really more prevalent in the news cycle. this is my concern. like joni ernst, for example, that woman is a patriot, okay? she's smart, she's a patriot, and she's got guts, all right? and she's totally honest, and i just don't understand why she doesn't get more support. i believe she's going to win that election, i sincerely hope so. but god almighty, smarten up. [laughter] >> host: okay. >> guest: yeah. we, we actually support as candidates both men and women, and as long as they share all values and the values of most americans, which is to make reproductive health care accessible, keep decision making with women, families and our doctors, they've got our support. .. thank you for talking to viewers. go to

for a discussion about self driving cars and how they might affect the u.s. transportation system and to some of the implications for public policy. this is going to be moderated by matthew at policy analyst for the cato institute. it should be starting life shortly as participants take the stage.

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [background sounds]

[background sounds]

>> good afternoon everyone welcome to the cato institute my name is matthew feeney jaime policy analyst here. i'm very excited to welcome you all here for 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 author 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. they are not connected to a central computer telling them what 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 especially 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 time. 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 transportation 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. i 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. so 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 cost. 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 kerry 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. right now only about four and a half% of workers live in households without cars and most of them don't take transit to work. 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 the 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 fuel-efficient cars such as a prisu. 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. the second dentist is the chicago loop where there's 500,000 jobs and about half of them take transit to work. again 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 work. 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. however, 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 take 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 future. so basically outside of the five or six cities i don't see transit as being a viable alternative to the self driving cars in the future. i see car sharing and self driving cars is almost completely replacing transit everywhere 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. for 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 building 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 is 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. not a single regional transportation 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 technology. what should they be doing instead? i argue that they should do is focus on down infrastructure. what do we mean by dumb infrastructure? 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. so 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 communications infrastructure that doesn't contain the intelligence needed to do what you want it to do on the internet. 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 problems. 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 at all. build and maintain the dumb infrastructure and i don't know why you didn't show the the last places (-left-parenthesis 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 post" 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 here. i am going to talk about some of the issues that we have coming up and i am not going to -- 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 and then i will close with some principles for the sound public policy. a recent automation specific they 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 them. at the federal level we haven't seen any specific regulations yet. they did issue a statement of policy 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 second. 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

already 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 ntsa. 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 behavior. 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 deaths 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 ignoring. 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, injury 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 advanced. ..

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. she 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. in 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 requirements. so, california, i will focus on them 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 promulgating a rule forcing innovator to take a step back. so it is already happened that we'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 vehicle-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, slams on his brake. this would send data back to your car and tell you, hey, some guy slammed on the brake ahead of you. take whatever action the car will tell to you take. remains to be see how effective that would be or how drivers

would respond to that in real world settings. so tre is some problems with the v-to-v src mandate. opponents argue it is low cost. they imagine all the new vehicles that will have v-to-v boxes in the car. others say this will cost a few hundred dollars. what is the big deal. new cost of a vehicle is $25,000. this isn't a big increase in the sticker price. the problem is the benefits are likely to be very low particularly in the short run. these things, at earliest we're expecting mandate by 2020. it will take at least 10 years before you have significant market penetration for the auto fleet to turn over. that this is going to do any good for anyone. i think you need about 70% of vehicles enabled for you encountering one on the road to be greater than chance. we expect that to take at least 10 years. if we proceed as nhtsa appears

to want to do right now. the battle for spectrum and dsrc, the dsrc has 75 megahertz been blocked off since 1999. the proponents obviously want to keep it blocked off for transportation purposes only but there are forces out there, namely those who make consumer, portable electronic devices, that are wi-fi enabled would love to have access to the spectrum the there has been a battle going on at the fcc that hasn't been resolved yet over the spectrum. i think that reason alone i think it makes it premature for nhtsa to dive into this but they thought otherwise. dsrc ignores competing and obviously superior technologies. nokia earlier this year announced it developed a advanced form of lte, that would perform the same vehicle to vehicle communications functions

you would be able to use things like technology and cell phones much more easily. we already have an lte network infrastructure out there. when we get into more precise vehicle to infrastructure, kind of applications, that would require, if we're dealing with dsrc installing a lot of roadside boxes. we frankly don't have money for that. nhtsa so far ignored some of these purer technologies. there is good chance this is already obsolete. if we're talking 2030, 2035 that you know what good is, at least the way nhtsa is imagining this, this isn't to say vehicle to vehicle or vehicle to infrastructure communication in the context of automation is bad but nhtsa isn't talking about automation. they're talking about hazard warnings. so if you have a fully, a self-driving vehicle we have no responsibility to take control of the vehicle at any point, perhaps not even ability, what good is warning lights or

audible alert going to do for you? the answer is not much. there is unanswered cybersecurity and liability questions. this proceeding is just opened and industry is very interested in these, very concerned. as far as automation specific cybersecurity potential problem, well, if you have automation based on sensors and onboard computers, how would a v. to v -- mandated v-to-v system, doesn't involve automation but on the board the car how would those systems interact, if at all. that's why i think the best case for fully automated vehicles under this v-to-v mandate as it is currently conceived that auto-makers will be forced to install completely useless technology in autonomous vehicles. that might not be bad but certainly increase the price and that gets bad unnecessarily delaying the rollout to consumers. i think the takeaway for v-to-v

and dsrc is how nhtsa currently envisions it, we should be skeptical that those claiming that v-to-v is so valuable that automakers would never consider it installing it voluntarily. there may be problems with industry collaborating on standards. perhaps those should be addressed directly, rather than forcing a mandate down everyone's throat. so i will end with some sound, automated vehicle public policy principles, at least what i think are sound principles. i always think we should start with recognizing and promoting huge potential benefits. i talk ad lot about safety. but rand mentioned, traditionally disadvantaged populations, disabled, elderly and youth that don't have access to personal mobility that many of us take for granted. we should reject cautionary principle. because we don't have new data

doesn't mean she should shift burden to innovators you need to prove this is he safe, some agreed upon level of safety before we get these to consumers. i don't think any auto manufacturer will release these to the consumer market until there is some demonstrated safety level but going down precautionary route is good way to keep them out of hands of normal people. we shouldn't presume to know how the technology and law will evolve. 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 developing in this. 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 that? 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,

number four logically follows. we should always seek to minimize legislative and regulatory intervention. regulators are slow. however well-intentioned. this is moving pretty quickly. we should, we should let innovators innovate and keep regulators as far away from these things as possible, doing, maybe some very minor things around the edges but shouldn't be involved in the, sort of developing the technology, or deploying technology. and then finally, once we get to the state where we're talking about, you know, updating motor vehicle codes to reflect this new automated world and really doing some serious legislating if it comes to that we should focus on developing clear and simple rules that preserve technology neutrality and i see a big risk of the first movers or the first company that ends up with a consumer-ready vehicle coming to market and then regulators saying, well, we're done. this is the technology we're going to mandate. i think it is a terrible idea to

mandate technology in generation one despite the fact that regulators may believe that this will enable it to get generation one tech out to consumers more rapidly. so with that i am finished and i look forward to any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. marc. next speaker adam fear with the senior reserve fellow at the george mason university. he specializes in technology, media, internet and free speech policies. his writings have appeared in the "wall street journal," the economist, "the washington post" "the atlantic" and forbes. adam authored or edited eight books to the role of federalism in high technology markets. his next book is the continuing haste for comprehensive technological innovation. before working there he was

president of progress and freedom foundation and director of telecommunications studies here at cato. he got masters in intermax business managements and trade theory in the university of maryland and bachelors in journalism and political philosophy from indiana university. adam. >> thanks, matthew. great to be back here at cato. always a pleasure. i want to say it was a pleasure to follow randall and marc. i commend them to all of you. my remarks will be focused on privacy and security implications of intelligent security technologies and driverless cars. i have a new paper out from the mercatus center at george mason university. it is out front or you can download it from the mercatus website. to think about smart cars or driverless cars we need to understand that acknowledge that

security h security and privacy are relative concepts with very amorphous bondaries. not everyone affixes the same value on security or privacy. it's a very subjective notion and concept. some people are hype every cautious and hypersensitive about their privacy. others are risk-takers just somewhat indifferent and more pragmatic about their private sift we all say we love our privacy but sometimes we do things actually in the real world to act differently this is called so-called privacy parastocks. secondly we should understand that security and privacy norms tend to evolve over time and do so very rapidly. with any new highly disruptive technology such as intelligent vehicle technology we tend to often panic at first especially the privacy implications of new technologies such as these but we very quickly move to a new plateau. we establish new ethical and baselines about technologies fairly rapidly.

i have written about this in several recent law review articles and my new book. as i describe in the book a familiar cycle at work initial resistance to technology, gradual adaptation and eventual a simulation of technology into our lives not without heartburn along the way of course. this was just as true for the first cars that came over a century ago and will be true for the new smart car technologies that are evolving today but it is especially true these norms evolve as it pertains to privacy and security precisely because they're so subjective and relevant. >> third point, for almost every perceived privacy or security concern or harm, there is a corresponding consumer benefit that sometimes balances those out or even outweighs those perceived harms or fears. we see this reality at work with the broader internet and with digital technologies. we will it at work with intelligent vehicle technologies as well. so, consider this comparison. compare today's vehicle telemat ticks and intelligent

technologies aboard our cars with various tracking technologies on board a smartphone that all of you are carrying with you right now. the reality, these technologies, the ones we carry in our pockets and our cars and already have in our cars today are capable of tracking us. that sounds sinister. but tracking creates enormous benefits as well. we know in real-time, what traffic looks like when we're in our cars. not just because of technology in our cars. of course we can see it on a map. in real time that happens because we are all connected an all being tracked. so again, we have to be clear that not every theoretical bogeyman is a big, bad, awful thing to be exposed with. this is a benefit we have to take into account before we address it. fourth point, as it pertains to intelligent vehicle technologies today's privacy and security concerns are not the same as yesterday's and probably not going to be likely the same

tomorrow. so today's intelligent vehicle technologies, privacy issues are likely to be somewhat more pressing i would argue than tomorrow's in fact. because things like event data recorders and telematics are recording things as we are doing them with our hands on the wheel. this raises a variety of interesting questions such as can that information be used for automobile insurance purposes? it already is today on voluntary purposes. can it be used for law enforcement purposes by driving erratically or too fast? these things are obvious. they raise obvious privacy consideration. that there may be concerns about discrimination about data collected by our vehicles but it is worth asking this question. what happens as we make this transition to fully autonomous vehicles? and what happens when our cars are less of a final good than we own and more like a service that we just use or rent on occasion? what happens when we combine the power of today's sharing economy with the power of self-driving

technologies? the car of the future may look like some sort after robotic chauffeur as randall described with hybrid of uber and zipcar. we dial them up on the cell phones as we need them. privacy considerations are very different than they are today. clearly we can be tracked, activities be tracked but not us personally manually operating that vehicle so it's a different type of consideration. that is something to take into account. fifth point and this is the most important point i will make here today, any security and privacy solutions must take into accounts these sorts of considerations that i just outlined, and must be able to accommodate the many different types of views and values people have to as it pertains to privacy and security. i write a lot in my recent book, on recent innovation, there are no silver bullet solutions to concerns about safety, security and private system it will be very difficult for law to keep

pace with not just, rapid innovation in this space but the rapid evolution of consumers individual tastes and values. why we need a flexible layered approach to flexible security and privacy concerns. we need to borrow a phrase from richard epseen chicago, simple rules for a complex world. contracts to enforce existing terms of service. we need common law and torts einvolve. i want to recommend a wonderful paper from john senior at the brookings institution where he talks about the evolution of privately saw historically and we should not expect it to stop there. he says often confronted with new complex questions with product liabilities courts gotten things right. products liability have been adaptive to many new technologies that emerged in recent decades and will be quite adaptive to emerging autonomous

technologies as the need arises. i completely agree with that. will be interesting to see how the liability and insurance standards again as we move from our vehicles movemoving from final goods and services. what what they call least cost avoid err in these situations. you as driver of the vehicle in these situations are least cost avoider to avoid potential harms or safety related or otherwise. maybe privacy and security related. what happens when you no longer own your vehicle. what happens when your vehicle and people who created it no more information about that vehicle an how you use it than you do? could be locust of knowledge and therefore responsibility and liability moves from you to them. they already know this they're already thinking this. this is least cost avoider principle from the field of law and economics. we shouldn't be surprised to see legal norms to reflect that over time if we allow common law to evolve spontaneously.

in the process there are steps of manufacturers of intelligent vehicle technologies to alleviate a lot of problems and headaches themselves especially as they come to deal with more liability potentially and this leads to a lot of proposals for so-called privacy by design or security by design. the idea of baking in best practices regarding data security, data collection or data availability in systems as you manufacture them. this could include things like data collection or minimization or limitations. basically not allowing third parties to access certain types of data being collected about you or how you're operating your vehicle today or how it is used in future. could include best practices regarding better transparency how your data is being used if being shared by other parties. potentially clear use practices how to use these things appropriately, with better information or empowerment or education of the users. and clear content for any types of new uses or iterations of technologies as they are

evolving and more innovation is occurring. you might want to take a look at wonderful work that the future of privacy forum is doing in this regard, coming up with best practices for intelligent vehicle providers this is ongoing process. there is no end point in this process. these standards and best practices evolve not every couple years but every couple months. there is always new technology that is collecting even more data that raises still another privacy or security concern. so there is a query here we might have. we might say, okay, this is all fine and well, but shouldn't there be minimum legal standards? shouldn't there be federal or state regulation regarding privacy or security? these values are important to a lot of people. for all the reasons i have already stated, we know especially in light of what randall and marc presented these technologies are fast-moving target. this is very, very hard for me to imagine that any law we put in place today will be applicable to whatever is 18

months down the road. you need the flexible, ongoing, evolutionary approach of voluntary best practices along with the evolution of common law to probably better address the evolving cases and controversies that develop in this field. 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. ongoing 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 more private system we can't be living in fear of short-term

worst case scenarios or long term best case scenarios will never come about. so, one final point i want to make. about privacy and security, especially private sir, special consideration needs to be paid to 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 have. 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 evaded. 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. we 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. not the statement and answer question. if you would like it directed at one of the speakers please make it clear who you would like to answer. i begin with the gentleman at the back. is the microphone on? >> perhaps. >> thank you. >> mark carr. i have my own company, channel design group which works in plate. -- freight. i'm thinking here about the role i play in transportation research. and, for the last speaker, you talked about privacy and all. i'm involved in freight and i'm wondering where on, in freight and whether that is things that come to our homes or whether that is commodity freight going back and forth between ports, where do trade secrets fall in with the privacy?

because you can envision shippers who don't want other folks to know what tear trade pattern is or who their customers and such are. hoping you could talk about that for a second. >> that is wonderful question. i have not spent a lot of time researching it. i think i will have to now. i'm careful to weigh into the waters of intellectual waters of patents and trade secrets. it is complicated field. i hope companies find ways to protect those trade secrets although it may be difficult having fleets of freight vehicles essentially robotically operated raises a whoa host of security questions who has access to the data and that information. that is part of the spectrum upon which companies will be competing to offer greater security to make sure those sorts of trade secrets don't get out. it deserves more consideration that i'm giving it here. >> can we have this gentleman at

the front, please. >> hi. i'm tom curry. reporter with congressional quarterly "roll call." i talked to the head of the contra costa, california transportation authority next week. they have the new test track for the mercedes autonomous vehicle that will be located in their county. he said one of the things in the future, benefits that he sees is that these vehicles, could, benefit to the county, is that these vehicles could go out and detect potholes and immediately transmit the data back to the contra costa, or any transportation authority so that, it would be a fleet of vehicles would be communicating information in real time, so that they could maintain the transportation system better. i just wondered from mr. scrivener and mr. o'toole, what is your view of that.

the cost of transmitting all 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 app and up load it to apple and android and then people can volunteer to download it and if they're driving on a road that is unusually bumpy, the apple detect, vibration and transmit the information to the road authority that there's a serious problem with the roads. . .

i'm somebody that knows decided it's going to be quite a few years before you start seeing that in any outside of

california is what i'm thinking. >> it depends who you ask. certain automakers are saying we are not to focus on this at all but then google is still saying the 2017 presumably level three or level four. that is the goal they are sticking to. nissan is saying 2020 presumably level three or four and the continental is also saying 2025, so they could be sooner rather than later and it really does, we need -- we don't necessarily need a special regulations but it goes to show that the regulators are going to be well behind this technology developing assuming that these optimistic industry forecasts are true.

>> 200 experts in the field were surveyed and the median answer was that the google driverless car that has a steering wheel but it can take over pretty much completely in and all conditions will be available by 2020. the car that doesn't have a steering wheel or anyway the driver controlling it other than starting and stopping would be available by 2030. i would go further and say we will start talking about closing the roads to human driven cars because they are too dangerous. >> is an important distinction to be made between the highway and then on the highway vehicles in certain things that are happening to city number two where they are focusing on these geographically restricted sort of almost paratransit vehicles

you could see earlier they would be deployed in the college campuses, retirement communities, places like that where you don't need to meet these stringent ntsa guidelines, so there is a potential for that happening before we see the actual highway vehicles. >> this gentle man in the front. >> thank you. i was wondering about insurance implications especially during the transition period where you have a mix of the vehicles. is there any insight? >> insurance companies are some of the biggest backers of the self driving cars because they figure it's going to significantly reduce problems and accidents. one concept i've heard is instead of when you buy a

driverless car instead of buying an insurance policy for the car the auto company will buy the insurance policy and that will just be included in the price of your car. so if there's any liability involved, then the auto company will have its own insurance to deal with and it won't have to deal with extended lawsuits and so forth. >> way at the back please. >> quick question. the issue that was the russian monitoring station that wanted to build was quashed last december. now if people in the government have access to the navigation and then you have to the driverless cars and companies like nissan 01 auto -- own

autovance and started driving off a cliff, we start thinking about the security and we don't have the monitoring stations having that access, but i think any concerns or comments? >> the concern about the intelligent vehicle technology were driverless car technology being hacked is already evident. there've been demonstrations in real time about how the attacks can be perpetrated. it's not something that we should take lightly or that we should live in complete fear. we need to find solutions to these problems and we need to figure out how to make the systems as secure as possible so that that sort of hacking for whatever reason is avoided in whatever way possible. i will say this but we have to do this relative to the historical baseline that we are operating on the world where 30,000 people are already dying behind the wheel because of human error that is almost 100 people a day.

will there be someone resulting in an accident? potentially, yes. but we have to understand in the world of more intelligent vehicle technology it may be that we have tens of thousands of people's lives being saved with that potential of it being hacked at the same time we have to try to make that balance and i know that sounds crude over the utilitarian but i think we have to take that historical baseline. >> one of the reasons i oppose the few cool communications is that on the mandatory system it is going to be a lot easier to hack anything to be harder to defend against because the government demanded the system would 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 applications and in sewanee support, they are all going to have a competitive

reason to keep their system from the system from being hacked and it's going to be harder to attack to have a widespread attack but you won't be able to attack everybody at the same time. >> the gentleman on the left >> good afternoon i'm a freelance journalist in dc. i often think of the movie that was popular some time ago called irobot because there is a lot of technology that may relate to something you have interest in the force would've promoted in this movie so they did use this kind of car or is it more likely that south koreans would be likely to debut people they seem to be ahead of us when it comes to mobile phone technology where they are using items that we are

not necessarily using just yet. they may be the test ground for those. so are they ahead of those? >> the united united states is uniquely positioned to have these available widespread testing which we are already seeing the testing on public roads but also availability and one reason is we are not the united states is not party to the vienna road convention which has some definitions that may restrict certain testing and operations in other countries most countries are party to that. so that's actually really interesting and they are working on updating the vienna convention to basically allow for more availability in the future but it has proven to be a problem. i know that a bunch of it is being led by a number of german

parks and auto manufacturers right now and they are very well around aware of this but it stands to be in a good position. >> there will be extra points for whoever can answer the next question. but i want the gentle man in the middle. >> it's a great movie so there's that. i work for tax analysts now and to my colleagues i'm wondering how the motorcycles and people who enjoy them would fit into the driverless car feature. >> i thought about including a motorcycle vehicle in my show because andrew at google has developed a motorcycle and it's a little bit like a segue that manages to balance itself, so they continue just fine.

that was actually his first entry when it was running the grand challenges it was an autonomous motorcycle and he tells the story there was a new yorker article about how they are ready to go and she essays something up at the last minute and it falls over. so, you know, that was the sort of -- you can look at it as the google self driving car and self driving motorcycle. >> gentle man on the right. >> david sobel from washington, d.c.. i have two questions. this is a very appropriate day to have this panel because this is the birth date of l. word whose first gas powered automobiles is in the smithsonian. he also was the first to get involved in an automobile

accident. so, i would ask the panel to talk about with more about how they see the commonwealth personal injury evolving with self-driving cars. and 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 have been? because people already have that opportunity. some of them for my two questions. the evolution of the personal injury law and why we haven't seen an increase in the time already. >> would you like to take this? >> i already mentioned the personal injury law alongside that and i think it will. there will be very interesting cases and controversies involving sort of hybrid situations where someone in the

sort of vehicle that randall described that is fully autonomous and may be injured by the service provider is an accident with someone like me driving a muscle car that was renovated in his garage and he plows into it and i have insurance myself we will work these things out. it will take time. we have a very litigious society and it is a good question as to whether our lack of pay would lead to a lot of these innovators being sued because the pockets discouraged from developing this type of technology that does concern me greatly but i don't know what we should do necessarily to stop that outside of changing the paintball. good luck with that but the reality is i'm personally confident that it will work itself out over time and hopefully there will just be a lot fewer personal injuries. >> unlike an ignition problem or something like that or a sticky accelerator pedal a driverless

cars record everything that's happening around them all the time so if they are involved in an accident they will have 360-degree recordings of what happened prior to the accident and it will be fairly easy to determine who was at fault in the accident is the manufacturer of the car is at fault they will pay up and update their software if they were not at fault than it will be fairly easy to prove it, so i think that will take care of a it but if the litigation problems in liability problems. >> i will agree with both atom adam and randall. one interesting situation we should basically let the law evolved to deal with any of these potential problems when they are guys that one, taking the example a step further with with b. but happens if you are in a ntsa level three automated vehicle and you collide with a ntsa level for how do you start

breaking that out and assigning liabilities of various parties? it's going to be interesting but something the courts will be well-prepared to deal with. that is the best option we have now as opposed to the preemptive prescription regulation of the sort of crystal ball statutory changes. i think you can do a lot more harm as opposed to just waiting and seeing. when people ask two questions i always forget the second question. >> [inaudible] people who commute by transit spent twice as long and people who commute by car. according to the census data so it is already happening. >> we have a question in the front, please.

>> my name is gabriel. thank you for the very interesting presentations. i understand that every self-driving cars has to know where it is at any time. is it necessary for others to know where the car is in other words my question is do self-driving cars have to be tracked which is what i think i understood mr. thierer to say. >> i'm not sure you understand do they have to be tracked. i mean they are going to be connected and there are ways that they will be tracked and accents but maybe you have an answer to this? >> what they are telling us publicly the way that the current manufacturers envision this a want to focus on

developing the sensor technology so there will be a gps receiver so the car will know where it is relative to other things but that is what the censors are doing so in terms of them being tracked by donna w-whiskey will be able to pull the screen and to see where the cars in the vicinity are but they are going to know where the other car is but i don't think it would necessarily know where another self driving car is i don't think that's necessary. >> tracking is not a part of the technology being developed by any of the companies that i know about. >> i'm from the university of virginia law school. i have a question about the accident avoidance algorithms and if there's any indication from any other companies about

the approach to this. is it going to be every car for its health to try to project a car or it is going to be to reduce injury to both cars they are communicating or -- >> that is a great question as someone who's studied philosophy there are so-called c-charlie problems that come up about the two trolleys heading for unavoidable collision what do you do and you have all sorts of life and death scenarios being debated right now with regards to the driverless car technology and sort of how to create a more ethical algorithms. if you have the driverless cars to each other can one go off a bridge into the other had a pack of kids what do you do? these are hard questions. nobody wants to debate these things but we will have to end over time and experimentation we will have better answers how to avoid that.

here's what i would say in the interim the matter hell for me they are in developing those algorithms i'm fairly confident that there's those intelligent vehicle technologies will help us avoid more deaths than when the flesh humans are behind the wheel doing it that we will make the worst of all of the decisions and maybe hit the other car coming at the kids and go over the bridge at the same time. so again i'm fairly bullish about the future technology solve these problems but i can tell you this has resulted in some very heated debates if you look at the recent debates in wired, patrick linda, my solve and others engaged in this and they are legitimate questions and there's a whole volume called robotic ethics that was published just recently where the questions are debated. >> i agree i think the main problem we have right now is that we have people driving cars they are the ones causing the

accident. not to say that we should take it away from them but this technology we are all engineering is at least what they are telling us these are going to be very cautious so if they get into a really complex situation like that the chances are they would have already pulled over and stopped by the time they get to that point. they are trying to avoid even getting to these questions of these ethical dilemmas but as you said that's an interesting question i think in the future it's something the developers are going to be working on. >> we have a question from the gentleman on the left. i am a regular cycle or and i anti-use a m. shares in and most of us realize the advantage of cycling is sort of the

synchronous nature and what we don't know about traffic lights and signs and stuff like that so mike stennis for something like an autonomous motorcycle i don't see this for vehicles is there any likelihood that they would have more flexible rules in the sense that you definitely can get places a lot quicker if you are allowed to drive between cars in other words i'm trying to take this maybe ten years beyond after it's been introduced but is there a chance because any time during rush hour you can go by bicycle anywhere in the white house and get from one end to the other in no time but there is no vehicle short of the president without flashing lights that can go anywhere in less than a half-hour. >> lane splitting is illegal. you can blame the split with a voter cycle but when it comes to

an autonomous motorcycle that's kind of taking the fun out of it so i don't see there being a huge market for those, but that's an interesting question. maybe if some people do want that you would talk about legalizing going between cars. i can see in the long run things like stop signs and traffic lights and speed limits and things like that are going to be redundant. the car is going to look and see what kind of road it's on and figure out what is a safe travel speed for itself and then needs to have a law defining that save travel speed is not going to be there anymore but that is going to be an evolutionary thing although you would say we have basically approaching 100%

automated fleet. can we take the question here please. >> chris moody from yahoo! news. you touched on this a second ago but if i wanted to drive faster and i'm in a big hurry are that companies making options in the car where i can drive it faster or slower and also the applications for the city municipal revenue where the police get a lot of the revenue from ticket where there is a sharp reduction if everyone is driving the speed limit or there is no mechanism people can get the revenue from the speeding tickets and if they pull over to driverless car then what happens? are we worried about the border policemen? they get a lot of the ticket revenues and that's something they are going to figure out for

the source of revenue it's like 70%. somebody at the conference said that 90% of organ transplants come from auto accidents so should we band of driverless cars we should continue to have the organ transplant and i don't think so. >> we can't have this conversation in a vacuum in terms of talking about the vehicles we have to talk about other technologies that can satisfy the demands that we have the vehicles for. i spent my time writing about the commercial technologies and a lot of the things we spend time grabbing in the car each day whether they be groceries or whatever else there is a question in the future can things be delivered via a sliding robot and that might undermine the need to have more time in the car, autonomous

vehicle or not and do things my child might use a robotic car for today to be there for should give you to show for and have them dropped off. we don't know what kind of butterfly effect will unfold because this technology plus other technologies to satisfy demands we have. >> we have five minutes unless there is a question in the middle. >> international technology trade associates. with the commercial technology one of the biggest impediments i feel like would be able to develop with autonomous vehicles as well so i'm curious if you've seen any collaboration between the auto industry.

>> the question is regarding the protocols and technologies with regards to the drones i don't see collaboration but keep in mind that the faa has a stranglehold on any commercial innovation right now and completely precautionary-based approach with regards to the vehicle technologies i hope the fda comes to mimic that and we have to see that. they are interested in both of the automotive and the aviation market so there are some companies considering that's that the budget adds that i worry about ntsa but it looks

like a permissions innovation adam is talking about. but the requirements of the rules that the faa basically right now give the authority to shut down and i'm told those are resolved that is a big problem. >> it's a headline grabber but the reality is once the vehicles are out there and able to deliver goods to people i think the desire to get the aerial drones is going to decline since the problems are going to be significant it's going to be easy to use a ground vehicle. that brings the session to a close. what remains is lunch and you are all invited to so if you could please hr way up the spiral staircase to the conference center lunch will be served and the restrooms are to the right. keep a lookout for the yellow

wall. all that is asked us to think the columnist, randal o'toole adam thierer. please join me in thanking them. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

if you missed any of this conversation from the cato institute you can find that at c-span.org.

i am mark pryor and i approved this message. i'm the character of a 24 over to mystic violence shelter. we have to do something to break the cycle of violence and tom isn't doing anything to help. congressman tom cotton voted against protecting women and children from domestic violence. he was the only republican or democrat from the arkansas to vote this way. he voted because of the funding to shelters. one wants to protect women and children and the other doesn't.

>> i'm mark prior and i approved this message. >> i've never been political but it's hard to ignore the senate race. the more i read it the more i'm concerned about tom cotton. did you know he voted against equal pay for women and he thinks they should be charged more for health care than men? he was also the only arkansas congressman who voted twice against women who are victims of domestic violence. it makes you wonder what does cotton have against women. >> i am tom cotton and i approved this message. >> my husband and i started this business. we have everything from the body shop to the mechanics to the cleaning crew to the dispatch, the drivers. our dream now it's survival. obamacare has already raised premiums. it's already costing us a fortune. it's not only hurt our business but it's hurt our employees. it was supposed to make health care a lot more affordable. it has done everything but make

health care affordable. next year we might not even be able to afford coverage at all. our hands are tied. it's frustrating to realize that your own senator has cast the deciding vote on obamacare. we told him personally how this could affect our business and our employees. i wish senator mark pryor listened to us when we told him how obamacare would affect our business and i wish he would have voted against it but he didn't. you can hear from the candidates directly tonight. the arkansas senate debate live at 8:00 eastern on the companion network c-span. and also later tonight or campaign 2014 coverage from the governors debate in south carolina. republican incumbent debating her challengers democrat then sent shaheen and independent tom ervin at 9:00 eastern also on c-span.

on thursday candidates and the vermont governor's race debate have been called chester just north of burlington. voters got a chance to hear from all candidates including incumbent democrat peter shumlin elected in 2010, republican scott milne and five independent candidates. the governors are up for reelection every two years into the political report lists the

race as a as a solid democratic and the debate comes to us courtesy of the vermont public television. it's about an hour and a half. >> buckled to the vermont election 2014 candidate debate of all the candidates on the ballot invited to participate. tonight the candidates for governor of vermont. here is moderator stuart leadbetter. >> good evening everyone and welcome to the debate featuring the candidates for governor of our state. i'm stuart leadbetter news channel five at host of vermont this week seen here in vermont pdf. as you heard we invited all seven candidates whose names appear on the ballot for governor this year to be with us tonight and also then have joined us. positioned in alphabetical order from left to right they are peter diamondstone representing the union party, cris ericson and independent, dan represented the independence party, scott

milne at the republican as the republican nominee, bernie peters is an independent i'm emily peyton as independent and peter shumlin. the format is pretty straightforward i will ask the question and everyone gets a minute to respond if needed i might ask one or more to ret but we will try to keep things moving. thanks to the timekeeper who is sitting at my right. and we will have time for a closing statement as well. we have questions in the queue from the vermont viewers and here in the studio we have high school and college students from across vermont that will dissipate and we welcome them to. let's begin. some of you are well known to the people of our state. many of you i daresay are not, so why don't we begin by telling us a little bit about yourself and how you have prepared for the top political office in the land. mr. diamond stone?

diamonstone: aire secessionist member of the legion, member of the veterans fo peace. i've lived in vermont for almost 60 years. my spouse and i reside in brattleboro and my children and grandchildren. a couple of moved away that most of them still live there. as a revolutionary socialist i have to tell you that most of august to discuss and tonight wound be relevant for me because most of what i will be talking about is how we overturned what's destroying our society

and our environment which is capitalism represented i guess by this bottle of water on my table here. >> thank you. >> when i was a child i felt that vermont was the garden of eden. it is beautiful come you get a drink from the streams. blake champlain was perfectly clear and beautiful. during my married years i lived in los angeles and the one time that i was riding the bus across los angeles, but to the 12-mile trip from santa monica to downtown la and an old lady sat next to me and she said look out the window. it used to be all the fields of orange groves. when my husband died and i moved back to vermont in 1995, i was determined that the foot and happened to vermont. and we have to stop things, we have to stop the fighter jets

from being based here and we have to stop a natural gas pipeline from being built underneath lake champlain. thank you. >> moderator: mr. feliciano? feliciano: i'm a father, husband, veteran. i lived here and have three children and i was determined to get into the debate because my wife and i were having a conversation and she said now that i that our son is 16 we need to start thinking about what we are going to do differently because he will be leaving and never coming back. at the prospects for a young person in vermont are horrible and i decided at that point i needed to do something about this and i couldn't stand by. i have a background in healthcare and a background turning around and fixing large government agencies as well as large businesses and i thought that my skills would be applicable to turning the state around and doing things to make it more affordable for my family providing better healthcare for the health care for the family, reducing property taxes and

providing school choice. feliciano: thank you. mr. milne? milne: . i'm a third-generation born in vermont. i take that back i got here about 90 days after i was born. my dad was in law school and my mom was in new york. to take over a small part of the family business that business was located in new hampshire and the corporation because of the gratitude i felt towards vermont and the love i have for vermont i chose to live on the vermont side of the border to bring my family up in vermont to be a little closer to my paragraph into the folks i grew up with and what i saw over the last 30 years is a continuing difference

between new hampshire and vermont and the effective tax policies and the ability to prosper and i feel a guy will below for a great voice for people. >> moderator: thank you. mr. peters. peters: i've been married 47 years, veteran, retired in the transportation after 36 years to construct all my life off and on. and i've been watching politics for quite some time. and i really kind of disappointed. that's why i'm running. it's got to the point from what i see is whichever party is in power is not working for the vermont people. neither party seems to realize when they say they are working for the party they are not working for the party. they are working for the taxpayer and the voter. not to the other way around. and it's time for somebody to go back in there and work for the people.

answer some of these questions, solve some of these problems. it takes a lot of good common sense and hard work for everybody. thank you. >> thank you very much. peyton: i'm from the lower part of the state and i'm in earth activist. we lived in an incredible times in your generation are going to be facing some serious predicaments. i consider myself what is known as a light worker. and why i'm in the race is to bring forth the very exciting solutions and hopeful solutions that you have to help make the earth a livable place, a place that you can thrive. often the solutions aren't being discussed by the two party systems. that's why i'm here to talk about the economic systems that can allow us to water we grow

the economy and the things we can do to honor the earth and live in harmony with each other and our natural world to be a >> moderator: thank you. finally, peter shumlin. shumlin: i've had the privilege of serving as your governor the last four years. i'm first governor i think since dean davis was born and raised in the state. my brothers and sisters also live and work in vermont. -right-brace two beautiful daughters in the state. i love vermont more than anything and i ran for governor four years ago, because after building to businesses, successful businesses in vermont, and playing vermonters, i felt that i wanted more students, more young people to have the same opportunities that i've had in the state. every day i focus in my job as governor on helping to build jobs, economic opportunity, improve the quality of life and make this a state or kids can stay and work and thrive. we've had great success and i'm

asking you for two more years to continue the good work that we've begun. >> moderator: >> moderator: thank you candidates. a lot of issues in this campaign, but a couple of them certainly rise to the top. let's begin with healthcare. we certainly struggled to implement the affordable care act. the website tonight is off-line and there are many questions in the minds of vermonters about whether we can proceed and how rapidly to a single-payer healthcare system and braced by the governor. this week we heard some polls have suggested that we are deeply divided on the questions questions i've i would ask each of you to clarify your plans for health care reform. mr. feliciano let's begin with you. feliciano: i've come out as a healthcare payer and i think that is separate and distinct from the single-payer and demonstrates the administration to implement an it system. health care is a heavily it-based solution and i think

that going to a single pager system really doesn't do anything to drive down the cost of healthcare. what i propose is opening up the marketplace to more insurers just as when you go shopping you don't want to pick from two products. you want a multitude of products. you will have a multitude of selection for your business and your service. i also would focus on helping of healthcare organizations, the patient as well as the insurers in the state to implement a solution that actually tackles the cost of healthcare. 75% of healthcare costs are the ride from chronic illness and disease disease in the single-payer does nothing to address that as it is being addressed today so i'm against the single-payer system and i think free-market solutions work best and i want you to have more choice, not less choice. you pick your doctor, your hospital and your insurer. >> moderator: how does that sound to you mr. shumlin? shumlin: we have very

different views on healthcare. if someone wants to create jobs and economic opportunity and as a business person before i was governor i can tell you the biggest obstacle to the income growth of vermont and to the job growth for business people is the ever rising cost of health care. so what does a single-payer system do for vermont is two things. first to move from a system that spending literally 20 cents on every dollar that vermont takes. on average 20 cents per dollar on health care. we read -- reimbursed for the quality of care and the current fee-for-service quantity of care i want wanted to system where everyone has a healthcare because they are a resident and not because how healthy they might be or how lucky they might be where they work. finally, a system that is affordable, universal, and publicly financed. what i have said many times as this will help to contain the cost and move vermont to a more

affordable state as well as create jobs. >> moderator: thank you. mr. diamondstone? diamonstone: i support single payer as a second line. i don't consider it a first line on every rate. the liberty platform begins with a statement that says if you want page platform that's in existence since 1978 with very little changes. the role of government, all government is to provide a materially secure life for everyone on the planet including socialized medicine which is socialized health care that is different than the single-payer but one of the things we would do is get rid of the private enterprise in the pharmaceutical business that should be community owned business. all workers would be beyond the

community payroll. that is social and medicine the social and medicine and what we need to change. the competition is very, very wasteful whether it's in the industry and business. >> moderator: thank you. mr. milne, your plans for healthcare reform? milne: health care reform? milne: first of all, i disagree with peter shumlin. for the vermonters and especially i guess for the folks that believe why would call a reckless march towards single-payer folks that believe that's going to be a solution for us almost four years into it , it turned out to be the number one failure. this is a program that we were sold as a revitalized economy to create jobs to get us back on track and to do all these great things for health care. healthcare. we are almost four years into it. we have a technology system that is a disaster. we've got median household

income in vermont that dropped by 2% last year and 3,000 in poverty than we did the year before, so if this was going to fix the economy isn't doing it. a single pager is dead. there is no way that we that thing to happen by 2017. i will tell you that now i'm going to put out a referendum and give voters a choice how much of your total income do you think would be fair to pay for healthcare to pay for public health care clinics and public health care hospitals which would be no cost when you use them because you've already paid for them with your tax just like a public school k-12. you don't pay an extra insurance when you send your kid to school

the hospitals are paid by the attacks and by their own insurance and and i would make certain that all insurance companies in the united states of america can tell their products in vermont no more monopolies. peyton: i like to deal with the root cause of ill health. we look at the financial stress and the fact there isn't enough for people to participate in the economy and in the types of ill health that causes. there are ways to do that and we also really need to create as pristine and environment we ought to really understand that the clean earth and clean-air and clean water are why we are so healthy. those are our treasures.

as far as the dollars that we spend in healthcare, they ought to all go to receivers, the doctors come and we ought to look carefully where we are supporting ethical industry like the big pharmaceutical industry. we make sure that anybody can go to doctor doctor but i don't think that we should support the profits of industry invested. >> moderator: thank you. mr. peters how would you proceed with care reform? peters: i think right now we found out a lot of ideas to other states to cure the problems and an awful lot of money that we have nothing to show for it. we spend millions of dollars and have nothing to show for it. if you're going to have healthcare, your doctors, nurses, therapists and guess who, the patient.

anybody ever thought they might like to go along with everything else? as far as the health care you have to start somewhere. we've got some of the nicest schools on the east coast educating people. maybe we ought to let them do it as a school project. we could probably get a good idea from the schools we have in the state of vermont. feliciano: >> moderator: how do you respond to that it makes it sound as if you have been irresponsible about pushing this agenda that we said at the outset is so divisive and has split the state. shumlin: they would rather hear the candidate talk about what they are going to do than talk about other candidates names so i'm going to stay away from that but i will tell you what concerns me the biggest threat to job growth is the

rising cost of healthcare. i mentioned we are spending every 20 cents from every dollar on health care. it's the same rate they did last decade doubles. that's why i'm so intent on getting this right on the universal health-care system where we contain the cost and reduce costs for business and with better outcomes. the rest of the world has figured out how to do this and we can come up too. it takes courage to get it right in my belief we must. >> moderator: develop you said it's bad in 2017 that is very plain to the future when you would say yes? milne: thank you for the question. i got into this campaign one of the promises i made to people is that i will always listen before i act and that we really need to focus on what is practically drive the decision from practicality versus some political agenda which i would argue has gotten us where we are with healthcare. as we get through what we are going to do for any exchange

going forward in 2015 will be the year for the cost-benefit analysis on how we move forward if the optimum exchange does work. once we get five years down the road if things look great and others have been successful with single-payer or government run health care i'm happy to look at it but it will be based on the facts and the practicality. the economy has been stagnant. it hasn't grown. if you were so concerned that the economy growing with the economy growing you would have jobs that help connect system and started reducing healthcare costs. in the healthcare costs is the second highest in the country. if you want to demonstrate that you could actually cut the cost you would have started there and proven for everyone that the inmate system would have been the place to start. you have not done that. >> moderator: anyone also did a final word or should we bring in the studio audience tonight's? >> the money that we spend on

the help connect website we ought to have given it to the college because we have the intelligence here and we ought to contract within the state as a way to build our economy. you can't finance this and any other in any other way than an increase in taxes and increase in taxes has to come by decoupling from the federal income tax that has all of the loopholes built into it so that we can tax the wealthy who are paying less than their fair share you can just see how much social security tax they paid on their earnings in and the stock market and on the dividends and interest in the bonds. peyton: if you had a lemon law

phrase of the contract and it didn't work out you could have said give us our money back. >> moderator: we have some of vermont's finest high schools include students from around the state and some of them have questions for the candidates tonight. first i understand concerns college tuition in the state. go ahead. they are not appealing to vermont and and students from other states and around the world because they are expensive. how are you going to tuition things to go to the vermont colleges and universities? school has always been expensive in the state. sometimes it takes a lot of tax dollars and it's really hard to change. i know that it can be looked at. it's going to have to examine really close. the total answer i can't give that to you right now because that's has been a question for how long. school tuition, school tax and

it's still a problem. it's going to take some real serious get together from the legislators and the senators to get onto this. they know what's happening. they could help cure this problem i believe if they really wanted to. >> moderator: mr. feliciano? feliciano: by a bullet president of the manhattan college in new york city and we had a conversation about what's taking place in academia. one of the problems we're seeing is that the students are not prepared to go into college. as a cover that adds an incredible burden, cost burden up front to the students that are going into college >> we need to make sure that it is doing a good job of preparing our students to move into the academic world. also we need to have a different approach for you. you need to think about this differently about which classes are you going to take? i went to college as an adult

and dropped out of high school, did my thing and went back to college. it was lower-cost, it was more amenable to what i had to do it if it's my budget. for the it's about the choices that we can make of course education is expensive and we have to look into what is driving the actual cost and understand its buildings and equipment but we will look at the. >> moderator: is peyton how how do we call such the tuition costs? peyton: one of the important ways we can do is tuition service exchanges. so, where we need healthcare professionals we can give them the tuition and i think that any place we are contracting or sending the contact's out-of-state we ought to be training people within the state. furthermore there are debt-free methods of education. if you want to learn anything you can go learn it and then we needed a system of the crediting the learning and testing out. there's a university online called the people's university that is just such a debt-free

educated system. so, along with that edit and increasing our food independence by giving people of your age planned in order to make our state food secure where that involves a lot of transfer -- i know you're going to stop me but we really need to do these things and we can. i wish i had longer to tell you all the things we could these things we could do. >> moderator: thanks. ms. erickson? ericson: prexy i'm ericson: threats made by rhonda gives 44 million a year to the university of vermont and that's an outrage. the university of vermont is a private for-profit college and they just raise the tuition every year because they get greedy or in a greedy or. the state of vermont shouldn't be given 1 penny to a private for-profit college. all the money should go to the state colleges. and for that $44 million a year we could have free online

college courses. >> moderator: mr. shumlin? shumlin: this is one of the greatest challenges we are facing which is the affordability of college. one of the challenges is that with all the money we spend on education we haven't moved the needle one bits moving first generation students beyond high school and we know that in this work for you can't succeed if you don't move beyond high school. so, i've done two things come in three things that are important and i'm proud of and at the first is early college enrollment which allows any high school student in vermont now to get one year of free college in the state while they are in high school either taking the college credit courses in high school were going to one of the nine participating state or local colleges. second, we have made it possible now through my vermont scholars program but if you stay in vermont and work for five years, we go pay we've will pay your entire year of the college tuition in the field where we

need you or the entire semester for the associates degree so it is about affordability. i understand that in the state that has one of the lowest unemployment rates in america this is the key to getting their. more students moving beyond high school making progress and i'm proud of the progress that we are making. >> moderator: how does that sound to you? milne: that sounds like the same old story of trusts me and i will do something different going forward. nobody's been able to take advantage of me at the campaign trail. i think the fact that vermont is 48, 49, maybe 50 in the level of support secondary to the colleges and universities within the state is something that we should be ashamed of as a state. i think that if you look at the children, the young people i'm sorry i'm out here in the audience my father was able to work as a bus boyin