i mean, really. [applause] there are serious issues facing our state. funding education appropriately, protecting our environment, making sure we have ethical and honest leaders. if he's going to give it to me, 'm going to take it. >> this is not a platform for one candidate. we are hoping governor scott will join us on the stage but i am told he will. in all fairness, i was shown a copy of the rules that said there would be no fans on the odium. >> very strange. >> my understanding is that governor scott will be coming out. >> have you ever seen anything like this? >> i haven't. it seems remarkable over a trivial issue. no matter which side you are n. >> we were placed in the awkward situation to decide this and i don't think it's our role. [applause] > thank you. ladies and gentlemen, that has to be the most unique beginning to any debate, not only in florida but anywhere in the country. let us start. >> c-span's 2014 coverage include more than 100 debates for the control of congress. stay on touch and on top of the debate and engaged. follow us on twitter at c-span and like us on facebook.com/c-span. >> on tuesday the cato institute hosted a discussion on self-driving cars. the panelists discuss the technology, the urban transit and security concerns. following their remarks they took questions from the audience. this is an hour and 25. -- 25 minutes. what i hope will be an interesting discussion on self driving cars. it's an interesting topic because we are at a stage we are asking when the questions not if when it comes to the widespread use of the vehicles and we have three exits to talk about it. before we begin i would like you to turn off your cell phones so we will not be interrupted. i would also like to say that we will be giving a session at the end after all the speakers have had their turn at which point i will be calling on you. the three speakers we have our randy o'toole and adam thierer discussing a range of issues including the transit and regional planning, the legal and regulatory issues as well as privacy. now the first speaker is randal o'toole. i will be introducing each of them before they speak. he works on urban growth and transportation issues and is the uthor of books including gridlock, stopping traffic and what to do about it, vanishing automobile and other myths and most recently held government undermines the dream of home ownership. his writings have appeared in the national journals and newspapers and is the author of the most recent analyst that will be out later and the policy implications upon the vehicles randall was educated at oregon state university and in economics at the university of art. >> now we have to wait for this live slideshow to come up. i hope you are ready for driverless cars and the issues behind them. what i want to do is get in depth into how self-driving cars are going to impact our economy and in particular, urban areas. already four different companies have received licenses to operate self-driving cars on an experimental basis in california and nevada and other companies have said that they are working on self-driving cars and demonstrated them in various forms and google in particular has published a lot of it demonstrations of videos of self driving cars dealing with things like getting around traffic detours, bicycles, obstructions in the road and so on and so forth. i think the important thing to understand if you are not really familiar with the technology is that it's been 11 cars have all of the computing on board. hey are not connected to a central computer telling them hat to do. it's all on board which means that is happening with the car is dealing solely with the car sees and knows about the area. now the implications of self-driving cars are first we may see a major reduction in congestion because the speedy 11 cars have faster reflexes than humans and most most is due to slow human reflexes. we are going to see an expansion of ability. right now only about two out of three americans have a drivers license. this will enable nonlicensed people to travel just as much as licensed people. i'm looking forward to the day i will be able to put my dogs in the car and send them to the vet. there are cars that don't have a human driven capability and so they will be specifically or specially for people who don't have drivers licenses. so for example this gentleman is legally blind yet he is happily driving the new car without human driven options. another implication of the self-driving cars is that it will change the way we look at transportation. right now about half of all americans say their main constraint on travel is not cost ime. it's not the monetary cost of the time cost of travel. and with self-driving cars come at, the time cost largely goes away. you can play games with your children, train your dog on board the car while you're traveling if you have self-driving cars. that will change how we look at ransportation and instead of trying to live any place that is near where we work or where we do anything, we can have a fairly remote home and have a long commute. if we want to get groceries we send the car to get the groceries and they don't have to actually send ourselves. we are also probably going to see a confluence of self driving cars and car sharing and some people think that in the future all cars will be shared. am not quite so sure. i think a lot of people will still want to own their own cars but people that don't want to own their own cars will be able to use car sharing and that's going to change the calculus of driving. right now most people if they own a car, the cost of taking a trip in the car is the marginal or the variable cost which is only about a third of the cost, the total cost of the car ownership. o come if you are car sharing, the cost is going to be the average cost for the total of the fixed and variable cost that means you probably aren't going to drive as much or travel as much as you are car sharing van if you are not. that in itself might be one reason some people are going to not want to car share. they are going to want to own their own car so they can reduce the marginal cost as a variable ost. but what is going to be the implication of self driving cars on urban transit? right now we have urban transit in every city in the country in fact a lot of cities have urban transit and yet outside of new york the urban transit placed a fairly minor role in the transportation. in the new york earth at an area 32% is done, ten or even present a dozen% of all travel is done by transit. the next highest is san francisco at about 18%. these numbers are commuting but when you talk about all travel, the numbers are about one third of the commuting shares which means that in most of the driven areas transit carry is only about 1% or 2% or less of all travel. it's pretty insignificant. or been transit was mostly private before 1970. since 1970 eight the nationalized or municipal and and we've put almost a trillion dollars of subsidies into the urban transit and we have seen per capita transit trips ball from about 50 trips a year to about 40. so it's not in a high success. right now at one time urban transit was mainly for people who didn't have cars. ight now only about four and a half% of workers live in households without cars and most of them don't take transit to ork. only about 41% of them take transit to work for transit use and even important for people who don't have cars much less for people who do have cars. if you think what income people are the main users of transit, public turns out you're most likely to use transit to get to work if you are more than $75,000 a year. more likely than if you earn less than $25,000 a year. so, when you subsidize transit to some degree you're subsidizing the rich rather than he poor. if you think transit is a good way of saving energy, it turns out to transit seems hardly any energy at all over driving. if you want to save energy you encourage people to buy uel-efficient cars such as a prius. it costs more than three times as much as passenger mile per driving so that's when you count the subsidies of course. we subsidize the transit to a far greater degree than we do driving and that's in order to make it appear competitive with driving costs. so what happens when we take this heavily subsidized and largely failed transit industry and add driverless cars to the mix? when you look at manhattan where there is 2 million jobs and about seven square miles and three fourths of them take transit. it's hard to imagine we could substitute the self driving cars for transit. it's always going to be important for manhattan as long as there's 2 million jobs but that is the denser job market of america. he second dentist is the chicago loop where there's 500,000 jobs and about half of them take transit to work. gain we probably can't see the self driving cars taking all those people to work but it might help for some. downtown washington has a 380,000 jobs. about half of them take transit to work. boston has about 240,000 about half of them take transit to ork. philadelphia, 240,000 jobs about half take transit to work. in these cases i don't see self-driving cars as an ultimate replacement for transit. owever, that's it. that's pretty much the wind. those five or six cities where the transit makes a big difference in where trying to get rid of transit and replacing it with self-driving cars is going to cause too much congestion. for most of those cities outside of new york the bus transit makes more sense but that's another issue. then we got out of the window. 173,000 jobs in downtown orlando league of atlanta but only 17 ake the transit to work. so if we substitute the cars and have less congestion, while i don't think you're going to see any increase in the congestion you will probably see the reduction in congestion. 170,000 jobs only 13% take the transit to work. denver, 120,000, 20% take transit to work but that's not going to be big enough of a market to support transit in the uture. so basically outside of the five or six cities i don't see transit as being a viable lternative to the self driving cars in the future. i see car sharing and self driving cars is almost completely replacing transit verywhere except for those few places. so we have to think about how are we going to wind down transit and change the transit in the future to be able to adopt the self driving cars. we also have to think about long-range transportation planning. or years mandated that urban areas have metropolitan planning organizations that engage in 20 year regional transportation plans and about three righties plans every five years. a few years ago i went through the plans for the 70 largest urban areas in the country and i found that about half of them based of their plans at their plans on what i call the fantasy model which is we will imagine a world without cars and hope people follow our imagination for examples that come into work this plan in 2006 and they specifically said they've engaged in this fantasy they can live without cars for the last 25 years which means for the last five iterations of the regional transportation plan and for some reason it didn't work out. people are driving more and more even though they are not uilding more roads and there's more congestion were still driving even though they are spending lots of money so their solution was to continue the policies of the previous plan and we see this over and over again in a cities across the country engaging in the fantasy rather than the reality building light rail despite the fact construction costs are growing to be extremely high. my former hometown of portland in particular seems to be in a race to seattle to see who can build the most expensive light-rail in the universe. seattle is winning but portland s coming back with a plan that will have a 2 billion-dollar tunnel and i don't see any of the plans being viable in the future when we have self driving cars i don't see why we are going to need to have light-rail or anything like that. this is not a surprise. it should be totally predictable but if you engage in fantasy planning people aren't going to respond to your fantasies. as economist david brown stone says of the link use and transportation is too small to be useful trying to relieve congestion, reduce and renounce gas emissions or save energy. and so, what happens when we introduced the self-driving cars to urban areas that have been engaging in fantasy planning which means about half of the urban areas of the country? are people going to drive less because the car sharing and there is going to have a higher marginal cost of travel or are they going to drive more because people will have access to the self driving cars? are they going to drive more because the travel budget is different? the cost isn't the issue, time is the issue and now they can travel and be productive while they are traveling. nobody knows the answer to these questions come and urban planners are ignoring them. ot a single regional nobody knows the answer to these questions come and urban planners are ignoring them. not a single regional ransportation plan that i've ever seen has even mentioned the possibility of self-driving cars in the future. most of them -- none of them are trying to model it. if you have them have asked these questions questions have thrown up their hands and said there is no answer to these questions, so about 60 american cities are planning for 19th century technology like streetcars and light-rail rather than planning for 21st century echnology. what should they be doing instead? i argue that they should do is ocus on down infrastructure. what do we mean by dumb nfrastructure? well, the system does the french version of the internet is an example of smart infrastructure. they gave everybody in france and dumb terminal to access a smart system that would allow them to do things like explaining reservations, make restaurant reservations, buy theater tickets and things like that but the company that was managing it had to keep up the technology. they had to keep the smart infrastructure up and they couldn't afford to give it. o they abandoned it and what was it about the 2003 and today france like everybody else relies on the internet which has the smarts in your terminal and the internet itself is a dumb ommunications infrastructure that doesn't contain the intelligence needed to do what you want it to do on the nternet. in the same way, highways can be smart or dumb to be a dumb payday dumb highway basically a statement and a smart comes in a car that knows how to do with the pavement. a smart -- he has all kind of communication systems that tells your car come electronically tells you cars things like if there's an accident or a red light up ahead or if there is congestion or whatever. the problem is that maintaining that smart infrastructure is going to be very expensive and it's not going to work very well. so it is much better to have dumb infrastructure and let the smarts to be in the vehicle. another example of dumb infrastructure is -- excuse me, smart israel transit. it only goes to please as we build the rail lines. the trains go there reliably as long as we keep them maintained that she can't afford to do so via the $60 billion maintenance backlog on the railroad transit systems. instead, try and to provide smart infrastructure just provide basic dumb infrastructure which means keep the streets paved, keep the pavement smooth, keep the stripes on the dividing lines in plain sight and try to use a consistent form of signage across the country so that your smart card that works in california also will work in new york and virginia. in short, but he we should do is try to solve today's roblems. today don't try to perceive the distant future. instead, just try to leave the future with as many options as possible so that they can solve their problems without being encumbered by a huge debt we put out today to buy something that turns out not to be worthwhile t all. build and maintain the dumb infrastructure and i don't know why you didn't show the last places don't mandate the vehicle infrastructure communications which is one of the things i think the next speaker will talk about a little bit more. >> next up we have a research fellow at the competitive enterprise institute where he works on transportation and land use into the communications policy issues. he's written for usa today, the "washington ost" and the washington review and his work has been cited by "the wall street journal," the law should post comments angeles times and the congressional quarterly, politico. he rightly cited the bbc, c-span and more and received his undergraduate degree in economics and philosophy from george washington university. >> thank you all for being ere. i am going to talk about some of the issues that we have coming up and i am not going o -- talking about the regulatory developments at the state level's the follow up with some discussion of the national highway trace the vehicle traffic safety administration and some of the traditional safety philosophy at the federal level. then i'm going to give some examples of how we are already potentially screwing up the regulation of automated vehicles nd then i will close with some principles for the sound public olicy. a recent automation specific hey said automation specific policy developments the states in green are states that have enacted legislation that specifically recognizes the identity of the vehicles and the states in yellow considered similar legislation. so implementing the statutes we have a few examples so far nevada was first out of the gate in 2012 and california has released the first part of its rules earlier this year that came into effect last month in the manufacture of testing and then the district of columbia has proposed rules in april. they haven't gone anywhere yet. i think you'll see why. there are some problems with hem. at the federal level we haven't seen any specific regulations yet. they did issue a statement of olicy back in may of 2013. among other things, but they did is basically cautioned the states about overregulating over legislating at this early stage, and they also beat out the definitions of automation and i will show you those in the econd. while they are not automation specific there are recent developments that have come out of ntsa that will impact automated vehicles in the future. the first example is the position that the ntsa had against the federal regulation standard in august of this year can ntsa issued an advanced notice of ruling on the vehicle to vehicle communications with randall mentioned when he was closing and i will get to those later. here are the automation levels as defined by ntsa. level zero is no automation. it's pretty obvious. level four is the full sale automation where he would we would want to get and where you can start talking about having went to bars in your vehicles giving new meaning to the term fully loaded but that's where you have the driver has no responsibility and possibly no ability to retake menu control at any point and then the levels in between i'm not into focus so much on them although we are lready seeing level number one and number two vehicles available to consumers and level number three depending on how the regulatory and the liability issues are sorted out but i want to begin by talking about tsa. and i think that this letter gives an idea where i stand on ntsa and i'm not saying anything bad about the people that work at ntsa i just think of philosophy has gotten the gotten the height of a highway safety parodies backwards. so what ntsa has done the past few decades and what its purpose was to focus on the safe and effective automobiles. the problem with this approach is most crashes have been and continue to be caused by driver ehavior. so what happens come and here's the policy failures of the focus on the defects that are blown way out of proportion we work to mandate the highest cost safety technology particularly that deals with post-crash airbags and the like and then we downplay everything else into the latest example is a the defective ignition switch and i want to say right now i'm not talking about gm or their crappy ignition switch but switch that it's gotten but it's gotten an incredible amount of coverage and spawned several congressional hearings let's put this in perspective this is likely responsible for the few eaths per year since 2005. compare that to the 30,000 annual deaths annually that can be attributed to driver behavior in some part and in fact since that, since 2005 there's about 130,000 gm deaths that are largely attributed to the behavior that we are essentially gnoring. so if we were to pull i think we might get closer to the decision of get rid of ntsa. repeal the vehicle safety act. i don't think that's going to happen. so short of avoiding ntsa what can we do to promote automated vehicle automation and uptake by consumers? of the motivation is pretty simple. if the vehicles are in fact safer and i think we all think they will become any result in unnecessary cost or delay will result in additional damage, njury and death. so death by regulation is really something to be concerned about. and i know for a fact that there are people within the federal policymaking world are cognizant of this fact. so what i think ntsa should do is focus on the existing federal regulatory barriers that may limit technological innovation in our automated world. an example which you would have to earlier was this petition from tesla motors to ntsa re: dns 111 or the mirror rule and they were seeking to comply with the requirements for cameras rather than the mirrors. even if tesla were to replace all of the mirrors viewing functions with cameras they would still be required to install the mirrors and i think that this is an early example and this wasn't automation specific, they just want the option to comply with mirrors, but i think we are going to run into a lot more of these going forward as the automated vehicles get more and more dvanced. i think you will see why in a second. so i'm going to use washington, d.c. we're all here, as the case study. 2012 this bill was introduced. the original bill from councilmember chang included provisions required autonomous vehicles be powered by fuels. imposed a tax on all autonomous feel. council member che got a ride in one of google's outfitted toyota priuses. he realized if all the automated vehicles powered by alternative fuels they will not pay the fuel tax. we have to tax them. there is a logic there. i don't feel it's a very good logic. this third provision mandating a licensed driver be in the drivers seat during autonomous operation, the first two provisions were removed before final passage, that driver in the seat remained. n the 2014 proposed rules from d.c., you notice they seem to require a operator have a special d.c. driver's license endorsement. the implication there is the district is calling for, is calling for that all test drivers within d.c. be d.c. residents and have a driver's licensed issued by the district of columbia. given that we live in metropolitan area where most people live outside of the district of columbia, even from a regional perspective that seems to be restricting your potential test driver pool unnecessarily. so i think that's a sort of a ridiculous requirement and hopefully the final rules won't reflect that. but, you know, beating up on d.c. is easy. california and michigan also have these drivers seat equirements. so, california, i will focus on hem now. socal fornash, there is another place they rolled out their manufactured testing rules. earlier this year, they imposed drivers seat rule. as randal showed you video of the latest prototype. google has developed this sort of pod car, low-speed vehicle, and they want to take out the steering wheel and pedals and have this be fully automated. the operator will have no ability to retake or take manuel control at any point. but, state testing and federal low-speed vehicle rules require installation of a steering wheel. all this stuff, they don't want, so what we have here is an example of a regulator romulgating a rule forcing innovator to take a step ack. so it is already happened that e're having negative impacts from regulation of autonomous vehicles. this is really unfortunate. i don't think it was intentional. but goes to show, you know how, which roads good intentions can pave. so the vehicle to vehicle communications mandate that randal mentioned, nhtsa issued a advanced notice of proposed rule making in august and what they want to do, they want to develop a final rule by the end of the decade that will require all new highway vehicles enabled with dedicated short-range communications ehicle-to-vehicle technology and this mandate wouldn't be requiring that all cars have the little yellow circles around them. what the.image is trying to illustrate, they will be took -- talking to each other. they wouldn't be reliant on-board sensors for instance in finding hazards. this is not for automation. they're talking about warning drivers of hazards. so, imagine, there is a car a few car lengths ahead of you, lams on his brake. so there are some problems with the mandate. they will communicate with each other. i'm just saying this is only going to cost a few hundred dollars. the looking at 25,000 in sticker price. so we expect that to take at least 10 years if we pro side as ntsa appears to want to do now. the battle for steck trum is like he's been blocked off since 1999. the proponents obviously want to keep it locked off for transportation forces only. but there are forces out there amely nose who make portable lectronic devices. it ignores technologies. nokia announced that he has eveloped an advance form of l. g.t. you'll will able to use technology. cell phones much more easily. we have an infrastructure out there. and we get out of a more hat would require with the oadside boxes. there's a good chance that this is all obsolete. in the con tox of automation is bad but ntsa are talking about hazard warnings. we have no responsibility to take control of that issue at any point. what good is -- >> the answer is and this proceedings, you know, it's op. an industry is very interested in these. very concerned. as far as an automation specific cyber security potential problem. well, if you have automations based on sensored and how would a system that doesn't involve automatic car. if at all. that's why i think for fully andates -- will be forced to install this technology the vehicles. that gets back to ununderstandly delaying the role. asked e away for the and him. she aid we should be really skeptable. that automakers would nevada consider you stolling voluntary. they're collaborating on standards. i'm going to end with public policy principles. i think our sound principles are by recognizing the huge benefits. randle didn't mention these tradition, the disabled. elderly and youth. we should reject the precautionary tellingnology. need tomean and say you prove this is safe. i think -- i don't think null of until there's some demonstrated sift level we're out of a good way to keep you out of the hands of normal people. people n't presume to work. the only things we really know about this. s. and the law we don't have any court cases yet. we don't know how this is going -- do we need legislative intervention to update our liable laws things in like that n we don't know. asshould keep the regulators far away as possible. we and then finally once we get to the state where we're talking about updating moytor vehicle codes to reflect this new automatic work. if it comes to that. that preserve ss knew trackity. they are ready for a consumer ready vehicle come into market and regulators say we're done. i think it's a terrible idea to mandate technology. regulators may believe that this will enable to get generations to one texts more rapidly. with that i am finished and i look forward to any question. thank you very much. are thank you, mark. eaker is a fellow at the mccadea center in milwaukee. media.ializes in "the washington post," the atlantic adam has audited this issue. his latest book is "permissionless innovation." if you're a g at cato and a senior fell oh at the . at the end of the day. they have put a political hole indiana university. >> great to be back here at cato. i want to say it was a pleasure to follow randle and pasm. so i should mention that my remarks are going to be focused and security of driverless cars. you can download it from the website. thinking about privacy in smart cars or, we need to understand that security an privacy are relative concepts with more. not everyone has the same value on security and privacy. some people are hyper sensitive about their sensity. others are risk taxers, and you're more pragmatic about your privacy. sometimes we do think that they're differently. this is called the privacy paradox. to ity and norms tend involve at the time. we tend to often panic at first especially. but then we very quickly move to a new plateau. we accomplish new ethical and legal baselines about new technology. i've written about this in several articles in my new book. there's essentially as i escribe it in that new work. initial resistance. and hen an assimilation of this is true for the new cars and it will be true for the cars that are evolving today. it's especially all that as it pretains to security good point. for almost perceived security concern or arm, this is a course bonding benefit that sometimes you ways those proceed harms or fear. >> we see this on the internet. we will see you at work with the technology. they will have pollnologies. ith the various tripes that. the reality is is that these technologies the ones that we carry in our poict the ones we have on our cars. re capable of tracking us. we now know in realtime what traffic looks like now just because of the carpet but you can see it for a man. we were all connected and we were all being trapped. so again we have to be clear that every boogie man is a big awful thing -- it has a course benefit that we have take into account before we address it. as it pertained to private drama. they're probably not going to be like, be the same tomorrow. so today's intelligent vehicle that'sely to be more and cause of player like are recording his the and as we were doing. this races a vary of questions such as can it be used for drl? could it be used to luggages? by driving too fast. these things are certainly ossible today. that may be -- jerry: associated by the vehicles who were bought to that. what happens as we make this . ansition to fully awe on the the cars were a left that we own. what happens when we combine the a part in the future may look like some sord of -- they're wachewathing out on our forest. nerls in that environment, it's pry vas cities are different of we can still be trapped. but not us manualing. that's something to take into account. fifth point. to security and must be able accommodate the many different types of views an values that people have as it pertains to silver pla e are no liens. because and it will be very fficult for law to keep pace but just rapid elevation. . this is why we need a flexibility layers approach to . dressing we need to borrow simple rule. you need to enjors the sprips like that. for that, i want to highly reck mies new people. he talks about the evolution of there's no reason it should top there. they will have involving president's sbiblet. they've been highly adam active. it will be quite the case talking to the technology as it ompletely agree with that. again, as we move from our vehicles being final goods to services. because this will change what onomists call the least come we gave them in that situation. the person who can take action to avoid potential types of harms whether they would be safety ratered or. but what happens when you no longer own your car. it could be that the knowledge and the spobbletsbility are use from other. this is again the least shirt. we should bnt surprised to sele gallon norms come to reflect that over time. if we allow her to be spontaneous. especially as they come to under fire time aways to list. the idea of throwing in those best practices are availability it. this could include things like data correction minute maization. not allowing certain cam because for being on. no, i mean, how do you use in the future. if its being used they be it is with other pears. this is about how to use these ings appropriately if things and clear consent for any type of new years. as they are involving and more innovation is occurring. the technology right now, we're talking about very proprietary things. the only thing we really know about this is generally the kind of the press releases we get from industry currently eveloping in this. after all these values are important for a lot of people. the law, we don't have any, there are no court cases yet. we don't know how this is going. do we need legislative intervention to update our liability laws, things like hat? we don't know. there are certainly possibility that common law liability can evolve without any sort of intervention. and then, i think you know, to better address the evolving cases in controversy in in field. we probably are better served by having a wait and see strategy there. as mark and randall already noted we're probably better served by a wait-and-see strategy, that avoids the cautionary based principle as marc discussed and we should default be. this is plug for the book. comprehensive of technological freedom which argue tore search for driverless cars and many others the benefit of the doubt should be given to those innovating and to innovation more generally. ngoing experimentation and trial and error will permit to us find new and better ways of doing things, new and better ways of being safer, more secure and even potentially finding ore private system we can't be living in fear of short-term worst case scenarios or long erm best case scenarios will ever come about. so, one final point i want to make. about privacy and security, especially private sir, special consideration needs to be paid o the role that government plays in this regard. government actions can affect user privacy obviously in a very profound way whereas many of the privacy and security concerns regarding private sector data collection with regards to intelligent vehicle technology are problematic and obviously deserve some discussion, governmental data collection and use raising an entirely different level of concern and set of issues. private entities most obviously can not fine or tax you or imprison you, since they lack sort of powers governments ave. moreover impossible to ignore or refuse to be part of certain types of technologies including driverless technologies. you don't want them, you don't have to use them, the same is not true of governments who obviously their grasp can not be vaded. so special protections are needed for law enforcement agencies and officials as it pertains to these technologies. when government seeks access to privately-held data collected from these technologies, strong constitutional and statutory protections should apply. we need stronger fourth amendment constraints and specifically courts are going to need to consider revisiting so-called third party doctrine holds individual sacrifices his or her fourth amendment interest for personal information when they share information to third party even if that party promised to safeguard that data. that is very problematic. obviously what we want as a world where many intelligent vehicle companies are competing on security and privacy an maybe some offering more privacy sensitive better than protection than even industry norms or best practices. again industry is already moving in this direction. e had a recent gao report last year, surveyed 10 makers of these technologies. they found they were taking steps to address these things in various degrees. more could be done and more is being done especially with the liability question looming large. but when the government comes in and says we must have access to everything, we need back doors into all these systems. we're having this debate right now with our smartphones, right? apple and google start using better encryption on the smartphones, a lot of people in government are saying no, you can't do that. meanwhile people are clamoring for more better security on the smartphones that is the exact same debate that will unfold for driverless cars and intelligent vehicle technology in the short term. we should make sure our government doesn't do anything to impede that process and allow innovation to go forward. thank you very much. >> thank you, adam. thanks to all of our speakers. we are now going to enter the q&a part of the event. a few notes before we begin. please wait to be called on before you start speaking. wait for the microphone. we have a few interns here to help out. and before your question, please announce your name and your affiliation. and can you please make your question a question. this is question and answer session. if you would like to directed to one of the speakers, make it clear. i will begin with the gentleman in the back. is the microphone on? perhaps. i have my own company which works in freight. i am here thinking about a world where there is transportation research. for the last speaker, you talked about privacy. i am involved in freight. i'm wondering where in freight or commodity freight, where do trade secrets fall in with the privacy because you can envision shippers who don't want other folks to know what their trade patterns are or customers. i was hoping you can talk about that. >> that is a wonderful question. i think i have to research that now. i'm always careful to wade into the waters of intellectual property. i would hope that again through ongoing experimentation that companies find ways to predict those. it may be difficult. having fleets of freight vehicles that are robotically host of raises a whole security questions about who has access to that data and information. that is part of the spectrum upon companies will be competing. offering great security to make sure those trade secrets do not go doubt -- get out. they've a test track for the new mercedes autonomous vehicle. future,he things in the the benefits that he sees is that these vehicles could benefit the county -- they could potholes andtect immediately transmit the data back to the transportation authority. it would be a fleet of vehicles that would be communicating information in real-time so they can maintain the transportation system better. is yourondered what view of that and the cost also of transmitting all of this data back to a county transportation authority? >> i don't see anything wrong. if he wants to get that information for him to design an people upload it and can volunteer to download it. if they are driving on a road that is unusually bumpy, apple transmits the information to the road authority that there is serious problems with the road. there is a reason why it has to be mandated or it has to be applicable only to driverless vehicles. >> i agree with that. but, going from there, i think it is really valuable in the context of on amid vehicles to have our roads in very good condition, particularly if they are only sensor-based. these are not things -- vehicles presumably initially will not be communicating a lot of data between each other, certainly not with infrastructure. that would be great. i don't think a mandate is needed but certainly, yeah, that is a good use of that technology. >> i saw this gentleman tends up earlier -- hand up earlier. >> i'm interested in the time frames for this. o'toole putrandal up a slide that shows the different types of intelligence a car could have. i am interested in the advanced one, type three and four. you have cars that can park themselves now and that is fascinating. when you saw putting dogs in the car and they take themselves to the veterinarian, that raises issues. seems to me that it be quite a few years before you start , outside ofin any california is what i am thinking. what sort of timeframe do you think those type three or four will be? how long do we have to get this? >> it depends on who you ask. certain automakers are saying -- toyota is saying we will not focus on this at all. then you have companies -- google is still saying 2017 presumably level three or level four. that is a goal they are still sticking to. nissan is saying 2020. continental is also saying 2025. so, it could be sooner rather than later. it really does -- we don't necessarily need a special regulation for this but it just goes to show the regulators are going to be well behind the technology developing assuming these optimistic industry forecasts are true. >> about 200 experts in the field were surveyed on this question in a conference last summer. that then answer was google driverless cars, the car that has a steering will but the car can take over pretty much completely will be available by 2020. the pod car that does not have a steering wheel or anyway way the driver controlling it other than start and stop will be available by 2030. i would go further and say by talking will start about human driven cars because they are too dangerous. >> quickly, think there is an important distinction to be made between highway and non-highway vehicles. certain things that are happening, mainly city mobile two where they are focusing on the slow speed, geographically restricted, almost paratransit kind of vehicles. those you can perhaps see earlier deployed in college campuses, retirement communities. places like that were you don't need to meet these stringent guidelines. there was a potential for that, too happening before the actual highway vehicles. >> this gentleman in the front. >> thank you. was wondering about insurance implications, especially during the transition period amidst automated and manual vehicles. are there any insights? >> insurance companies are some of the biggest backers of self driving cars because they figure it will significantly reduce problems and accidents. one concept i have heard is that instead of when you buy a driverless car comments that of buying in insurance policy for the car, the auto company will buy the insurance policy and that would just be included in the price of your car. if there is any liability involved, the auto company will have its own insurance to deal with it. it won't have to deal with extended losses and so forth. >> waty in the back, please. >> hi. question. the issue what was the russian monitoring stations was squashed last december. if people in foreign government had access to the navigation and you had the driverless cars in companies like nissan which owns putin's car company, theoretically they could drive a scientist off a cliff. when we start thinking about the technology and security, we don't have the monitoring stations which the russians have access to. -- any concerns or comments? about driverless car technology being hacked is very much evident. there have been demonstrations in real-time about how attacks can be perpetrated. it is not something we should take likely or something we should live in complete fear of. we need to find solutions to these problems. we need to figure out how to make the systems as secure as possible so that sort of hacking for whatever reason is avoided whenever possible. we have to do this relative to the historical baseline we are operating on. a world where many people are dying behind the wheel because of human error. will there be hacking that potentially result in someone resulting in an accident or death? potentially, yes. we have to understand that in that world with more intelligent vehicle technology, maybe we have tens of thousands of people being saved with that potential of it being hacked at the same time. we are going to have to make that balance. but i that sounds crude, think we have to take it at a historical baseline. >> one of the reasons why i oppose a vehicle to vehicle communication is that a mandatory system is going to be a lot easier to hack and it will be a lot harder to defend against because the government that mandated the system probably not be as motivated to defend whereas if you have a competitive system out there with different companies each offering their own software packages and other people offering apps and so on and so forth, they are all going to have a competitive reason to keep their systems from being hacked. italy harder for a hacker to attack, to have a widespread attack. particularack one app or software system, but you cannot attack everybody's at the same time. >> this gentleman on the left. >> good afternoon. i am a freelance journalist. i often think of the movie that was popular some time ago called "im,, robot." to technologies may relate what you have interest in that was promoted in this movie. i was wondering are the americans most likely to debut this type of driverless car or is it more likely that south koreans would be likely to debut it because often they seem to be ahead of us when it comes to mobile phone technology. they are using items we don't necessarily use it just yet. it often turns out to be the test ground for technology. are they ahead of us? >> at think the united states is actually uniquely positioned to be one of the first places to have these available -- in widespread testing which we are seeing in public roads -- but also availability. one reason is we are not party to being a road convention which has some definitions that may restrict some certain tests and operations in other countries. most countries are party to that. that is actually really interesting. there working on -- they are working on updating the convention to allow for more availability in the future but it has bruising -- it has proven to be a problem. this is being led by a number of german auto manufacturers right now and they are very aware of this. i think the u.s. is a pretty good position right now. "minority have the report" into the next question and you get extra points. the gentleman in the middle. >> it is a great movie so there is that. good to see you. analysts. tax my colleagues work and drive motorcycles. i'm wondering how motorcycles would fit into that future? >> i thought about including a motorcycle video in my show andrew from google developed a driverless motorcycle. it is like a segway. it balances itself. they can fit in just fine. that was his first entry went darpa was running one of the grand challenges. >> he tells the story about how they are ready to go and he messes something up at the last minute and it folds over. it like -- you can look the genesis of the self driving car. >> gentleman on the right, please. >> i have two questions. this is a very appropriate day to have this panel because this is the birthday of elwood haynes, one of the early pioneers of the automobile whose first gas powered automobile is in the smithsonian. he also was the first to get involved in an automobile accident. i would ask the panel to talk a little bit more about how they see the common-law personal injury evolving with self driving cars. my second question is if in fact people who have time while they are commuting to read and to do work and to watch movies are going to be interested in commuting longer, why hasn't that already happening because people already have that opportunity? those are my two questions. the evolution of personal injury law and why we haven't seen it increase in commuting time already. say something briefly on the first one. i mentioned that the evolution of products. there will be very interesting controversies involving the hybrid zippered -- situations where someone in the vehicle that is fully a taunus and may be insured by the provider is in an accident with someone driving me.ld muscle car like that dumb bag of flesh and bones behind it and i have insurance myself. it will take time. we have a very litigious society. a very good question as to lead toit will al innovators being sued early on and destroying this technology. that does concern me greatly. i don't know what we should do to stop that outside of changing the pay law. good luck with that. the reality is i am pretty confident that personal injury law will work itself out over time and it will be a lot fewer personal injuries. >> one thing is that unlike an ignition problem or something like that or a sticky accelerator pedal, the driverless car records everything that is happening around them every time. if they're involved in an accident, they will have a 360 degree recording of what happened prior to the accident. it will be fairly easy determine who was at fault. in the manufacture of a driverless car is at fault, they and updatep i their software. if they are not, it will be fairly easy to prove it. that will take care of this liability problems. >> i will agree with both adam and randal. i think we should let the law evolve. we will deal with any of these potential problems when they arise. taking adams example a step further would be what happens if you are in a ntsa level three automated vehicle and you collide with a ntsa level four. how do you start breaking that out and assigning liability to various parties? it is something i think the courts will hopefully be role prepared -- well prepared to do with. that is the option we have as opposed to regulation and crystal ball kind of statutory changes. you can do a lot more harm doing that as opposed to just waiting and seeing. >> i always forget the second question when people ask two questions. >> driverless cars will encourage motorists to commute more? why is it not already happening? >> people who commute by transit more thant twice commuting than car. that is already happening. >> the question from the front. >> my name is gabriel. thank you for a very interesting presentation. that every self driving car has to know where it is at any time. -- it necessary for others to know where the car is? in other words, do self driving which is to be tracked what i think i understood was said. >> i am not sure i understand the question. they are going to be connected. there are ways they will be tracked in that sense that may be mark or randal? the way the current manufacturers vision this -- they want to focus on developing sensor technology. there will be a gps receiver so the car will know what it is where -- where it is. in terms of it being tracked, i don't think -- you will be able to pull up a screen and know where the other cars are. a self driving car will know where another car is but i don't think it will necessarily know where another self driving car is. i don't think that is necessary. theracking is not part of technology that is being developed by any company i know about. >> question at the back. >> my name is kathleen. i am from the university of virginia law school. i had a question about the accident avoidance our rhythms ithms and if there is any indication from any company about the indication from this? is a good and be any -- is a going to be every car for itself? is it going to be reduce energy -- injury from both cars if they are communicating? >> and that is a great question as somebody who studied philosophy in the old days. the so-called trolley problem comes up. two trolleys heading at each other in an unavoidable collision and what do you do? debates life-and-death going on right now and how to great more ethical algorithms. do you have them hit each other? do have one go off a bridge and hit kids? these are hard questions. we come upover time, with better and better answers to avoid that. he was what i would say, no matter how corny those ethical dilemmas are, i am fairly confident those intelligent vehicle technologies will help us avoid more deaths than when the dead flesh and bag humans are behind the wheel doing it. theill probably make worst decisions. bullish.in, fairly i can tell you this has resulted in some very heated debates if you look at recent debates. questions.gitimate there was a whole volume out there called robotic ethics where these questions are debated. >> i agree with adam. i think the main problem we have right now is we have people driving cars. whether or not -- they are the ones who were causing accidents. not to say we should take it away from them, but this technology is being engineered to be very cautious. if they get into a very complex situation, chances are they would pull over and stop by the time they get to that point. they are trying to avoid getting to these questions, these ethical dilemmas. as you said, it is a really interesting question. in the future, that is something developers were work on -- will work on. >> a question from the gentleman on the left. >> this is a little different here. i'm a regular cycler. realize the advantage the asynchronous nature. most of us don't know about traffic lights and signs. my question is for something like an autonomous motorcycle, i don't see this for a vehicle, is there any likelihood they would have more flexible rules in the sense of you definitely can get places a lot quicker if you are allowed to drive between cars. i am trying to take this 10 years beyond after it has been introduced. -- anye a chance because time during rush hour, you can go by bicycle anywhere near the white house and get one and to the other in no time. vehicle as opposed to the president that can go anywhere in less than a half hour. >> lane splitting is currently illegal everywhere. in california you can with a motorcycle. when it comes to it at taunus motorcycle, it is taking the fun out of it all. i don't seeing that being a huge market. that is an interesting question. may be at people want that, you can think about legalizing lane splitting going between cars. i guess. >> i can see in the long run that things like stop signs and possibly even traffic lights, speed limits, things like that are going to be redundant. the car will look and see what kind of road it is on, figure out the travel speed for itself and the need to have a law defining that say travel speed is not going to be there anymore. that is going to be an evolutionary thing. -- we areld say basically approaching 100% automated fleet. >> of the question here please -- the question here, please. >> you touched on this a second ago. if i wanted to drive and a big hurry -- other companies making options in the car where i can go faster? also, the implications for municipal revenue where police get a lot of revenue from tickets. this will be a big problem, right? there is a sharp reduction if everybody is driving the speed limit or no mechanism where the police can get money. ll over a car with dogs in it, what happens? >> there are cities that depend on the revenue. that is something they have to do with. they have to figure out an alternative source of revenue. somebody at a conference said 90% -- i looked at about 70% of organ transplant come from auto accidents. so, should we ban driverless cars? we can have a supply of organ transplantations. we have the figure out other solutions to that. >> one thing i should mention that i did not mention earlier is that we cannot have this conversation in terms of talk about vehicles. we have the thing about other technologies that can satisfy a lot of that a man's have today that we use vehicles for. a lot of the things we spent a few minutes grabbing in a car each day whether they be groceries, there is a question in the future -- good things we delivered via flying robots? that might undermine the need to have more time in a car. autonomous vehicle or not. a lot of reasons why children would use the car for today. they can just be dropped off with a drone. we don't know what kind of butterfly a fa this -- effects has because of these technologies. >> we have five minutes. unless there is one question in the middle. thank you. >> my question is with a drone technology one of the biggest impediments is avoiding technology. i feel like

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Nevada , Germany , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Florida , Boston , Massachusetts , California , Virginia , Manhattan , Russia , Michigan , Washington , District Of Columbia , Denver , Colorado , San Francisco , Israel , Orlando , South Korea , France , Italy , Chicago , Illinois , Americans , America , French , South Koreans , German , Russians , American , Elwood Haynes , Councilmember Chang , Atlantic Adam , David Brown ,