Important is in terms of how do you support really standg up or evaluating real life use cases or proof of concepts or pilots if you will and thats what we see other countries doing is getting these systems up and running to learn from them as quickly as possible. That takes infrastructure support. That takes things the government is best equipped to help execute and manage. I think thats another big area where we would really welcome the support of these agencies. So when youre talking about infrastructure, were planning smart cities. We need to be thinking five years ahead, ten years ahead in terms of the ability for us to have Smart Devices and the like. Exactly. The Vehicle Infrastructure piece of it the markings on the roadways, basically equipping the infrastructure to be ready. If were talking about large investments we should be looking into that. Federal and state. I think ann harbor is a good example. They have come together to create a test bed on the campus grounds. You were about to chime in. I was going to say weve been very encouraged by the way that secretary fox has approached this and recognizing its important to allow us to Work Together to develop the technology safely and find ways to deploy it. So we certainly dont know at this stage all the answers and i think weve seen flexibility to learn as we go and respond to those respond to what we learn. So its a problem of getting rules trying to imagine what the future is going to look like, shouldnt we be focussed on testing right now and citing a Good Environment for testing. We so far have found out that we dont have particular challenges with testing and the technologys advancing rapidly. Where were most concerned is about bringing this to market and regulations that would limit the operation of the technology and thats where we think the congress and federal government can help pave the way. Thank you. I wanted to give a public thank you to gm for being such a good partner on the spectrum issues you all leaned in and worked with us in a cooperative manner. That meant a lot to me. We appreciate you as well. Thank you. Senator peters is up next. Thank you. I have to say as a senator from michigan and representing the motor city that im very excited about these incredible develops in our Auto Industry and to see auto manufacturers coming together with suppliers, with Technology Companies all cooperating together to create some partnerships that will ultimately create an awful lot of new jobs and are going to lead to some extraordinary break throughs in terms of Vehicle Safety as well performance and as weve heard from your testimony and others deal with some of our mobility challenges general for various individuals. So i want to thank the witnesses for being here today to discuss this frontier, particularly connected in Automated Technologies and their life saving benefits. We know there are still some significant challenges that were going to be facing in order to actually see this realized. I think its clear that what we are on the cusp is Disruptive Technology in the auto sector probably unlike anything weve seen for i cant imagine how many decades, but its many decades since weve seen this sort of Disruptive Technology. As weve heard today is we know that over 38,000 people died on our highways last year and your companies are developing technologies that could very well dramatically reduce that number saving tens of thousands of lives and thats why i believe as members of congress and my colleagues here we have do everything we can to make sure that your efforts are not delayed or unnecessarily detestified. That means that congress has to ensure that the fcc, the dot and ntia are thoroughly testing any proposal for testing sharing between the dsr safety critical signals and unlicensed wifi devices. Technology should not be compromised by someone connected to a toaster or lieght switch. The technologies must be safe and protect privacy. We must avoid a patchwork of regulation that will stunt the deployment of these technology and implement a consistent National Policy and we must think carefully about the insurance implications of connected and automated cars and the possibility of liability shifting to the manufacturers as human control dissipates. We must increase our investment in connected and Automated Vehicle research and development. I support the administrations ten year 3. 9 billion proposal for this purpose and the 200 million in the dot fy17 budget request for funding a Pilot Program that will accelerate these technologies and i think its particularly essential that a portion of this money go towards funding a designated National Facility where industry and government can come together to conduct connected and Automated Research development and testing. As weve heard countries like sweden and china and japan have established these test sites. We need to do it as well. I appreciate the comment about the city associated with the university of michigan which is involved in some detailed testing on a tract which brings all the manufacturers together and perhaps get some comment from some of you as to how important it is to have a National Testing facility that can bring all the manufacturers together, suppliers together to make sure all these technologies actually Work Together. It doesnt do any any good to have a great product if it doesnt work out on the road and in all weather conditions as well. Snow and ice is important to test. Perhaps some of your comments as to how important it is for us as government officials to be focusing on creating a National Center where we can do this sort of testing . Can i address that senator . I think that would be great. My one concern would be that the test data was made available to a more academic expert based community for that validation that these tests are meeting the standards that we think they should. So that should be led by academics. An independent group, not necessarily academics but sure id be happy to. I take that youre volunteering. Thank you. I think to your point senator its very important that we do request find a way to thoroughly test these technologies as you indicate. It will take a lot of work amongst various companies and suppliers and regulators so i do think that having a way that we can approach this in a coordinated fashion would be very important to us going forward. Anyone else . We very much value the important to test in all kinds of weather conditions. Thats part of the reason why weve done as much testing as we have in different locations and wed love to learn more. I always 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. The reported concluded many standards included the presence of a human drivers and many cars that deviate from this conventional design vehicle certification becomes more difficult and dependent on new standards and how we interpret those standards. I would encourage your companies to submit questions so working together the Automotive Industry and government can determine how to address potential regulatory advances which you have expressed we need to have to move this technology forward. I encourage you to share testing data with nhtsa to help them developing these new standards. Perhaps some comments from you as to how youre working now with nhtsa sharing information and there was discussion about a new targeted authority as well if you could elaborate on some of those ideas i would appreciate it. We continue to work very closely with nhtsa. We have a long relationship with nhtsa. We have worked with them around this topic of Autonomous Vehicles. We look forward to learning more on both sides and continue to Work Together on appropriate Regulatory Authority because as i think weve emphasized many times we want to develop and deploy this technology safely and safety is our primary concern and making sure we can do it safely is very important as a company before we actually introduce this to the public. I couldnt agree more. Safety has to be front and foremost in this and for the last six years weve been engaged with nhtsa sharing our lessons from the road and taking their feedback and incorporating that into our program. Were very excited about secretary foxs initiative in building guidelines over the next six months and look forward to taking part in the public work shops that well be having that will bring a degree of transparency to the process that is important to build confidence. Thank you. Thank you senator peters. Yes, thank you very much mr. Chairman. In 2014, 3,179 people were killed in distracted driving crashes and another 441,000 were injured but right now too few states are receiving federal funding. We worked on this and it got included in the fast act to make sure states besides connecticut were able to receive some of the funding for educational efforts on distracted driving and with he know these incentive grants are helpful. Could you talk about what advances in Automated Vehicles would mean for reducing the incidents of distracted driving. We know its a major issue. Its expanding. Its not just kids. Its adults too. We had today in our newspaper front page two people hurt, one man killed getting he was a school bus driver, 79 years old and he went out and lived in a rural area. He was just 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 shes been charged with a crime. That was today. Every single day theres Something Like that. 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 the systems can play immediately with systems like lane Departure Warning and other driver alerts and then ultimately the car taking evasive action as it gets more and more automated. Those are direct Counter Measures to the effect where the driver is not paying attention to what the car is doing and thats that immediate safety benefit that the systems that are commercially available now can bring which is why were so excited about the implementation of the stickers act and getting it out there into the consumer base. But as you continue down that path automated driving in the censors that go with it are what enable the car to avoid those situations regardless of what the driver is doing. Thats the ultimate safety benefit, not just for distracted driving but all forms of driver related accidents. I think the distracted driving incidents are tragedy but to the point Autonomous Vehicles can address the large percentage of accidents due to drunken driving or speed related accidents. Theres a very large percentage, over 90 of accidents are attributable to some sort of driver error and Autonomous Systems should be able to address that. Senator, this is at the heart of why were engaged in this work. When we look at the 38,000 people that were estimated to be killed last year on americas roads its an unacceptable number and theres so much opportunity to do good here. The technology will never be perfect but the opportunity to reduce those accidents and those tragedies is incredible. Go ahead. Sorry. This is one of the key things we bring to the equation. Looking at the issue of drunk driving specifically it has been determined by more than one Research Project that the advent of ride sharing has significantly reduced the incidents of drunk driving across the countriey. The ability to deploy this technology on a mass level is where we can tribute to this discussion. So by enabling a ride sharing platform like lift we can bring these safer option to the public and get it ready much quicker than other models could. If i can weigh in here. All of these things are absolutely true. My special is human error so this is definitely something that is going to help address these problems. I think the real trouble that were up against is the hybrid time. Were in a strange time where youre going to see more and mora tonmy being introduced into cars and thats going to increase distraction. Recently tesla suffered from the car getting in the backseat of the car. This is the funny thing about Human Behavior if humans think the cars pretty good then theyre behavior is going to be worse. The best thing to do is for everyone get out of their cars today and have them be driverless tomorrow. That would be the safest thing we can do but until then when we have gremlines on the same road with the teslas were going to have to be careful about how we set up that interaction. Weve seen this completely agree with the research. A few years ago we were at the point where we had technology that could drive well on the freeway. Imagine a product where you get in the car, drive it, put it on the freeway, press a button and then it drives for you. And we had 140 employees test that capability. And they loved the product. They thought it was fantastic. I think maybe the former Vice President for General Motors said that driving is the distraction and we saw that live. And it really comes down to the fact that at some point the Automation Technologies are just so good that they people overtrust it even when theyre told they shouldnt. This is again why were taking that leap toward fully selfdriven vehicles. The technologies exist to make sure if people are going to climb in the backseat or arent paying attention to the road that the system can warn them and get their attention back on the road. Okay. Ill put on the record another question because im out of time here about Autonomous Vehicles and increased mobility for Senior Citizens because were seeing what i call a silver tsunami. Ive been told to call it a silver surge of more seniors and so to be curious ill ask questions on the record later about how there can be help for seniors as well. Thank you very much. Those are good questions and were going to be there soon. Actually this is a my neighborhood from minnesota thank you senator for those questions. This will have great application for people who need an Autonomous Car to keep them awake until they get to south dako dakota. You mean when theyre driving through south dakota. Senator. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its the perfect segue talking about big wide open country we have out west and thank you for testifying today. I can tell you its refreshing to hear about the innovation and job creation thats occurring outside washington, d. C. My home montana is the fourth largest state, we have 75,000 miles of public roads, 95 of those are rural. Our interstate highways you can go 80 miles an hour. That is the speed limit. So i see those Autonomous Vehicles as having the potential for significant safety improvement. I want to talk through some safety issues and get your comments. Theyve been addressed a little bit here already. Driver fatigue, my wife and i were heading out for diner this weekend and there had been a roll over most likely driver fatigue, claimed the life of a man from my hometown. Billions of losses every year, thousands of lives lost because of driver fatigue. How will Autonomous Vehicles help reduce driver fatigue injuries and fatalities. If i may, i think in our model theyre not driving anymore and so the issue is mediated. Even in the case of the study that i talked about earlier we had 140 people use the vehicles. One of the most touching stories was a woman who lives about 1 1 2 hours from work and kmuts every day and she told us that coming in that she wanted to cook for her family and exercise and that she didnt have the time anymore. She used our car for a week and she said every day that week she got home and she was able to go for a run and cook for her family because she was not exhausted from fighting traffic. So i think these what i call the softer elements of social benefits of this technology are going to be enumable and hard to cant quantify up front. Were developing systems for some of these semi Autonomous Vehicles where we have cameras that look at the driver to sense where is the driver looking, are their eyes on the road, are they blinking, so we can now determine the state of the driver and take the appropriate Counter Measures to either stimulator reengage the driver. Those technologies will roll out here toward the end of this year along with that autonomous driving capability. Its probably more the semi autonomous where were at here. I want to talk about drunk driving. How will this reduce drunk driving. How do we reduce drunk driving injuries, fatalities . As you indicated in the fully autonomous mode its obvious. How about semi autonomous. There are technologies under development to try to determine if a driver is capable of responsibly driving. To be honest i think at the pace that autonomous technologies are moving i would hope we could get to these vehicles relatively quickly and they will be a solution for several of these issues around driving. This is related to drunk driving too. We had a horrible wrong way crash on interstate highway 94 that killed three people two weeks ago. Thinking about the way that google is working and maybe this is for your doctor, is there some way to detect if you are in the eastbound lane of westbound to detect a wrong way situation and prevent it and how would that work . Is that possible. Im quite sure thats a technology that could be developed. Obviously were building vehicles that wouldnt make that mistake, but Geo Technology could be in place to help address that. And animal vehicle collisions, thats another big issue actually around the country. Deer populations are up and its not deer, its elk and moose as well. Billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of deaths potentially. How can this help reduce animal vehicle collisions. I think importantly a reference was made to it earlier these Autonomous Vehicles use an array of sencensors and not jus camera. I think the potential exists that the vehicles could be more perceptive of when animals are approaching the roadway. In michigan we have a significant issue with deer and i think these technologies offer a real opportunity. And oftentimes at night when it happens. As ive taught my kids youre more likely to be youre better off if you dont swerve. The swerving results in the significant injuries. Lastly, privacy was talked about a little bit here. Weve all heard the stories of current vehicles operating systems being hacked, there was a famous one last summer. As things continue to grow this threats becomes more real. What is gm doing to ensure current vehicles are secure. As far as Cyber Security and in particular we have a dedicated organization that spends time on these issues. It is managed by a Senior Executive in the company. Weve learned from other industries how to approach Cyber Security issues and we employ teams that are not involved in designing our systems but spending time trying to find vulnerabilities. I would tell you a week ago i spent time with one of these engineers and brought in a module and demonstrated all the things he did to try to compromise this module and its impressive. We also now have an Industry Group that shares best practices as well as trade reports and vulnerabilities across the industry. Were proud that jeff is the advice cha vice chairman of that group. We take Cyber Security seriously and we think the car needs to be designed with Cyber Security in mind and that is our intent. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you to the witnesses for your time today. Theres a lot of interest sentenced a intrigue in how this will move forward and what technologies will emerge on top and the questions that i think are the tip of the iceberg here as we try to figure out and understand how this is going to effect our culture, our society and innovation and safety and our economy. A couple of things i think, 2005 probably when auto steer tractors sort of became the latest rage in agricultural, a useful economic tool for productivity. Today based on that over decade long experience i think if you want to get down to a 12 inch accuracy in the field whether youre planting corn or wheat it probably costs around 7,000 to retrofit an old piece of equipment thats ten or 15 years old. To have it down to one inch accuracy its probably 28,000 to retrofit an old tractor. If youre dealing with a car going down the interstate the question of accuracy is not something we had the accident because we had 24 inch accuracy. This is satellite guidance. Were not talking satellite correct. The vehicles will use gps but also an array of other censors and other High Definition maps to understand where the vehicle is in the world. So as youre rolling vehicles off the Assembly Line that could have the autonomous capabilities off the factory line and we retrofit older vehicles to it, who is the responsible from a regulatory landscape body to make sure that used car that has an aftermarket Autonomous System placed on it is up to the same sort of calibration or specifics as a factory line car. So in our view some of the reasons that weve discussed earlier for Cyber Security and safety we dont see this technology necessarily being applicable as far as retrofitting the vehicles. To do an Autonomous Vehicle successfully and safely you need to touch a number of the fundamental systems in the car, you need to design it with technology thats not here today. So the idea of trying to take that system and retrofit on an existing car isnt practice al. Somebody has to develop that like they did on a piece of farm equipment. Somebody is going to figure it out and who is going to be responsible for that. We dont see a path to be able to do that. The other question i have is there a state a lot of this is the question between federal, state, is there a state thats getting it better in terms of other states in allowing this technology to flourish. I think weve 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 weve found actually is in most places the best action is to take no action and that 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 at a federal level bringing guidelines for innovation. I guess the other question would be who is doing the best job of not doing anything . Im sure i dont have a good answer. The other question i had jus youre driving down the interstate and you have an animal on the side or a child that runs off a soccer ball or something into the road, how are we going to address issues of the moral choice that a computer is going to have to make, a car is going to have to make, whether it veers left if theres a car next to it or veers right into the ditch, maybe the car is carrying passengers, how do we address that . How do we research that and how do we make that happen . I think this is a very important point. This is a question that humanity has struggling with for hundreds and hundreds of years and there isnt a right philosophical answer so the approach were taking is to try to reduce this to a practice in a way that we can implement something and see the broader safety, economic and mobility values. So the way we think about this is lets try hardest to avoid vulnerable road users and then beyond that try hardest to avoid other vehicles and then beyond that avoid the things that dont move in the world and be transparent and say if youre in this vehicle this is the way it will behave and then you can make the decision if im okay with that or not. I would only add i think the intent as we talked about 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. Again with the emphasis on developing these with safety in our minds, i think there are real opportunities here. Obviously in colorado we had about 100,000 new residents to the state, were the second Fastest Growing state in the country. 80 of that population growth and this technology is one of the keys to allow a thriving ski industry where youre limited to the amount of tunnels you can put through a mountain both from a cost perspective and fphysics perspective. I look forward to learning more from you. There are lots of reasons people are moving to colorado. And automation is probably a good thing for that. Yeah. We may need more Autonomous Cars in colorado for that reason. Thank you senator gardener. Senator markey. Thank you. These new vehicles are computers on wheels. Its absolutely amazing what is happening. I just went out on to the highway across the 14th street bridge, 395, in a tesla vehicle and i looked right, i looked left and it was like look, ma, no hands. Im driving along down the highway at 11 30 this morning in one of these demonstrations vehicles and it was absolutely amazing, very impressive and clearly were still at the dawn of the era but the promise is there and we can see it and im very glad i took the demonstration this morning. Back in 2013 and again last year i asked 20 auto makers what they are doing to protect our computers on wheels and what i found is that theyre not doing enough. After reviewing the original responses from the auto makers i released a report and the report is entitled tracking and hacking security and privacy gaps put american drivers at risk. Heres what we learned from the study that thieves no longer need a crowbar to break into a phone. They just need an iphone. Todays cars are collecting tremendous amounts of personal driving information. Cars know where you are, where youve been, how fast and slow you drive and 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 where you want to go, those vulnerabilities will become more pronounced our society. So i have a couple of questions for the panel. Number one we need enforceable rules of the road to protect driver privacy and security and i introduced with senator bloomenthal the security and privacy in your car act that directs the nhsta to secure our cars and protect our drivers privacy. So for each panelist 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 equipment with reasonable measures to protect against hacking attacks, Data Security measures that means that all collected nchgs booinf should be secured and hacking information so it can stop hacking attempts in real time. Doctor, do we need rules of the road. Im 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 to years ago in front of this same committee is that its happening so quickly that the government institutions cannot keep pace. The government is cannot hire the same people that chris is hiring and google x. This would be the companies build in the hacking protections. I agree but i think you need a Regulatory Framework that can ensure this is happening. Should we say to nhtsa i say yes but i dont think they have the people on staff that they need to do that. Thats the problem with the securities and exchange commission. Obviously the agencies have to get the 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 thats a real challenge. I understand. We have to meet the challenges of the future. Thank you for the question senator. We at lift are not only are we fully committed to ensuring that we prevent any instances of cyber hacking or any violations of our user privacy but yes we are in support of well thought out principals that would codify our previously existing attempts to ensure that. I think its important and i know this has been discussed before that these principals be very well thought out that there be a consistency of what these principals look like. Were dealing with technology that is going to be deployed across the countries and in order to do so we need to ensure that whatever principals are put in place to ensure the privacy that its consistent across the country. Do we need mandatory we havent determined whether we think we need mandatory centers or not. What we have determined is it does help to standardize the testing. We support it as a way to trade information. I think suppliers and the point of regulation trying to stay ahead of this very fast changing area we think a more flexible approach is preferable. Doctor . Google gets attacked on a regular basis. We have hundreds of people dedicated to Cyber Security and weve learned its a dynamic space and its important to be able to adapt the principals you defend over time. I understand what youre saying but witnesses sat here 30 years ago and said the same thing about air bags and seat belts and how they should leave it to the individual companies and it was hard to mandate a specific air bag. People expect air bags to protect their children and theyre going to expect certain standards that are going to be mandated across the board that are going to protect people. I was hit by a car when i was 5 when i crossed 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 see i was going to do it. As we move forward i want to make sure we dont have unnecessary accidents and clearly hackers are going to have the ability to be able to break into these vehicles. Theres going to be a whole bunch of very smart young people who will Start Playing games with this Technology Going forward so the kinds of protection you build in canning voluntary but if Ten Companies do it and ten dont those ten that dont will be identified by the hackers and i think we need minimumal standards that every company is going to meet and i think the sooner we start that discussion the better off we will be. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you yall for being here. May i suggest that the answer to the question should there be mandatory safety and privacy standards is yes. I didnt hear that from all 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 thats the creditability and faith that you want to establish is that your technology is meeting mandatory standards. Let me ask ms. Cummnings is nhtsa able to address this. No. I think we need to address these issues before theres wide dissemination of this technology. Do any of the other witnesses disagree . I would say yes. I want to speak about privacy but from a privacy standpoint gm is clear privacy is very important. We operate with principal and 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 were operating with privacy as an important part of how we implement this. I think well continue to work with regulators on what is appropriate. I have to say and im not a technology person, im just a country lawyer from connecticut, but if i asked 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 stop lights and et cetera, i would say, the answer is yes because again the credibility that this technology has may become exceedingly fragile if people cant trust standards that are uniform and mandatory not necessarily for you, but for all of the other act ors that may come into this space at some point. I dont want to belabor this point but its one of the reasons why the senator and i have introduced this legislation and for everyone who says 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 throughout the industry. I went for a ride today in one of the vehicles that uses the Current Technology and its 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 rain storm, i was not driving myself. I was riding thankfully, and i just dont 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, and definiti distinctions in spaces to ensure 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. Thank you. I yield to my friend from massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. Can we go down on the privacy issue as well . We dealt with the question of safety, but what about privacy . Do you think there 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, retention and use of driving data providing owners the right to say no to Data Collection without losing access to key navigation and ensuring that personal driving information not be used for advertising or marketing purposes without the owner clearly opting in. Doctor . Yes. These are i think these are issues that were facing across a number of independenteries and a number of technologies and the fact of the matter is that these cars are going to be one big data gathering machine, visual images all of your personal data and so i see it in a way that once this happens and right now the cars really do need to talk to each other and talk back to the manufacturers to let them know whats going on, so for the near term they need to talk, but they are going to be collecting a lot of data and its not clear who is going to be doing what with that data and i personally would feel better to know that there was some set of standards in place that were protecting my personal data or at least like you said allowed me to know what was happening. I think there should be rules that the information cant be used for marketing purposes. Absolutely. Do you agree with that . Senator, thank you for the question. Similar to what was said lift has very strict policies in place where personal data cannot be used for any other purpose without strict opt in by its users. Would it be mandatory. The way i would address that is there should definitely be standards. How the standards are developed is the question. If can draw this back to the ride sharing industry which is where my area of experience is what weve examined is that when we first launched we put on ourselves a lot of high standards with respect to safety and privacy and insurance. We developed insurance that provided 1 million of coverage for all of our passengers. This had not been required by any law. Take me as a passenger and another 100 people who live in the boston area and Somebody Just wants access to the names of all the people and where they want using your service, do you think there should be a Privacy Protection for that that youre bound by that you cant sell that information even though people would want to know who was coming into that area . Dont you think that should be an absolutely prohibition on you selling the information as to where people are going inside your cabs. There should be Privacy Protections. The only point im trying to raise is there are unique situations that cant be foreseen in the development of new technology that we need to be mindful of and developing standards for this type of thing. Assuming youre already doing the right thing, which is what youre saying, why would you have a problem with kind of just working to create a standard that could be used across the industry. If you will sir that was the point i was going to make. Lift developing these policies internally weve seen the policies at lift and other Ride Sharing Companies have enacted become 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 youve already heard the pgs options here. Yes or no mandatory. We havent taken a position on mandatory or not but i would say we would like to be part of that discussion to formulate how do you approach it. You should first decide yes or no and that would be helpful. Well continue to work with the regulatory agencies on what is required. You dont have a yes or no on it then in terms of mandatory minimumal privacy standard. I believe weve fulfilled i know you do. All the Bad Companies out there. We dont pass murder statutes for our mothers. Theyre not going to murder anybody. We do it for the people we think might murder people. You need a minimumal standard. Lets assume youre Company Never does anything wrong you need a statute for people who might do things wrong. You dont think we need that statute. Senator, well continue working i appreciate that. Doctor. Google has a variety of policies that we use around privacy. Its foundational to our business. What do you think about making that foundation a standard though. It would have to be met i would have to submit an answer on the record for that. Im not in a position to comment on that for google. I think ultimately yes is the right answer is a minimumal sand ard and hopefully well reach that one day. Thank you, senator. Theres no require for the panelists to agree with him. You can answer the question any way you want. We have a couple of questions to sort of close things out but one has to do with this whole issue of consumer acceptance because this is new technology and any time new Technology Comes to the market you have consumers that welcome that technology because its new and exciting and it affords a lot of mobility benefits that i think people would find very valuable and certainly not met Traditional Cars and then you have consumers that prefer the look and feel of Traditional Driving and may resist Autonomous Vehicles. I guess i would say from a consumer standpoint what are the Biggest Challenges that you see in terms of spurring demand if you will for Autonomous Vehicles. I think whats important is to get the 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 and this ride sharing model allows us to do that in a very effective way, where again, well do it in a very safe way. But people dont need to purchase an Autonomous Vehicle to get their First Experience with the technology. And i think like all new technologies, as people gain experience with it, theyll get more comfortable with it. I would add the aaa report that was on are people ready for automated where it showed the minority. It also showed, though, that systems are really helping preparing laying that groundwork and Gain Consumer acceptance of those technologies. And thats why we think its really important that we have a broad application of technologies for safety benefits, but also for the consumer acceptance piece of it. And senator, from our experiences that when someone first hears about the idea of a selfdriving car, it comes across as maybe alien and very far out there. And without fail, whether someone comes in thinking 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, theyre in the back on the cell phone, as if this was anything any other day. I think part of it is that people are so used to riding in vehicles that have been driven by someone else, whether its their parents or their loved ones. And so i think having people have the chance to experience it will increase adoption very quickly. Good. Just as a followup to that, during your tests, what have been the reactions of people, consumers who have ridden in selfdriving cars . Do they feel safe . You indicated that you see they feel like they have an experience that they it seems like it would be initially a little bit hard because of the instinct that you want to control things. Weve done some studies of this. And what we find is the fist five minutes is a little tense, you know. The car is driving itself. And then ten to 15 minutes it feels like it drives pretty well. And 15 minutes on, it drives better than me. Is their impression. And so, you know, were fairly confident once people try it out, theyre going to enjoy it and really appreciate the values. One of the other comments we get frequently is people say its kind of boring. They basically say its not that exciting. The cars dont accelerate harshly or slam on the brakes. They obey the traffic laws. And very quickly, the ride becomes the driving is no longer the activity that youre focused on. Youre focused on whatever it is youre doing. And thats exactly what we want the technology to bring. Its not about the drive. That just fades away into the background. And its about doing whatever it is you really need to do or want to do during that time. From our perspective, sir, in order to make sure that this is readily available for the consumers at large, it has to be safe. It has to be convenient. And it has to be costeffective. And this is where lyft can help in making sure all three of those factors are met and deploying that technology to people at large. Its same challenges lyft faced a few years ago when launching a purely peer to peer platform. And that idea was considered fairly out there at the time that we brought that product to market. And as i mentioned before, a few years later, its already become probably one of the most popular modes of transportation today. So in order to really ensure that consumers are ready to adopt this, we need to convince that its safe, which i think everyone here is committed to doing. And in order to make sure that it is cost efficient, i believe that a ride sharing platform like lyft must be involved. Senator thune, i would like to add one thing. This is really a critical point. Time is everything there is no question that someone is going to die in this technology. The question is when and what can we do to minimize that. I think i speak for many people in the Robotics Community to say that 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 help think will help prevent those deaths on the road. Thats why 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 did not happen. Okay. Well, thank you all very much. This has been very helpful. In just looking at the technology, it seems like there is enormous potential there on so many levels. And first and foremost, of course, is safety. If we could reduce by any amount the number of fatal jesse on americas roadways in a given year, that would be a remarkable accomplishment. But i think in terms of the economic and the gains and productivity, quality of life, environmental, congestion, all these things that we talk about in our society today, that seems to me at least that could have enormous benefits. But always, of course, with an eye toward the safety and making sure that were doing things in the right ways. And one of the questions that has been raised a lot today as many of you responded to it is the issue of cyberattacks, hacks, and that sort of thing. And cybersecurity and measures being taken. And i think thats something that people will inevitably raise a lot of concerns about, given just the overall cyberthreats that we face in the world today. So certainly with Autonomous Vehicles, there is no exception. Im interested in some of the responses you all gave to that question. Because i think its in particularly some of too with redundancy that is built in, in to the vehicles, any types of gaps that occur if there were some sort of a disruption in the connectivity, it sounds like youve given a lot of thought to this. There has been a lot of testing and a lot of research already done. So we encourage that. We want to continue it. We want to make sure that we do our job to ensure that its done on the safest manner possible. But not in a way that inhibits or imposes any kind of a barrier 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 for today, your thoughts and insights. Well look forward to continuing the conversation about this. And sky seems to be the limit so to speak in terms of where we can go with this. Thank you all very much. And 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, the witnesses are requested to submit their written answers to the committee as soon as is possible. Thank you all very much. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. Tonight on American History tv we mark the 40th anniversary of the church committees final report, with extended segments of the t hearings investigating cia, fbi, irs, and nsa intelligence activities. The Committee Published a total of 14 volumes of reports detailing numerous intelligence excesses at home and abroad. American history tv on cspan3, saturday night at 10 00 eastern on real america. More than 110,000 cubans flee cuba
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.