional vehicle design and vehicle certification becomes a lot more difficult and dependent on some new standards and how we interpret those standards, so i would certainly encourage your companies to continue to submit questions for interpretation to nhtsa so that working together the automotive industry and government can determine how to address potential regulatory advance which all of you have expressed we need to move this technology forward and i encourage you to share testing data with nhtsa to assist them in developing these national
standards for automated vehicle functions and perhaps some comments from you as to how you're working now with nhtsa, sharing information and there was discussion about new targeted authority for nhtsa, as well, if you can elaborate on some of those ideas, i would appreciate it. >> we continue to work very closely with nhtsa as our regulatory agency. obviously being an oem we have a very long relationship with nhtsa. we have worked together clap rattively with them around this topic of autonomous vehicles and we look forward to learning more on both sides and continuing to work with nhtsa on appropriate regulatory authority because i think we emphasized many times that we want to develop and deploy this technology safely and safety is our primary concern in making sure that we can do it safely is very important to the company before we actually introduce this to the public.
>> i couldn't agree more. safety has to be front and foremost with this and for the last six years we've been engaged with nhtsa, sharing our lessons from the road and taking their feedback and incorporating that into our program. we're actually very excited about secretary fox's initiative in building guidelines over the next six months and look forward to taking part in the public work shops that will be happening which will bring a degree of transparency to the process that is important to build confidence. >> great. thank you. >> thank you, senator peters. senator klobuchar? >> yes. thank you very much, mr. chairman. in 2014, 3,179 people were killed in distracted driving crashes, and another 431,000 were injured, but right now too few states are receiving federal funding. senator hoefen and i got incl e included in the fact act to make states were able to receive the
funding on educational exforts on distracted driving, and we know these incentive grants were helpful. can you talk about what would advances in automatic vehicles and automated vehicles to reduce the incidents of distractied driving? it's not just kids, it's adults, too. we just had today in our newspaper front page, two people hurt, one man killed getting -- a school bus driver, 79 years old and he went out and lived in a rural area and he was going out like he did every day to get his newspaper at the mailbox and it turned out the woman who hit him was doing a text, and of course, she's been charged with a crime. that just was today and every single day there's something like that. so could you talk about how the automated vehicles, whoever can take it would be helpful. >> i think with that unfortunate and tragic example highlights is the role that systems can play
immediately, basically. with systems like lane departure warning and braking and other driver alerts and ultimately the car taking evasive action as it gets more and more automated, those are direct countermeasures to the effects of distraction where the occupant or the driver is not really paying attention to what the car is doing and that side was an immediate safety benefit that aids us which is commercially available now can bring which is why we're so excited about the implementation of the stickers act in getting that out there into the consumer base, but as you continue down that path, you know, automated driving and the censors that go with it are what really enable the car. and driver-related accidents. >> i think distracted driving
incidents are tragic and to the point, autonomous vehicles can also address the very large percentage of our accidents that are due to drunken driving or speed-related accident so there is a very large percentage, over 90% of accidents are attributable to some sort of driver error and autonomous systems and automated vehicles should be able to address that in a very substantial way. >> senator, this is really at the heart of why we're engaged in this work. when we look at the 38,000 people that nhtsa estimates were killed yesterday in america's roads, it's really an unacceptable status quo and there's so much opportunity to do good here now. the technology will never be perfect, but the opportunity to reduce those accidents and those tragedies is incredible. >> go ahead. go ahead. >> sorry, senator. this is one of the key things that lyft brings to the
equation. looking at the -- as you have drunk driving specifically, it has now been determined by more than one research project that the advent of ride sharing has significantly reduced the incidents of drunk driving across the country. the ability to deploy technology to the consumers on a mass level is where lyft really plays and contributes to this discussion. so by enabling a ride sharing platform like lyft we can bring these safer options to the public at a mass scale and get it ready for mass consumer adoption much quicker than other molds could. >> okay. are you okay, dr. cummings? >> sure, but if i can just weigh in here. all of these things are absolutely true. my specialty is human error, so this is definitely something that will help address these problems. i think the real trouble that we're up against is the hybrid time. we're in a very strange time where you will see more and more autonomy start to be introduced into cars and that will increase
people's distraction. recently tesla suffered from one of their drivers getting in the backseat of their car while the car was on autopilot when in fact, tesla made it clear that you were supposed to be in this seat and this is the funny thing about human behavior. if humans think the car is pretty good then their behavior will be even worse. the best thing we can do is for everyone to get out of the cars today and have them all be driverless without steering wheels tomorrow. that would be the safest thing to do and as far as we have gremlins on the same road like the no steering wheel google car, we have to be careful about how we set up the human autonomy interaction. >> if i may, we've seen this completely agree with the research, we were at the point when we had technology that could drive well on the freeway. imagine a product where you could get on the proi andes from a button and it drives for you.
and we had 140 employees test that capability, and they loved the product. they thought it was fantastic. i think the former vice president of general motors has said that driving is the distraction and we saw that live, and it really comes down to the fact that at some point automatic asian technologies are just so good that people overtrust it even when they are told they shouldn't and they have to be there and this is again why we're taking the leave toward fully self-driven vehicles. >> i would have to add that technologies exist that people who are in the backseat and aren't paying attention to the road that the system can warn them and get their attention back to the road. >> okay. i'll put on the record another question because i'm out of time here about autonomous vehicles and increased mobility for senior citizens, as we're seeing, but i no longer call a
silver tsunami because that was too negative, chairman. i call it. i've been told by my senior economists to call it a senior surge of more seniors and i'll have more questions on the record later about how there could be help for some seniors, as well. thank you very much. >> good questions and we will be there soon, so -- actually, this is my neighbor from minnesota. thank you, senator klobuchar for those questions. this will have great application for people who need an autonomous car to keep them away as they drive to south dakota. >> you mean when they're driving through south dakota to get to walldrug. >> senator danes from montana? >> it's the perfect segway in talking about big, wide-open country we have out west and thank you for testifying today. i can tell you, as a guy in the technology business for many, many years, it's refreshing to hear about the innovation and
at the pace autonomous technologies are moving i would hope that we can get to these autonomous vehicles relatively quickly and they will be a solution for several of these issues. >> we had a horrible wrong-way crash on interstate 94, eastern montana. killed three people two weeks ago. thinking about the way that google's working, this is for you, doctor, is there some way to detect if you are in the eastbound lane of westbound to detect a wrong-way situation, prevent it? is that possible? >> yeah. i'm quite sure that's a technology that could be developed. obviously we are building vehicles that won't make that mistake. geofencing, geomodeling type technologies could be in place to help address that. >> animal-vehicle collisions. that's another big issue around the country. deer populations are up. out in montana it is not just deer. it is also elk and moose as
well. billions of dollars. hundreds and thousands of deaths potentially. how can this help reduce animal-vehicle collisions? >> i think -- and importantly a reference was made to it earlier. these autonomous vehicles use an array of sensors, not just cameras. between radar, and cameras, and lidar, vehicles can be even more perceptive when animals are approaching the roadway. in michigan we have a significant issue with deer in the highway. i think these sorts of technologies offer real opportunities. >> i taught my kids you're better off if you don't swerve. swerving oftentimes results in the significant injuries. lastly, privacy. we've all heard the stories of current vehicles operating, systems being hacked. there is a famous one from last
summer. as things continue to grow this threat becomes ever more real. what is gm doing to ensure consumers' current vehicles are concerned. >> we have a dedicated organization that spends time on these issues. it is managed by a senior executive in the company. we have learned from other industries on how to approach cyber security issues. we employ red teams that are not involved in designing our systems but only spend time trying to find vulnerabilities. i would tell you just a week ago i spent time with one of these engineers who brought in a module and demonstrated to me all the things he did to try and get in and compromise this module. it is really very impressive. as we said, we also now have an industry group that shares best practices, as well as reports in vulnerabilities across the industries. so we take cyber security very,
see seriously. we think going forward the car needs to be designed from the ground-up with cyber security in mind, and that is our intent. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses for your time and testimony today. i think there's been a lot of great questions today and obviously a lot of interest and intrigue in how this will move forward and what technologies will emerge on top and the questions i think are just the tip of the iceberg here as we all try to figure out and understand how this is going to affect our culture, our society, our innovation and our safety and our economy. a couple of things i think. 2005 probably when auto-steer tractors became the latest rage in agricultural, useful economic tool for productivity, today based on that over a decade-long experience, i think if you want to get down to a 12-inch accuracy in the field whether you are planting corn or drilling wheat, it probably cost
$7,000 to retro fit an old piece of commitment. down to one-inch accuracy, it is probably down to $28,000 to retro fit an old tractor. if you're dealing with a car that's going down the interstate though, the questions of bein a accura accuracy, well, we have the accident because we had 24-inch accuracy. we're not talking satellite, correct? >> the vehicles will use gps but they also use an array of other sensors and some very high-definition maps to understand exactly where the vehicle is in the world and position itself -- >> so as you're rolling vehicles off the assembly line, they could have this autonomous technologies or capabilities off the factory line, we retro fit older vehicles to it, how are we going to make sure -- who's the
responsible body from a regulatory landscape to make sure that that used car that's 10, 15 years old that has after-market autonomous system placed on it is up to the same sort of calibration or specifics as a factory line car? >> in our view, for some of the reasons that we've discussed earlier at cyber security and safety, we don't see this technology necessarily being applicable as far as retro fitting to vehicles. to do an autonomous vehicle successful and safely you need to touch a number of the fundamental systems in the car. you need to design in redundancy that's not here today. so the idea of trying to take that system and somehow retro fit it on existing car we don't think is practicable. >> somebody's going to develop that, don't you think? just like they did for a piece of farm equipment, someone will figure out how to retro fit an old car. who is going to be responsible for that? >> as i say, we don't see a path to be able to do that.
>> the other question i have, is there a state -- a lot of this, the question is between federal/state. is there a state that's getting it better than some in terms of allowing this irn knnnovation tr risch? >> i think that is an important question. we've seen many states that have expressed enthusiasm about this technology and looking for ways to kind of ensure the technology will come to their state. what we found actually is in most places, the best action is to take no action and in general the technology can be safely tested today on roads in many states, and that what we really are looking for is the leadership that secretary fox has announced around the federal level bringing some guidelines for innovation. >> i guess we have a question that would be who is doing the best job of not doing anything.
i'm sure i don't have a good answer. the other question i had, just out of curiosity more than anything, the question, example of the deer. i guess you're driving down there, say in colorado, you have an animal on the side or perhaps even a child that runs out after a soccer ball or something to a road. how are we going to address issues of sort of the moral choice that a computer is going to have to make, the car is going to have to make, whether is veers left if there is a car next to it, if it veers right into the ditch. maybe the car itself is carryings passengers -- obviously carrying passengers. how do we address that, how do we study that, how do we make that happen? >> i think this is a very important point. this is a question that humanity has struggled with for hurnndre and hundreds of years, and there isn't a right kind of
philosophical answer. so the approach we are taking is to try to reduce this to a practice in a way that we can actually implement something and see the broader safety, economic and mobility values. so the way we think about this is, let's try hardest to avoid vulnerable road users, pedestrians, cyclists. then beyond that, try hardest to avoid other vehicles. then beyond that, avoid the things that don't move in the world and be trrnt transparent and say if you are in the vehicle, this is the way it will beha behave. then make a decision, is that okay or not. >> i would only add, i think the intent with the various sensing technologies is to do absolutely the best we can to make sure these vehicles never get put into those situations in the first place. so again with the emphasis on developing these with safety preeminent in our minds, i think there are real opportunities here. >> obviously in colorado we had
100,000 new residents to the state in 2014-2015. we were the second-fastest depending on the numbers growing state in the country. 80% of the population growth growing on the pueblo range. this technology is one of the keys to allowing a thrive ski resort industry up in the mountains where you are limited to the mountain of tunnels you can put through a mountain both through a cost perspective and physics perspective as well. so i think this is incredibly fascinating opportunity. i look forward to learning more from you as we progress. >> there are lots of reasons people are moving to colorado. [ laughter ] automation is probably a good need for that. >> we may need more autonomous cars in colorado for that reason. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very
much. these new vehicles, computers on wheels, is absolutely amazing what is happening. i just went out on to the highway across the 14th street bridge, 395, in a tesla vehicle. i looked right, i looked left, and it was like, look, ma, no hands. i'm just driving along down the highway at 11:30 this morning in one of these demonstration vehicles. it was just absolutely amazing. very impressive. and clearly we're still at the dawn of the era, but the promise is there and we can see it. i'm very glad i took the demonstration this morning. back in 2013, and again last year, i asked 20 automakers what they are doing to protect our
computers on wheels and what i found is that they're not doing enough. of a reviewing the original responses from the automakers, i released a report and the report is entitled tracking and hacking security and privacy gaps, put american drivers at risk. in his -- what we learned from the study, that thieves no longer need a crowbar to break into a car. they just need an iphone. today's kind of cars are also collecting tremendous amounts of personal, thriving information. cars know where you are, where you've been, how fast or slow you drive. and even the mileage since your last oil change. and some of that is good. some of it is important to have gathered. but, if all the vehicles out there were fully autonomous, and we were all relying upon computers and not a human
driver, from the start to get to where you are to get to where you want to igo, those vulnerabilities will become more pronounced in society. so i just have a couple of questions for the panel. number one, we need enforceable rules of the road to protect driver privacy and security. i introduced with senator blumenthal the security and privacy in your car act, or the s.p.i. car act to establish federal standards to secure our cars and protect our drivers' privacy. so for each of the panelists, if you would, i would like you to answer this question on mandatory cyber security standards. including hacking protection. that means all access points in the car should be equipped with reasonable measures to protect against hacking attacks. data security measures. that means that all collected information should be secure to
prevent unwanted access. and hacking mitigation so that vehicles are equipped with technology that can detect and report and stop hacking attempts in real time. dr. cummings, what do you think? do we need rules of the road that are -- >> i'm in general agreement with all of those issues. but i will tell you, as a university professor on the cutting edge of this technology, the concerns that i have and that i testified two years ago in front of this same committee is that it's happening so quickly that the government institutions cannot keep pace. the government is -- cannot hire the same people that chris is hiring at -- >> until the companies build in the hacking protections. >> i agree. but i also think that you need a regulatory framework that can ensure this is happening. is there that's what i'm asking. can you say -- >> i say yes, but i'm saying i don't think nhtsa at least today has people on the staff.
>> again, that's a problem with the securities and exchange commission. a bunch of lawyers and no autonomy to deal with the meltdown. obviously the agencies have to get technical expertise they need. but it would be important to have the rules if they had the personnel to do it. >> i agree. but i think that's a real challenge. >> i understand. we have to meet the challenge of the future. >> we are not only fully committed to prevent any violations of our user privacy but, yes, we are in support of well thought out principles that would codify our previously existing attempts to ensure that. i think it is important though -- and i know this has been discussed before -- that these principles be very well thought out, that there be a consistency of with a these principles look like. we're dealing with a technology
that's going to be deployed across the country and in order to do so we need to make sure that whatever principles are put in place to ensure the privacy and safety of our users, that it is consistent across the country. >> yes or no, do we need mandatory standards or not? >> i think we really haven't determined whether we think we need mandatory standards or not but we have determined it does help to standardize in the testing, standardize in the approaching. >> we support the auto act as a way to trade information across oem. i think oems and suppliers, i think the point of regulation trying to stay ahead of this very fast-changing area, we think a more flexible approach is preferable. >> google gets attacked on a regular basis. we have hundreds of people dedicated to cyber security. what we've learned through that is that it is a very dynamic space and that it is important
to be able to adapt the principles which you defend over time. >> i understand what you are saying. but witnesses back here 30 years ago said the same thing to airbags and seatbelts and, just leave it to the individual companies. it was hard to mandate a specific airbag and it would be very expensive. so i understand the consistency over the decades. but at the same time, people expect airbags to protect their children and they're going to expect certain standards that are going to be mandated across the board that are going to protection people. i was -- i was hit by a car when i was 5 running across the street. i was chasing two 9 year-olds. i was only 5. i could see how difficult it was for the driver in retrospect to know i was going to do it. as we're moving forward, we just want to make sure that we don't have unnecessary accidents. you know? and clearly hackers are going to have the ability to be able to break in to these vehicles. there is going to be a whole bunch of very smart young people who are going to start playing games with this technology going toward.
so the kinds of protections you build in can be voluntary but if ten companies do it and ten don't, then those ten are going to be identified by the hackers as the ones they are going to be playing games with out on the highways. i just think we need minimal standards that every company is going to need. i think as soon as we start the discussion on that, the better off as a country we will be. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. may i respectfully suggest that the answer to the question should there be mandatory safety and obviously the answer is yes. i didn't hear that from all of the witnesses. i heard answers that basically implied "maybe there should be." but the clear need it seems to me, and for the sake of this technology, the answer should be yes, because that's the credibility and faith that you want to establish, is that your
technology is meeting mandatory standards. let me ask mr. coupiss cummings nhtsa equipped to meet those standards in your view? >> no, they are not, in my opinion. >> in your opinion should this technology be implemented widely until there are such standards? >> no. i think that we need to address these issues before there is wide dissemination of the technology. >> do any of the other witnesses disagree? >> i would say, yes. i want to speak a little bit about privacy. because we talked somewhat about cyber security but from a privacy standpoint, it is very important. we operate only with an opt-in principle. we operate only where customers know what the data is being used for and we only retain that data as long as we need to. >> you agree there should be mandatory standards. >> no, i think we are operating with privacy as a very important part of how we implement this.
i think that we'll continue to work with regulators on what is appropriate. >> you know, i have to say, and i'm not a technology person, i'm just a country lawyer from connecticut. but if i ask somebody, do you think that that red light means stop, and they came back and said, well, you know, let me put it this way, and under these circumstances, maybe, and we have great respect for stoplights and, et cetera. i would say, the answer is yes. because, again, the credibility that this technology has may become exceedingly fragile if people can't trust standards that are uniform and mandatory, not necessarily for you, but for all of the other actors that may
come in to this space at some point. and so i don't want to belabor this point, but it's one of the reasons why senator markey and i have introduced this legislation. and for everyone who says, you know, the private sector companies can do it voluntarily, i would have more trust in that argument if the answer to this question was -- yes, we will respect mandatory standards that are applicable formally throughout industry. i went for a ride today in one of the vehicles that uses the current technology, and it's impressive. it occurred to me when i heard the comparison between the open
spaces of the dakotas and minnesota and montana that i was also driving yesterday in downtown new york, manhattan, in the midst of a rainstorm. i was not driving myself. i was riding, thankfully. and i just don't know how this technology will fare in terms of safety in that kind of environment. so, i would just close by suggesting that there really is a need to develop rules of the road here, standards, an distinctions in spaces to assure the driving public that safety and privacy will be respected. thank you very much for being here today. and i look forward to working with you. thank you. and i yield to my friend from
massachusetts. >> i thank the gentleman. so can we go down on the privacy issue as well? we dealt with the question of safety, but what about privacy? do you think this should be a mandatory minimum for privacy protection which is put on the books so that owners have to be made explicitly aware of collection, transmission, and use of driving data allowing owners to say no to the collection of data without losing access to key navigation and other features and ensure that personal driving information not be used for advertising or marketing purposes without the owner clearly opting in? >> yes, senator markey. i think these are issues that we're facing a cross a number of industries and number of technologies. the fact of the matter is that these cars are going to be one big data gathering machine as
visual images, telemetry data, all of your personal data. so i see it in a way that once this happens -- right now the cars really do need to talk to each other and they need to talk back to the manufacturers to let them know what's going on. so for the near term, they need to talk, but they are going to be gathering a lot of data. and it is not clear who is going to be doing what with that data and i -- i personally would feel better to know that there was some substandards in place that were protecting my personal data or at least, like you said, allowed me to know what's happening. >> you think there should be rules that the information can't be used for marketing purposes -- >> absolutely. >> -- gathered but driving. a >> similar for what miss ableson said, lyft has very strict policies in place where personal data cannot use for anything --
it is strictly opt-in. >> is it mandatory? >> there should definitely be standards. how the standards are developed is really the question. if i can draw this back to the ride sharing industry which is where my area of experience is. what we've examined there is that when we first launched we put upon ourselves a lot of high standards with respect to safety, with respect to privacy, with respect to insurance. as an example, we developed a whole new set of insurance that provided a million dollars of coverage for all of our passengers. it had not been required by any law. >> does that protect me as a passenger and 100 other people who live in the boston area and somebody just wants access to the names of all the people and where they went, using your service. do you think there should be a privacy protection that you're bound by, that you can't sell that information even though people would want to know who was coming in to that area. don't you think that should be an absolute prohibition on your selling information as to where people are going inside of your cabs? >> that wouldn't be privacy
protections. i guess the only point i am trying to raise is there are always situations that can't be foreseen in the development of technology that we need to be mindful of and in developing standards. >> assuming you are already doing the right thing -- which is what you are saying -- why would you have a problem with kind of just working to create a standard then to be used across the industry? >> well, if you will, that was the point i was going to make. lyft developing these policies internally we've now seen the policies that lyft and other ride sharing companies enacted of their own volition become kind of the standard for the industry. but i think that was important to make sure that the involvement of the industry to ensure what the appropriate standards were. >> again, my time is going to run out. so you've already heard the options here. yes or no, mandatory? >> we haven't really taken a position on mandatory or not. what i would say is we would like to be part of that discussion to formulate how do you approach it. >> you should first just decide
yes or no though. it would be helpful. >> we'll continue to work with the regulatory agencies on what's required. >> i'd say you don't have a yes or no in terms of mandatory minimal privacy standard. >> no. >> all the bad companies out there. we don't pass murder statutes for our mothers. they're not going to murder anybody. okay? we do it for the people who we think might murder people. so you need kind of a minimal standard. assuming your company never does anything wrong, you still need a statute for people who might do things wrong. see? so you don't think we need that statute or -- >> senator, we'll continue -- >> okay. good. i'd appreciate that. >> google has a variety of policies that we use. we're very publicly and transparency -- >> would you think about making that foundation a standard
though? >> i'd really have to submit something for the record. i'm not in a position to comment on that for google. >> again, i think ultimately yes is the right answer as a minimal standard. >> thank you, senator markey. there is no requirement for the panelists to agree with him. you can answer the question the way you want. just a question to close things out. one has to do with this whole issue of consumer acceptance. because this is a new technology and any time new technology comes to the market you have consumers who welcome that technology because it is new and exciting and it affords ar l lof mobility benefits that i think people would find very valuable. then you have other consumers who prefer the look and feel of traditional driving and may resist autonomous vehicles
because they have reservations about giving up control of cars. so i guess i would just say from the consumer standpoint what are the biggest challenges that you see in terms of sort of spurring demand, if you will, for autonomous vehicles? >> i think what's important is to get technology exposed to a large part of the population, including some of the underserved communities we talked about earlier. we think that deploying this technology in this ride sharing model allows us to do that is in a very safe way but people don't need to purchase an autonomous vehicle to get their first experience with the technology. i think like all new technologies, as people gain experience with it they'll get more comfortable with it. >> i would add, the aaa report showed that the minority were -- it also showed that aid access
is gaining consumer acceptance of those technologies. that's why we think it is important that we have a broad application of technologies for the safety benefits but also for the consumer acceptance piece of it. >> senator, from my experience it is that when someone first hears about the idea of a self-driving car it comes across as maybe alien and very far out there. and without fail, whether someone comes in thinking that this is all smoke and mirrors or that this is never going to happen, within about five minutes of riding in one of our vehicles, they're in the back on the cell phone, as if this was anything -- any other day. part of it is the people are so used to riding in vehicles which have been driven by someone else, whether it is their paints or their loved ones. so i think once people have the chance to experience it, it will increase tadoption very quickly. >> during your test, what have been the reactions of people,
consumers, who have ridden in self-driving cars? do they feel safe? you indicated you feel like they have an experience that -- seems like initially it is a little bit hard because of the instinct that you want to control things, but -- >> some studies have shown the first five minutes is a little tense. this car is driving itself. then 10 to 15 minutes it feels like it drives pretty well. 15 minutes on it drives better than me, is their impression. so we were fairly confident once people try and out they're going to enjoy it and really appreciate the values. >> the other comments we get frequently is people say it is kind of boring. it's not that exciting. the car doesn't accelerate harshly or slam on brakes. they obey traffic laws. very quickly the ride becomes --
the driving is no longer the activity that you're focused on. you're focused on whatever it is you're doing. and that's exactly what we want the technology to bring. it is not about the drive. that just stays in the background. it is about doing whatever it is you really need or want to do during that time. >> from our perspective, in order to make sure that this is readily available for consumers at large it has to be safe, has to be convenient, and it has to be cost-effective. this is where lyft really thinks it can help in making sure all three factors are met in deploying this technology to the people at large. this is essentially the same challenges that lyft faced a few years ago in launching a purely peer to peer platform and that idea was considered fairly out there at the time we brought that product to market. a few years later it's already become probably one of the most popular modes. transportation today. so in order to really ensure that consumers are ready to adopt it we need to convince
them that it is safe which i think everyone here is committed to doing. in order to make sure it is cost-efficie cost-efficient, i think a ride sharing platform like lyft has to be involved. >> this is a critical point. timing isie ining everything. there is no question that someone is going to die in this technology. the request he is when. and what can we do to minimize that. i think i speak for many people in the robotics communities to say we are strong advocates of this technology, but if a death, a fatality, were to occur soon at the wrong time, it could really set back the integration of this technology which i fully think will help prevent those deaths on the road. and so that's why i think we're very -- we being many academics in this community -- are very concerned that we do want the safety testing data out there so that an accident that could have been prevented does not happen. >> okay. well, thank you all very much.
this has been very helpful. in just looking at the technology, it just seems like there is enormous potential there on so many levels. first and foremost, of course, is safety. if we could reduce by any amount of number of fatalities we have on america's roadways in a given year with be that would be a remarkable accomplishment. but i think in terms of the economic and the gains, productivity, quality of life, environmental, congestion, all these things that we talk about in our society today, seems to me at least that we could have enormous benefits. but always of course with an eye toward the safety and making sure that we're doing things in the right ways. one of the questions that's been raised a lot today as many of you responded to it is the issue of cyber attacks, hacks and that sort of thing and cyber security and measures being taken. i think that's something that
people will inevitably raise a lot of concerns about given just the overall cyber threats that we face in the world today. so certainly with autonomous vehicles there will be no exception. i'm interested in some of the responses that you all gave to that question because i think -- and particularly some of the redundancy that's built into the vehicles, any types of gaps that occur, if there were some sort of a disruption in the connectivity. it sounds like you've given a lot of thought to this. there's been a lot of testing and research already done. so we encourage that, want to continue it, want to make sure that we do our job to ensure that it is done in the safest manner possible but not in a way that inhibits or imposes any kind of barrier or impediment to what we think is something that has tremendous upside, tremendous potential for the american economy and for the safety of our nation.
so thank you all for making this -- your time available to us today for your thoughts and insights. we'll look forward to continuing the conversation about this and it's -- sky seems to be the limit, so to speak, in terms of where we can go with this. so thank you all very much. i would just conclude with the hearing record remains open for two weeks, during which time senators are asked to submit any questions for the record and upon receipt, witnesses are requested to submit their quiten answ written answers to the committee as soon as possible. thank you all very much, this meeting is adjourned.
takes you on the road to the white house as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. republican presidential candidate john kasich held a town hall meeting friday at utah valley university. utah holds its presidential primary tomorrow. ♪ >> all right. folks, i'm delighted to have all of you here today. i want to do three things. the first is i want to tell you why i support john kasich as the next president of the united states. second, i'd like to tell you just a bit that i have learned about presidential politics, and
then it will be my privilege to introduce the next president of the united states. first, why? i have been close to the presidency over many years. as most of you will know, i've served the president in two cabinet positions. i've been involved in presidential campaigns dating back to ronald reagan. i know the weight of that office. i have been present when remarkably difficult decisions had to be made. and i know it requires a person of sober judgment, of temperance, of experience. i have observed johnúa÷í! and know him to be such a man. i worked with him when he was the chairman of the budget committee, and that country balanced its budget the last time.
i have observed him as governor of one of the great states in this country. he is a man of great experience and he has jackie and my full support and enthusiasm, as i know he does yours. i'd next like to just tell you a bit about presidential politics that i have learned over many years an. presidential campaigns. the first is that i believe that no candidate in this race will achieve 1,237 delegates prior to the convention. it will be a unique convention. but it will not be the first time this has occurred. you may not know that it has occurred ten times in the republican party, and 16 times in the democratic party. but you may not know that in the 16 times it happened in the democratic party, that the person who occupied the lead
position going into the convention out of the 16 won seven times. meaning that nine times a person who may not have been the leading candidate going into the convention won. in the the republican party it has happened ten times, and of those ten, the person who occupied donald trump's present position won only three. there is a reason. there is a reason that john kasich plays such a vital role. it is that this party needs to elect a president, this party needs a candidate who can in fact and will in fact beat hillary clinton and become the next president of the united stat states. please welcome with me the next president of the united states, john kasich.
>> thank you. thank you. thank you. we're late. so let's get started here. okay? listen, i want to tell you that governor levitt, i mean this guy is really something. for those students who are here, if you don't go track him down and spend time talking to him, you don't know how to prepare for the next phase of your life, because this guy can really something. he's a brilliant man. he's served his country in an incredible way, and of course the governor of utah. right? i mean he is absolutely the best. and he's a visionary. he's absolutely a visionary. and i just can't thank him enough for his support. but how about a great round of applause for my friend, mike levitt?
okay? and the reason why we are late is it took us, i think, five hours to get here. we faced all this wind and we had to divert and we went to tulsa instead of where we were going, an colorado. then on the way over here on the airplane, i want you to know, i got a chance to watch "the martian." it was a really cool movie. it was really cool. you get to watch some of those movies. so i've watched two very interesting movies lately. one is "everest" where nobody thought they could climb to the top and it is just one step after another. and i don't know. but in the movie "the martian," they caught that guy in space just like the voters in the republican party are going to catch me and allow me to be the nominee for president of the united states.
but, i want to tell you, coming here as we were watching the movie, one of the people sitting next to me said, "open the window." and i opened the window shade. and it was unbelievable when i saw the lord's creation, which never ceases to take my breath away and never ceases to amaze me, as i looked at all those high peaks with the snow-covered mountains. and then, you know, in some respects it reminded me of this battle for the nomination of the party. when i looked, i could see the really high, tall peaks that stood out and shone like aby coco beacon. you know what's behind those peaks? way down in the valley. i like to live on the peaks. i don't like to live in the
valley of american politics. i want you all to understand that. and i think you all know by now that what i like to say, except for the fact that at times i have to point things out that people need to hear, and that's not -- that doesn't take away from the philosophy of never taking the low road to the highest office in the land. i'm going to continue to run a positive campaign with ideas. that's what motivates our governor here. so let me tell you a couple things. again, i want to apologize for being late. i don't like to be late and keep any of you waiting. but let me say a couple things up front, then we'll spend a little bit of time on politics. then we'll go to you. and what i have found in our country as i've traveled, that maybe to some degree people have lost confidence in their ability
to change world. for some reason, i don't know if it's because of the growth of big government, that many people have sensed that, you know, well, what can i do? i'm just one little person here, and everything else is so big. you know, i know that the people of this state believe in the fact that i think you all believe that the lord has made every single person special. no one has ever been made like you. no one is ever going to be made like me again. we all have certain gifts and those gifts are supposed to be used. for the young people here -- because i know many of you will go on these missions. the fact of the matter is, by finding your gifts, and going
out and healing the world as part of a community that knows that we can make a difference, that's how you find satisfaction in life. and that's how you change the world. just popping into my head right now is, are people in utah changing the world? well, i went to welfare square. i mean, they're trying to change the world one person at a time. you know, you don't have to change them a million at a time. you change them one person at a time. i want you to know that as i travel the country, i've talk about the bishops -- is it warehouse? storehouse? i've talked about welfare square. ive he a talked about individuals trying to help other individuals get on their feet. with the great tradition that it
is a sin not to help somebody who needs help but it is equal a sib to contin sin to continue to help somebody that needs to help themselves. i think you bring to bear that philosophy. so i happen to believe that the spirit of our country doesn't rest in the mike lefb visvitts john kasiches. yeah, we get lihired, we shouldo do our job. the president of the united states should go do the job. that's what you hire us for. members of the legislature, the members of the house for whatever reason haven't been doing their job and the country has drifted. and in many parts of this country people are frustrated and they're frustrated number one because they're not certain about the security of their jobs. number two, their wages haven't gone up it seems like for 100 years. and number three, it used to be,
if you put your money in a bank, you actually get paid by the bank for using your money, called interest. and then they were always concerned about an increasingly concerned about the kids. you know the great american legacy. our kids do better than what we got from our parents. each generation does a little bit better. and they're very concerned about this. and some of them are very angry. part of this comes from politicians that make promises that were just silly. mike, they ran in 2014 and they said they were going to repeal obamacare. now, i don't know whether you remember this or not, but the president's name is obama. and that's his signature legislation. and there was no way they were going to be able to repeal that with him sitting in the white house, andy et th yet they prom they would do that. and when it didn't they got
angrier and angrier. the problem is when politicians promise things they can't deliver. it grows cynicism in a country. and my philosophy is, be careful that the promises you make can be kept. maybe once in a while you'll fall short, but you have to be square with the people. don't be trying to get them all fired up and excited by promising something that's not likely to happen. now can we repeal obamacare with a republican house, a republican senate and the president, and can we restore it or exchange it with a system that's going to drive us, drive complete transparency on market-driven principles? yeah. yeah, we can. we can do that. but we cannot do that with him in the white house. so what is the answer to these concerns that people have about their families, their kids' future and about their wages and the purpose of what politicians can do to create an environment
for jobs? i tell you, it is actually pretty simple. now, just a little bit about me. i come from a blue-collar democrat town where if the wuin blew the wrong way, people found themselves out of work. my father carried mail on his back for 29 years. his father was a coal miner. he died of black lung after losing his eyesight. my mother was the only 1 of 4 to graduate from high school. we're told they didn't really get any farther than the eighth grade. and i came to realize that fulfilling the purpose that the lord has given us many times is reflected in work, in what we do in our jobs, because we were meant to work. we were created to work. and frankly, to work in such a way that we can bring a laheali in whatever way we can. so with be work is so critical. i've always felt that the single greatest moral purpose i have is
to create an environment where job creators can excel, where job creators are confident that they can take actions that will indiacrease the number of jobs, business who have this desire to create businesses can have an opportunity to do that. and it basically takes like three or four things. it is not that complicated. number one, you can't have regulations that kill small business. i guarantee you there are people in this room who are going to start businesses. i know it. entrepreneurship is alive and well in this state. i don't know if they teach it in high school or teach it in college, but somehow you all get it. that you don't have to work for be else swb th, that you can cr your own business and have somebody work for you. and that's a good thing. and if you have a business and they overregulate it, they will kill small businesses, which is
the most important engine of job creation in our country. so you cannot overregulate. and you have to have -- it doesn't mean you don't have any regulations. of course you do. but they have to represent common sense and a reasonable approach, understanding that the job creator can be put out of business and the people in our family will lose their jobs, or not gain a job. number two, you have to always have lower taxes. the reason why you want to have lower taxes is because it drivers the country from the bottom up. when we have more power in our pockets, there's more we can do rather than taking our money and send it to somebody out in washington, d.c., it will -- it's opm. it's other people's money. them's squander it. by cutting taxes for both businesses and for individuals, we spur economic growth. and thirdly, we need to have a fiscal path to fiscal
responsibility and a balanced budget. and we're now only $19 trillion -- well, we are $19 trillion in the hole, on our way to $20 trillion. we now spend $225 billion -- $225 billion a year -- a year paying interest on the debt. now i'm not promising you this, but what i would say is if we took $100 billion and helped to ease your student loans, you'd kind of like that instead of for politicians who can't control their spending. am i right? now, the other thing that we need is we need workforce. we need to make sure in our k through 12 and our higher education that we are training young people for the jo bs that exist today and retraining people who are currently working for the jobs that may be be coming. those things will work. let me explain to you why.
when i was in washington, i spent ten years of my life to get us to a balanced budget. and it was very hard to do. and the reason it was hard to do is because you step on every toe. that's why the establishment is so much in love with me, because i really didn't care what they said, i said we've got to fix this. and they're there to kind of protect things as they are. i said no, no, no, it won't work that way. when we got the plan on the table to balance the budget and cut the capital gains tax and gave a family tax credit, we started to explode and we got to a balanced budget for the first time since man walked on the moon. we paid down a half a trillion dollars of the publicly held debt, and we had balanced budgets for four straight years. and you mark my words, hillary clinton will campaign this fall on the clinton economy. am i right, mike? she's going to go around and say her husband did it. i'm going to tell you who did it. it was the troublemakers led by
newt gingrich, me as budget committee chairman, the republicans in the house and senate who hadn't been in charge in 40 years who created dynamic for economic growth and forced clinton to sign a balanced budget agreement. okay? so at that point i kind of thought i was on the defense committee for 18 years and did a lot of reforms there. i got the balanced budget thing done. we had a projected $5 trillion surplus and i left the government. i didn't want to be in the government any longer. and i went back home and my friends said, now that you and your buddies are leaving congress, they're going to spend that surplus. i said, you can't possibly spend $5 trillion. you would have to get up every day and think about how to do it. and you know who spent it all?
you think the democrats, don't you? the republicans controlled the house, the senate and the white house. and let me let you in on a little secret. dem secret. democrats love to spend. republicans love to spend, too, they just feel guilty when they do it, okay? that's why we need a balanced budget amendment to the constitution to force all the politicians to do their job, okay? we'll get that done. and then i was out for ten years and i was having the time of my life i mean i really don't like politics very much. it just too -- it goofy, okay. it's a goofy business. but i got a call. anybody ever got a call? i didn't get a phone call. i didn't get a text. i didn't get -- i just got a
call. who in here's ever had a call, huh? have you had a call? a lot of people here have had a call and you just can't ignore it, you know remember when jonah got a call and he ran the other way, and all hell broke loose, okay. so i've always figured when you get a call, you've got to respond to it. and the call was to me. i felt it. got to go back. your state is dying, you have the tools. so let me tell you about ohio. you don't know much about ohio. you see -- we have ohio state and you know we've got a great football and all of that. you think about ohio, you think about cows and steel, okay. >> well, when i went in, we had lost 350,000 families were on hard times. we were 20% of our operating budget in the hole, $8 billion
in the hole and credit agencies told me they were going to downgrade us, cut up our credit cards. everybody thought the best was behind us. so using that formula of common sense regulations, lower taxes and balancing a budget, let me tell you where we are today. i got our latest jobs report. in the 5, 5 1/2 years that i've been governor, we've gone from a loss of $350,000 and today we have grown private sector jobs by 417,000 families that are being helped 417,000. we were $8 billion in the hole. and now we're $2 billion in the black. our credit has improved. our credit outlook has improved. our pensions are secure. our wages are growing faster than the national average. and we've left no one behind.
and by leaving nobody behind, i don't believe that the mentally ill ought to be sleeping under a bridge or living in our prisons. i think they have a right to rise. [ applause ] we have -- we have given -- mike, you won't believe this -- when we treat the drug addicted in our prisons and release them into the community we have an 80% success rate that they will never come back. and we're trying to help the working poor so that a mom with a couple kids who gets a pay raise, she can't take it because she loses her child care, we're changing that encourage the working poor to take a raise, take a promotion, and be able to escape poverty so she can have a better life for herself and for her children. and we're doing that. [ applause ] so economic growth is not an end to itself.
the last thing i want to tell you, then we go to questions. i want to take the whole farm la back to washington. one of the most important things we have to do is to ship power, money and influence out of the big bureaucracy back to where we live. i believe that the education programs should be returned to the states. the welfare programs should be returned to the states. the infrastructure programs returned to the states. health care for the poor sent back to the states. and job training. you want to call somebody in washington to figure out how to train somebody in utah, that's about as absurd as it gets. and you know it's interesting, because mike leavitt had a lot of influence on me on this and i said, mike, what if we send it out there, things don't work the way they should? he said, welsh let me tell you
something, governor, the people of utah, the people of ohio, have a better chance of getting their hands around the ears of their state representatives, state senators and governor than they are to be able to address their grievance as the federal level and he's exactly right. we will learn from one another. and that is the beginning of shifting power out of that town and, mike, you're absolutely right. and we will not hesitate to get that done with the plan that will be presented to the congress in the first 100 days. okay? [ applause ] thank you. thank you. i'll tell you what, you must be
having a lot of boring times out here. you're so charged up this morning. so thank you. okay. so let me go to you. you know, i'm the only one that really wants to take lots of questions from the folks, and now's you're chance to say whatever you want. i've done a lot of town hall meetings, ma'am, and they've all been pretty good. so let's not blow this one. okay? you can hold it. >> you have spoken several times about the lord and religious things. personally, how religious are you? i mean, do you attend weekly or -- >> well, i'm -- first of all, i try not to wear this stuff on my sleeve. but i do believe that there is a creator. but you know what? somebody asked me, why don't you talk about god more, you can get more votes. i said using god to win a vote,
i want to have a nice view of the golf course when i get up there, okay? i'm not going to cheapen god. all i can tell you is i think the most important thing about faith to me is you have a foundation, and you know, terrible things come. they're inevitable in life. michael novak, quoted have someone else, life is but a veil of tears and sometimes it can feel that way. faith in a higher power doesn't solve that, all the faith, in a higher power does is, i think, allow you to build your home on granite rather than on sand. but i'm not going to get into -- if you want to know how i feel, i wrote a book called "every other monday" and it will explain it to you. i don't want to use it. i'm doing best i can down here. and let me just also say, i will
vote myself the most flawed man in here. only good thing about the way it works is i get a mulligan every day, okay? i get a mulligan. i get a mulligan every day to get up and do a little bit better. yes, ma'am, right there. >> sir, i don't like to see the republicans insulted. we were at war. and in order to conduct the war you had to please the democrats, so that money was spent. we also had 9/11 and they had to defend us all across the coun y country. that had a lot to do with the money spent by the republicans. that's one thing. number two, i was a rubio person, because he stood with iraq, he knew why we were there, and what we accomplished and
what we would have accomplished if we had stayed there. and i want to know where you stand there, because that tells me about your wisdom and handling public, you know, defenses. jobs don't count for anything unless we're defended. >> wow, that's pretty good. i think that's been sticking her in the crawford quite a while, the way that sounded. number one, republican spent money like a drunken sailor on everything. they never had a veto until the seventh year of the bush administration. they just -- everything -- i hate to tell you this, but it's true. and they're spending a lot of money now. they broke their own targets again. you know why it happens? because people want to go home and they want to be liked. even in my state when we started to run surpluses you you couldn't believe the pressure on us to spend more money. and i have a republican-controlled legislature. the reason why it happens is
because people want to make people happy. they want to make -- everybody's got a special interest in tis country. the key is, who stands in the breach? who says if we do all of this, we're not go to be able to grow? we're not going to be able to get our spending under control, we have a lot of republican governors that are, you know, they're struggling to try to get their budget solidified because there's so much pressure to spend. you know, it's not a -- it's not like they, you know, they're bad people or anything, it's just you can lose your way. and it takes a leader to say, no, we're not going to do that because if we cave on that, guess what happens, the economy gets hurt, and people lose their jobs, okay. number one. number two, i served on the defense committee for 18 years, and when we had 9/11, secretary rumsfeld called me to the pentagon to meeting with the former secretaries of