>> moderator: how do you bring that about? catania: that is one question but another is how do we make the schools that? spent so much time talking about boundaries and what we need to talk about is how we set our schools up to succeed? the high school is a perfect example. last year 36% of young men in this school graduated on time and only 49% of young women. only 43% of our kids are graduating on time. that is a state of emergency. diversity is very important about what is also import is making sure schools are resources so they can beat the kids as we find them and have success. >> moderator: with all due

respect to lot of people believe there is a direct correlation between lack of diversity and quality of schools. catania: people may believe that but among our top performing -- >> moderator: what would you do to bring diversity? bowser: it is important and i actually think in talking about the outer boundary a lot less, schwartz is right in making sure we protect a fair out of boundary allotment. it is also important that our schools, the school without lot, in ellington, are recruiting east of rev. making sure children east of the river have excellent opportunities as well. it is and i will support having the especially the or application school. there has been a lot of discussion about specialty and application schools east of the river where children from all over the city can apply and get

in. we spent a lot of time making sure proficiency and they are improving and supporting each other and fulfilling themselves, their athletics, academics talents and supporting children along a whole spectrum. >> moderator: let's move on, let's move on to affordable housing. every candidate that ever ran for office is for affordable housing. could you define for us what you are talking about when you say affordable housing? how do you make sure there is more of it? >> i would like to jump in and deal with that. i have been gone 5-1/2 years. and affordable housing has become less and less. the movement of this government to get more of it has also

become less and west. and so i think those who have sat here in those five years i have been gone should have been moving more aggressively on the area of affordable housing and one of the things i want to do is bring back public housing and if we can't get that to be part of it we will do it ourselves and what we will do is make sure -- what are you talking about about affordable housing? public housing is the 30% and below of the am i. we are talking about people that are practically at the poverty level and we need to be able to give some decent housing and -- it will keep up the public housing. >> moderator: what would you do? catania: this schwartz is onto something with reinvestment in public housing. we have a thousand public units

in our city and by any measure up to 600 are vacant or not utilized. that is important because we and the homelessness crisis which is crushing our city. as recently as last week when i was walking frug port lincoln eyes of 40 vacant units, single, double, triple four bedroom apartments and no reason in the world we have habitable units that are empty in the middle of homelessness crisis. we needed government with a sense of urgency and resources to back up. >> moderator: miss bowser, what do you mean when you say affordable housing? how do you create more affordable housing? bowser: affordable housing, the target is no person should spend more than 30% of their income on housing and we know that thousands and thousands and thousands of d.c. residents are spending more than 50% of their income on housing which means they are house for and that is the definition of affordable housing. i would do several things.

the first is to commit to $100 million every year, sustainable, to create and preserve affordable units. the second thing that i would do is commit, commit to making sure we are renovating our public housing. this is the thing. we have 8,000 units and just about every one of the needs investment. everyone of them need investment and this government, the feds have backed up from it so are we going to step up to the plate as local government aid use our housing production trust fund to invest in that housing? i say yes. >> we would like to talk about the family shelter. mayor gray came out with a plan that allows people to feel as though kind of what would you do, what would be your timetable for closing d.c. general as a family shelter? catania: the mayor established a

1-year timetable. there are so many moving parts but rather than worry what to do with dc general we need to understand we have a problem this year. we have 840 families that will be seeking emergency services and as recently as this week we only have accommodations for 409. about half the families the needy emergency shelters this year, this winter, don't have it and we are behind the eightball. we have not budgeted for hotels this winter and we have quite a crisis on our hands. we need an emergency effort to begin finding of a hotel accommodations and budget capacity for this very winter. longer-term the mayor is right. we need a longer term strategy. we would have had a longer term strategy which would have included the hebrew home in were aboard 4 but that was stopped by my colleague from ward and 4. >> moderator: one minute to

respond. bowser: i am glad my colleague brought it up because in the bowser administration we won't replace d.c. general with another big shelters that doesn't work. what we learned is large shelters are not suitable for families that raising children in and we will not support it. what we will get at spring road because i have led and works with the community new and old, people who have been there for five generations, what the old hebrew home will become is a wonderful mixed income property where people who are exiting homelessness will live, people who are teachers and firefighters and police officers will live and where we might even have the opportunities for people to buy their first home. that is my approach. >> moderator: miss schwartz? schwartz: we have to look for,

we have to look for good examples. the second street shelter, which had its good days and bad days i can tell you i have been there visiting recently and i have seen for they have some exemplary services where if they are really doing it right. and so i think we have to look at those examples. i do believe that obviously d.c. general with its rapid cessation obviously has to be closed and the sooner the better, but i do believe that we should look in the future, renovating d.c. general look for something comparable because i do believe families who are homeless and hopefully this will only be temporary, should be housed where they can have total wrap around surfaces and children can have playgrounds and the mothers and parents can be of support to each other as they try to work

their way out. >> moderator: i am asking you again to be specific. a lot of building industries, a lot of i t folks, the reason people in this community and others are not getting these jobs are they don't have the skills. a two part question. do you agree with that? how do you make sure d.c. residents and skills so they can compete with suburban residents for jobs that are here. >> a first star is education. we have to have a better education system to allow the kind of reading and writing and basic skills that they need to go anywhere. our vocational education programs the we have expanded within the schools are very important like the hospitality, high school, those kinds of things are giving them a jump start. >> moderator: is there enough of that? schwartz: we could use more of that and in addition we have to

do jobs training that is going to be specific to the jobs that are out there and so i think there are lots of areas we could do, when i chaired that committee on government operations and work force development we did a lot, first source law and said if they didn't give us the 51% they were supposed to, the people that got contacted for the city would have to pay a huge fine, that worked but the ended up in court. i hope we win. >> moderator: howdy make sure they have the training? bowser: the first thing is to make sure we have real laws and enforcement and support for returning citizens, community in the district of columbia. we know so we have a high number of people who have served their time and completed their debt to society and they want to be productive and we have made

changes to the law that will be helpful but we also have to have support at the office of ex offenders and the government has a role to play in helping people gain skills and be trained when they are working. i will create a department of general services academy in the district of columbia and what that academy will be focused on is how we train people for the jobs d.c. government creates. those jobs include people who cut the grass and paint the walls and that is what everybody here it is focused on. how to get people back to work. we can talk about affordable housing and that is important but the closest way to get to affordable housing is get people in good job. >> moderator: mr catania, how do you get people job-training and good jobs? catania: this is an area that i

am particularly sensitive about. my own mother was in a situation very similar that many people find themselves in. she was orphaned at 16 and didn't finish the tenth grade and find a job to raise a child by herself was very tough. it was tough than and has gone no easier and there are too many people in this city who for one reason or other have not finished tied school and lack the skills. we have to get very aggressive about engagement centers where young people and come back to school where we get the money glidepath so they can have skills that they can actually support their families. we have done a couple things but there's another i am proud of. i offered a bill that required 35% of all printersable hours on d.c. government funded projects go to district residents and it created a real demand for young people so much so that with the market project and the marquee

hotel project this year, 60% of apprentices -- >> campaign 2014. the final d.c. mayoral debate. you are watching wusa 9. welcome back to wusa in 1924 team, the final mayoral debate. schwartz: in everybody's mind the investigation is ongoing. lot of people would not be surprised if the mayor -- i need each of you to comment on this investigation and how the investigation has been handled. is everyone okay with this including the announced plea-bargain agreement? catania: the timing looked awfully suspicious. the timing right before the primary. i may have had a particular point of view about the campaign but i think the timing of the plea-bargain with jeff thompson a couple weeks before the primary it appeared as if the thumb was placed on the scale,

there is impression there was immediate action being taken against the mayor and when it didn't come it leaves many of us wondering whether it ever will and whether or not the mayor was unfairly treated. >> >> moderator: this schwartz? schwartz: nivens and gran was unfairly treated by my two colleagues on either side of me. immediately upon their even being a notice of the shadow campaign is they both jumped out there and said he should resign and i think you are innocent until proven guilty and here we are 3-1/2 years later and the mayor has not even been indicted much less proven guilty. so i think that you all helped get that ball rolling with the attorney and i think what he did, the three weeks and one day

before the primary ones unconscionable, that he had something ready to drop on the head of us and here we are -- what is it? seven months later, nothing. so i think he should either put up or shut up. >> moderator: miss bowser, one minute. bowser: so the u.s. attorney is not accountable to the voters of the district of columbia and that is one reason it is so important we fight harder and find new pathways to statehoods so the we can have prosecutors that are accountable and answerable to us. this u.s. attorney has put a lot on the record. is going to be up to him to follow the time line to get to the facts. what is important to me if anybody has done something wrong will be held accountable.

>> moderator: if we could -- the shorter the answer the better. if voters decide to legalize marijuana, will you try to delay this legislation? e.u. enforced immediately? bowser: i will vote for initiative 71 and signed it into law if the voters agree. >> miss schwartz? schwartz: i will be voting no to initiative 71. i voted for medicinal marijuana. i am for the expansion to different illnesses for those who need it and i work with congress to try to get the bill from being swapped up in congress so we could implement it. i would have, had i been on the council, voted for the decriminalization of marijuana because i thought it was obnoxious and even worse did so many young black males were in jail because of it and lots of

young white people and i thought was terribly unfair and so i would have voted that but on this side will vote no. first we already have a lot of people in our communities that need sobering up and i don't think we need to add another drug that will make that even harder. what people do is for them. i won't judge would say doing their own home. >> moderator: how will you vote on this measure and will you enforce it? catania: i vote yes along with miss bowser. i think prohibition as it worked, has led to an underground economy and the violence that comes with it. i think marijuana should be regulated like alcohol, it to be licensed and taxed like alcohol. we need to protect children and make sure we can protect ourselves on the roads and make sure our public safety officials

are not obviously engaged in a practice but i think there is -- there is -- there is a good deal. there is a good deal of common sense that comes with making sure that we can tax and regulated use those revenues for good purposes. >> moderator: thank you. schwartz: i don't think we need to be -- >> i think i know the answer to this but i will ask anyway. on november 4th you go to the polls, you can't vote for yourself. anybody up here you would vote for? who would be a second chance? catania: i will decline that. schwartz: i said i will vote for myself. if i wasn't on the ballot by would write my name in.

[applause] >> moderator: this bowser? bowser: what she says. >> moderator: a few specific questions, catania, when you came into elected office as a republican and we know why you left the republican party, constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage among other things. that leads to my question. you are an independent now. to and become a democrat, tried to sell this progress of more so than miss bowser. what of your republican background leanings the retain? how much of you still lined with the republican party? please, come on. catania: i don't recognize the party i was raised in. it is completely different. i don't identify at all with the existing republican party.

>> moderator: same question to miss bowser. schwartz: the party of belong to veered far too far to the right for me to stay there but i do consider myself a fiscal conservative. i don't take more money from the taxpayers than i am willing to put to good use. i hate waste, fraud and abuse. a fiscal conservative i am but when it comes to the social issues i have always categorize myself as a moderate to liberal and said we i want down on one of the most liberal policies and that is getting sick leave to workers and i am proud that i did. may i add i have never been a republican. i am a democrat and proud of it and i want everyone to know i am not a democrat by accident. i am a democrat because i believe in the values that made our cities strong.

i have never gone to a republican convention to nominate george w. bush as the next president. i never raised $50,000 for george w. bush to get at the table. i nominated barack obama as the first african-american president. i served as they there. i cast your vote in the electoral college to get barack obama elected. more than that i am proud of my democratic roots in you should be too. i am resentful of my opponent who makes fun of its saying democrats are puppets. that is just not right. i am respectful of their choice to be in the republican party and they should be respectful of hours. >> moderator: ms. bowser, i had a question specifically for you.

you have been identified and i think to being a protege of the former mayor who did very well, won every precinct the first time he ran but didn't do well at all in the last election here. how are you different from adrian and to you consider him a political ally? bowser: my name is muriel bowser and i will when the bowser administration. adrian is a friend of mine and has been a supporter for every one of my campaigns and i learned a lot from adrian, i learned how to get things done. learned to be impatient with incompetence and i learned how to set high expectations, higher great people and told them accountable. i learned a lesson of his dramatic loss. that lesson was never to lose touch with the people. always come out to eat community, check in even when we

have difficult decisions the come to the community. hear what the issues are. let them know what my east is are and move forward with decisions. >> moderator: excuse me. a couple of questions. we would like to get to a couple questions from social media. first question, what is the biggest professional mistake you have made and what did you learn from it? let's start with mr. catania. the question from social media, the biggest professional mistake you made and what did you learn from it? catania: -- schwartz: can we mind everybody there are young people in this audience, there are young people here, there are young people here and i hope all of us adults can be respectful of the children who are trying to learn

the democratic process. if you can't respect each other, let's at least respect and be an example for these young people. >> moderator: we will drive this -- we want to continue? schwartz: we want to continue very much. >> moderator: the question from

social media. schwartz: schuyler, please. [bleep] >> moderator: let's continue. if it gets worse. schwartz: let's go. >> moderator: maybe it was the question everybody got upset about. question for the candidate. if elected mayor what will you do to address gentrification in ward 7 and 8. catania: there's no stopping progress. what we can do is do a better job setting our residentss to succeed and compete. after 40 years of home rule i want to put some statistics out, we aren't the middle of a war where the average household in the ms. $30,000. in ward 3 is 2 and fred thousand. in this war there are 17% unemployment. ward 3, 2-1/2. in this ward, 12% of adults have

bachelor's degrees and ward 3 is 84%. the most sure-fire way if making sure presidents since state is giving them high quality education and setting them up to succeed with college so they can come home and stay here. that is the only long-term solution. work of that the only way to make the city affordable lease to make it unsafe and no one wants to make it unsafe. schwartz: i have a specific plan and that is to bring back toward 9. in my of affordable housing position paper which you can find on 4dc.com spelled out or the number 4 you can read the whole thing, i call for a tax credit for those individuals who used to live here and many of

them left because of education or of affordable housing and lead to ward 9. you know what i mean, don't you? i want to bring them back and with a tax credit they have to show that they were here, have to show how long circling for they had to be fear or how long they had to be away. the we will bring board 9 back. bowser: ward 7 and ward 8 haven't had the investment that they need or the private investment and hasn't had the public investment and i am committed to getting that investment in ward 7 and 8. i am committed to a printing the deputy mayor whose sole job is to focus on closing those gaps, the income gap, the education

achievement gap and the economic development gap in ward 7 and ward 8. [chanting] >> moderator: we have specific questions from this audience we would like you to address. the city has experienced 2500 murders since 2000. a small neighborhood with a disproportionate number occurring east of the river. if elected mayor, what do you do to stop the violence and murders? >> i want to -- to get our police force up to the authorized 4,000. i want them out of their cars. remember when we step foot patrols, officer friendly programs, metropolitan police boys and girls clubs so that the police officers and young people

got to know each other. there wasn't a confrontational thing going on. they established relationships. i am also glad the police chief is doing these cameras so we don't have the ferguson going on here. i am afraid sometimes we find we do but those cameras will make sure that everybody acts the way are supposed to but i think having segways, bicycles and not just driving around in cars -- i drove here in a convertible. i always drive and a convertible at night or day time and i think we all need to be walking the streets. being done the streets will help the criminals go into their houses. >> moderator: what about you problem mr catania? catania: murders here, there have been 33 homicides in this

ward and the year before the river 22. 50% increase in one year. 26% of crime in this city happens on 4% of our box. we hired a number of officers in 1989-'90 and we had 1500 of 3400 that eligible for retirement in the next three years we have an immediate all hands on deck issue. we have to add this to recruit new and horizontal the but there is a sickness in our community when it comes to violence ended is pervasive and has to be confronted. part of the measure a worked on with mr. jefferies was make sure we build that mental health capacity in our schools and as a result have 90 schools with full time mental health professionals to help our young people work through the violence and hopelessness that leads to the violence that afflicts all of us.

>> moderator: you want to answer that? bowser: thank you for that question because in many parts of the city has been said already fit people feel safe. in too many parts of the city people feel more unsafe than they ever did. .. >> moderator: we know turn two closing arguments. the order was decided by lot. ms. bowser, you go first.

one minute. bowser: public to thank everybody for coming out to listen. i want to thank everybody for bringing their passions, questions, concerns and their aspirations for the district of columbia. it's been my great honor to campaign across this city for the last 19 months in every ward, in every neighborhood talking to people about how we can move forward together. this is indeed a very important election for the future of the district of columbia, and my pledge is to make sure that we continue our prosperity, build on our prosperity, and make sure more people are included in that prosperity. we get there by equalizing our school investments. we get there with a strong plan to build our middle-class with schools and jobs and affordable housing. and we get a by building a government we can trust, that is inclusive and reflective of our whole beautiful city. so that's what i'm asking you to come out and vote on november 4

from muriel bowser. i will be a mayor for all eight wards. [cheers and applause] >> ms. schwartz, one minute for closing statements. schwartz: may i have your attention please? thank you very much. well, i think many of you in this audience have known me for a lot of years. i served you well on the board of education. test scores went up. i served you well on the council for several decades. things got better, and taxes got lower. and now i'm asking you to bring me back to run our city with your help, with your help. and many of you, even when i was republican, and now i'm an independent, i meeting you halfway, i'm hoping -- and i wanted to also say i married a democrat and i raised three, so

you should be tolerant of me. [laughter] but i'm asking you, those eating the audience who have given me your vote for me or one time before, just join with those who haven't given me your vote, and sometimes wish you had. and those who have investing in the years i've been gone, if you'll all join together, i will try to be a very good mayor for all of us. thank you. [applause] transport thank you. mr. catania to one minute. catania: bruce, i want to thank you think it was for coming out. look, there's no question that this board has yet to see the prosperity that has been experienced throughout our city. and in 40 years of promises, 40 years of promises made and promises broken, the only way we are going to actually bring opportunity to this board is if

we elect a mayor who can get things done. when you look at 17 years on the council, my work extending health experience to 30,000 people, 37,000 children going back to school with at risk weight, and the list goes on to on, not to mention the $100 million investment in the hospital of the road that others had given up for dead. we need a mayor who has his heart in the job, who get up every day and keep his promises. for 17 years i've done that and am asking for your consideration this november. thank you very much. [applause] >> moderator: thank you. mr. catania, ms. short, ms. bowser, thank you very much. we would like to thank all of you for coming. we would like to thank all of you who are watching out there. monday start early voting. november 4, get out and vote. goodnight. ♪ ♪

♪ >> c-span's coverage of campaign 2014 is bringing more than 100 debates for the control of congress. stay in touch with her coverage, follow was on twitter at c-span, unlike us at facebook.com/cspan. >> a couple of upcoming debates to tell you about.

>> now a conversation on self-driving vehicle are your panelists discuss legal and security challenges facing the industry. the cato institute posted at this hour 20 minute event. >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the cato institute. my name is matthew feeney.

on a policy and assist your. i'm very excited to welcome you here for what will i hope be an interesting discussion on self-driving cars. it's an interesting topic because we're at a stage where we are asking when questions not if questions when it comes to the widespread use of these vehicles, and we have three experts to talk about it. before we begin i would like all of you to please turn off your cell phones so we will not be interrupted. i would also like to say that we'll be doing a q&a session after the end after all the speakers have had their turn, at which point i will be calling on you. the three speakers we have today are ringing the o'toole, mark scribner, adam thierer until be discussing a range of issues such as urban transit and regional planning, the legal and radio toward issues as well as privacy. now, the first speaker is randal

o'toole. i'll be introducing each of them individually before they speak. randal o'toole is a senior fellow at the cato institute where he works on urban growth, public plan. is the author of number of books including gridlock. the vanishing automobile, reforming the force service and most recently american nightmare. his writings have appeared in numerous national journals and newspapers and is the author of the most recent policy analyst which will be out later. the policy implications upon the vehicles. randal was educated in forestry at oregon state university and an economics at the university of oregon. >> thank you. now we have to wait for the slideshow to come up. here we are. i hope you are all familiar with

driverless cars and the issues behind the. what i want to do is get in depth into how self-driving cars are going to impact our economy, in particular, urban areas. already for different companies have received licenses to operate self-driving cars on an expendable basis in california, nevada, and a number of the companies have said they're working on self-driving cars and have demonstrated them in various forms. and google in particular has published a lot of its demonstrations of videos of self-driving cars, dealing with things like getting around traffic detours, dealing with icicles, even with obstructions in the road and so on and so forth. -- bicycles. did you aren't with a with technology, self-driving cars coupled computing on board.

they are not connected to any center computer that is telling them what to do. it's all on board which means that what is happening with the car is dealing solely with what the car cities and with the cardinals about the area. the implications of self-driving cars are, first of all, we may see a major reduction in congestion because self-driving cars will have much faster reflexes than humans and most congestion is due to slow human reflexes. we are going to see an expansion of mobility. right now only about two out of three americans have a driver's license. this will enable nonlicensed people to travel just as much as licensed people. am looking forward to the day when i will be able to put my dogs in the car and send them to the vet. we are also going to see soon the introduction of cars that don't even have a human driven

capability, and so these cars will be specifically or especially for people who don't have driver's licenses. so, for example, this gentleman is legally blind and yet he is happily driving the new google car without human driven options. another major application of self-driving cars is that it will change the way we look at transportation. right now about half of all americans say that the main constraint on travel is not cost but time. it's not the monetary cost but the time cost of travel. with a self-driving cars that time cost largely goes away. you can surf the internet, play games with her children, train your dogs on board the car while you're traveling if you have a self driving car. that means that that will change would look at transportation and instead of trying to live in a place that is nuclear word or

two where we do anything, we can have a fairly remote home and have a long commute. if you want to get groceries we just in the car to get the groceries. we don't actually have to send ourselves. we are also probably going to see confluence of self-driving cars and car sharing, and that some people think that in the future all cars will be shared. i'm not quite so sure. i think a lot of people will still want to own their own cars, the people who don't want to own their own cars will be able to use car sharing. 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 a car is the marginal or their very low cost, which is only about a third of the total cost of car ownership. so if your car sharing, the cost of driving will be the average cost, a total of the fixed and variable costs. that means you probably will not drive as much or travel as much if your car sharing and if

you're not. that in itself made one reason why some people are going to not want to car share. they will want to own their own car so they can reduce their marginal cost as a variable cost. but what is going to be the location of self-driving cars on urban transit? right now we have urban transit in almost every major city in the country. in fact, lots of little cities have urban transit, and yet outside of new york, urban transit plays a fairly minor role in transportation. the new york urban area about 32% of all commuting is done by transit, about 10 or 11% 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 commuting share which means in most urban areas transit

carries only about 1% or 2%, or less, of all travel. it's pretty insignificant. urban transit was mostly private before 1970. since 1970 it's been nationalized or municipal lysed and we've poured almost $1 trillion of subsidies into urban transit and we have seen per capita transit trips for urbanize fall from 50 trips to a year to about 40. it's not been a high success. right now at one time urban transit was meant for people who didn't have cars to arrive only about 4.5% of workers in america and households without cars, and most of them don't take transit to work. only about 41% of them take transit to work. so transit isn't even important for people who don't have cars much lesser people who do have cars. if you think low-income people are the main users of transit, it turns out you're most likely

to use transit to get to work if you earn 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 take transit visited with saving energy, it turns out transit saves hardly any energy at all over driving. if you want to save energy, you encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars such as the previous. if you think transit saves money, it turns out transit cost more than three times as much per passenger mile as driving, so that's when you don't subsidies of course the we subsidize transit to a far greater degree than we subsidize driving, and that is in which make transit and. competitive with driving. so what happens when we take this heavily subsidize and largely failed transit industry and add driverless cars to the

mix? when you look at manhattan where there is 2 million jobs in about seven square miles, and three-fourths of them take transit, it's hard to imagine that we could substitute self-driving cars for transit. rail transit is always going to be important for manhattan as long as there's 2 million jobs in lower in midtown manhattan. but that's the densest job market in america. the second instance is the chicago loop was about 5000 jobs, about half of them take transit to work. again we probably can't see self-driving cars taking all those people to work, but it might help for some. downtown washington has about 380,000 jobs. about half take transit to work. boston has about 240,000 jobs, about half 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 being an ultimate replacement for transit. however, that's it. that's pretty much the line, those five or six cities are where transit really makes a big difference and we are trying to get rid of transit and replaced with self-driving cars is just going to cause too much congestion. for most of the cities outside of new york, must transit probably makes more sense than rail transit but that's another issue. then we go down to atlanta, 172000 jobs in downtown atlanta but only 14% take transit to work. if we got rid of transit and substantive self-driving cars which will have faster reflexes and have less congestion, i don't think you'll see an increase in congestion. you will probably see a reduction in congestion. houston, 170,000 jobs, 13% take transit to work or denver, 120,000 jobs, 20% take transit to work but that will not be big enough of a market to support

transit in the future. so basically outside of five or six cities, ioc transit as being a viable alternative to self-driving cars and car sharing in the future. icy car sharing and self-driving cars is almost completely replacing transit everywhere except for those few places. so we have to think about how i'm going to wind down transit, however going to change trains in the future to be able to talk to self-driving cars. we also to think about long range transportation planning. congress has for years mandated that urban areas have metropolitan planning organizations that engage in 20 regional transportation plans and rewrite these 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 out about half of them, they basically do what i call the fantasy model which is that we will imagine a world without

cars and help people follow our imagination. for example, sacramento wrote this planet 2006 and is specifically said that they've engaged in this fantasy that 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're not building any roads and there's more and more congestion, you're still driving. they continue the policies of the previous plan. we see this over and over again in cities across the country, engaging in the fantasy rather than the reality, building light rail despite the fact that construction costs are growing to be extremely high. my former hometown of portland in particular seems to be and

raise with seattle to see you can build the most expensive light rail in the universe. seattle right now is winning but portland is coming back with a plan that will have a $2 billion tunnel. i don't see any of the plans being viable in the future than 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 that if you engage in fantasy planning, people are going to respond to your fantasy as economist david brown stone says, the link between land use and since predation is too small to be useful in trying to relieve congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions or save energy. so what happens when we put these self-driving cars in the urban areas that has been engaging in fantasy planning, which means that half the urban areas in the country?

what are self-driving cars going to do to the amount of travel? are people going to drive less because their car sharing and they will have a higher marginal cost of travel? or are they going to drive more because more people actually want have access to self-driving cars? while they drive more because the travel budget is different? cost is not the issue. time is the issue and that they can travel and be productive while they are traveling. nobody knows the answers to these questions, and urban planners frankly 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. a few of them have asked these questions thrown up their hands and said there's no answers. so about 60 americans, cities instead of planning for 19th century technology lack street cars and light rail rather than

plenty for 21st century technology. what should they be doing instead? i argue that what they should do is focus on dominance for structure. what do i mean by dominant infrastructure? well, -- dumb infrastructure. they get there but in france a dumb terminal to access a smart system that would allow them to do things like make plane 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 their smart infrastructure up, and they couldn't afford to do. they couldn't keep up with the internet so instead they abandoned it in about 2003, and today france dislike every elsewise on the internet which has the smarts in the terminal and the internet itself is a

dumb communications infrastructure that doesn't contain intelligence needed for you to do what you want to do on the internet. in the same way highways can be smart or dumb. a dumb highway basically is pavement and then the smarts come in your car that know how to do with the pavement to export how it has all kinds of fumigation system that tells your car things like electronically told your car things like there's an accident up ahead or there's a red light up ahead or there's 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, and so it's much better to have dumb infrastructure and let the smarts the in vehicle. another example of dumb infrastructure is real transit -- excuse me, smart infrastructure is real transit. it only goes to places would build the rail lines. the trains will go there reliably as long as we keep them maintained, which we can't

afford to do, and so we have a $60 billion maintenance backlog in a railroad transit system. instead of trying 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 the lines in plain sight, try to use a consistent form of signage across the country so that your sport car that works in california also worked in new york and virginia. in short, what we should do is try to solve today's problems. today, don't try to foresee the distant future. instead just try to leave the future with as many options as possible so that they can solve the problems without being encumbered by huge debt that we put out today in order to build something that turns out not to be worthwhile at all. build and maintain dumb

infrastructure and -- i don't know why it didn't show my last point which was to mandate a vehicle-to-vehicle infrastructures which is one of the things i think our next speaker will talk about a little bit more. >> thank you. next up we have mark scribners research fellow at the competitive enterprise institute where he works on transportation, land use and telecommunication policy issues to he has written for "usa today," the "washington post," the "national review" and his work has been cited by "the wall street journal," the "washington post," "los angeles times," the globe, congressional record, political. he is very widely cited. he received his undergraduate degree in economics and philosophy from george washington university. marc. >> well, thank you, matthew. thank you all for being here. i'm going to talk about some of

the regulatory issues that we have coming up, and i'm not going to -- let's just go for the overview. some of the recent developments at the federal and state levels, and follow-up with some discussion of the national highway traffic safety administration, and sort of our traditional safety policy at the federal level, spoiler alert, i'm not a big fan. then i'm going to give some examples of how we are already potentially screwing up the regulation of automated vehicles and then i'll close with some principles for sound public policy. recent automation specific quality developments. these states in green are states that enacted legislation that recognize the legality of automated vehicles. these dates and you are considering similar legislation. so in implementing these

statutes with a few examples. so far in about it first out of the gate in 2012. california has released the first part of its rule earlier this year. these govern manufacturing testing, and then the district of columbia here has proposed rules in april. never gone anywhere yet and i think you'll see why. there are some problems with them. at the federal level with any specific regulations yet. nhtsa division of programmers statement of policy back in may 2013. among other things what they did there was basically cautioned states about overregulating, over legislating at this early stage. they also laid out the definition of automation, and i will show you those in the second. while these aren't automation specific, there are recent developments that come out of nhtsa that could very well, are likely to affect automated vehicle in the future. the first example was this tesla

motors petition earlier regarding a safety standard. and then in august of this year nhtsa issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on vehicle difficulty communications, but randal mentioned when his closing, and i will get to those later. here are the automation levels as defined by nhtsa. level zero, simple no automation. that's pretty obvious. level for is for self driving automation. this is one want to get, where you can start talking about having murphy beds and wet bars in your vehicles, giving new meaning to the term fully loaded. but that is where you have the driver has no responsibility and possibly no ability to retake manual control at any point. these levels in between i'm not going to focus much on the. i don't find them as interesting although we are seeing level one. level two vehicles available to consumers. level three are coming, depending on how the regulatory

and liability issues are sorted out. but i want to begin by talking about nhtsa. i think this letter gives an idea of where i stand on nhtsa and this isn't anything, i'm not saying anything bad about the find people who work at nhtsa. i think the philosophy has gotten highway safety priority backwards. so what nhtsa has done the past few decades and, in fact, what its purpose was to focus on unsafe and defective automobile to the problem with this approach is most crashes have always been at a continue to because my driver behavior. so what we end up, what happens is interested policy failure. so we focus on where product defects that are blown out of proportion. mandate, particularly technology that deals with post-crash airbags and the like, and then we downplay everything else. the latest example is gm's

defective ignition switch. i want to say right now i'm not defending gm for their crappy ignition switch but it has gone an incredible amount of media coverage and spawned several congressional hearings. let's put this in perspective the it's like responsible for a few deaths per year since 2005. compare that to the 30,000 annual deaths that can be attributed to driver behavior in some part and, in fact, since 2005 there's about 130,000 gm deaths are largely attributed to behavior that we are essential it morning. so if we were to poll -- i did when i get closer to my position which is get would've nhtsa, retail the vehicle safety act. i don't think that will happen. short of abolishing nhtsa what we did to best promote automated vehicle innovation and upkick by consumers? the motivation is pretty simple.

if these vehicles are, in fact, safer and i think we all think they will be, any policy the results in a mr. cost or delay was all an additional property -- property damage, injury. it something to be concerned about. i know for a fact there are people within the federal policymaking world are cognizant of this act. so what i think nhtsa should do is focus on existing federal regulatory barriers, these safety standards that may limit technological innovation in our automated world. an example which i alluded to earlier was this petition from tesla motors to nhtsa regarding the mirror rule and they were seeking to comply with the new rules requirements with cameras rather than using mayors. right that even if tesla were to replace all mirrors viewing function with cameras it was to be required to install mayors. i think this is an early

example. i think will run into a lot more of these going forward as automated vehicles get more and more advanced. if congress is it anything other don't think they should do much at this point, perhaps not even in the future, they should have nhtsa produce a rule by rule report on these potential conflicts. i'm not sure what we'll get out of this but at least it's a starting point and something congress can just as a jump off point. now like i said, there's already some examples, and this quote is from d.c. council member mary shea attacking a criticism of her bill that you introduce here and openly has passed. i wanted to this was flawed in the second issue is under the belief that requiring a licensed driver be present in the driver's seat was somehow a necessity of the current technology. that may have been true briefly but i don't think he withdrew

into its urban not turn a. true now. i think you'll see why in a second. i'm going to washington, d.c. we are all here as a case study. the 2012, the bills introduced the original bill from councilmember shea include provisions required by thomas vehicles be powered by alternative fuels. impose a new mileage-based tax on all autonomous vehicles. you can see if there's all -- got the right googles outfitted toyota prius and then she realized it always on the vehicles are going to be part by alternative fuels, they will not be paying for fuel tax. we've got to tax them some the. there is a logic figure i just don't think it's a very good logic. is the provision that mandating a licensed driver been the driver's seat during autonomous operation, the first two provisions thankfully were removed before final passage. but the driver's seat remained and if you look at the april 2014 proposed rule from in

d.c., you will notice that they seem to require an operator have a special d.c. driver's license enforcement. so the implication is the district is calling for all test drivers within easy be residents and have a driver's license issued by the district of going to give in to live in will most people live outside of d.c., even from the original perspective that seems to be restricting your potential test driver pool unnecessarily. i think that's sort of the ridiculous requirement and hopefully the final rules won't reflect that. but beating up on d.c. is easy. california and michigan also have these driver seats requirements. so california, we'll focus on the now. now. california is not the place to go but their manufacturing testing roles earlier this year. they imposed the driver seat rule. as randal showed you that video of the latest prototypes, google develop this pod car, low speed

vehicle, and they want to take out the steering wheel and pedals and basically have the vehicle fully automated to the operate but no the village to retake or take manual control at any point. but stat state testing and fedel low speed vehicle rules require the installation of history will. to have all the stuff that they don't want so what we have is an example of a regulator promulgating the rule that is enforcing the innovator to take a step back. it's happened we are having negative impacts from regulation upon vehicles. it's unfortunate. i don't think it was intentional but it just goes to show that, you know which roads good intentions can pave. so the vehicle -- vehicle-to-vehicle mandates the randal mentioned, nhtsa the issue and advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in august, and what they want to do is they want to develop a final rule by

the end of the decade that will require that all new highway vehicles be enabled with dedicated short-range communications vehicle-to-vehicle technology, and this mandate would be required that all have these little yellow circles rather. what the image is trying to a street is that these cars will be talking to each other. they wouldn't be completely reliant on onboard sensors, for instance, in finding hazards. keep in mind this is not for automation to their talking solely about warning drivers of hazards. imagine there's a car a few car lengths ahead of you that's lands on its brakes. this would send data back to your car until you some guy slammed on his brakes a heavier, take whatever action. it remains to see how effective that would be in real-world settings. so there's some problems with the v2v mandate.

the first is proponents argued its low-cost. they are imagining all new vehicles will have these boxes can v2v boxes in the car that will community with each other. i'm think is the only cost a few hundred dollars, what's the big do? the cost of new vehicle, $25,000. this isn't a big increase in the sticker price. the problem is the benefits are likely to be very low in the short run. we're going to have, at earliest were expecting the mandate by 2020. it's going to take at least 10 years before you have significant market penetration for the auto industry to turn over, but this'll do any good for anyone. i think you need about 70% of vehicles enabled for you encountering one on the road to the greater the 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 in dsrc, the dsrc have 75 megahertz has been blocked off since 1999.

the proponents want to keep it blocked off for transportation purposes only but there are forces out there, namely those who make consumer electronic devices, portable electronic devices that are wi-fi enabled that would love have access to the spectrum. there's been a battle going on at the fcc that hasn't been resolved yet over the spectrum. i think the reason alone i think it makes it premature for nhtsa to dive into this but they thought otherwise. dsrc ignores competing and superior technologies. know kia earlier this year announced it has developed an advanced form of ltd it would be able to perform the same vehicle-to-vehicle communication functions. but should be able to use technology, they would use things like cell phones which were easily and already have an lp that work infrastructure out there. when they get into sort of more

precise vehicle to infrastructure kind of applications, that would require if we do dsrc, installing a lot of roadside boxes and we frankly just don't have the money. i think nhtsa so far has ignored some of these pure technologies. this is a good chance this is already obsolete. if we're talking 2030, 2035 that, you know, what good is, at least the wind its is to imagine this end this isn't vehicle-to-vehicle communications in the context of automation is bad but nhtsa isn't like that automation. they're talking about hazard warnings. if you have a self-driving vehicle were you have no responsibility to take control of the vehicle at any point, perhaps not even ability to what good is a warning light or audible alert going to do for you? the answer is not much. there's an unanswered cybersecurity and liability questions. this proceeding has just opened

and industry is 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 v2v, and mandated v2v system that doesn't involve animation but nonetheless is on the board the car, how would those interact at all, if at all? that's why think the best case for fully automated vehicles under this v2v mandate as it is currently conceived is the automakers will be forced to install completely useless technology and autonomous vehicles. that might not be bad but certainly increases the price and that gets back to unnecessary diddling the rollout to consumers. i think the take away from v2v and dsrc at least how nhtsa currently envisions it, is we should really skeptical of the clinic that the the the is so valuable that automakers would

never consider installing it voluntarily. there may be some legitimate institutional problems with industry collaborating on standards. but then perhaps though should be addressed directly rather than forcing a mandate down everyone's throat. i'm going to end with some sound automated vehicle public policy principles, or at least what i think of sound principles. i always think we should start with recognizing and promoting a huge potential benefits. i have talked a lot about safety, but randal did mention of these traditionally mobility disadvantaged populations, the disabled, the elderly and youth who don't have access to personal mobility that many of us take for granted. we should reject the precautionary principle. just because it's new technology, we don't have data doesn't mean we should shift the burden to the innovators and so you need to prove that this is 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 some demonstrators safety level, but i think going to precautionary route is a good way to get these out of the hands of normal people. we shouldn't presume to know how the technology and law will evolve. the technology right now we're talking to very proprietary things. the only thing we know about this is generally the kind of the press release which are industry that is currently developing this. and the law, with there is no court cases yet. we don't know how this is going -- do we need legislative intervention to update our liability laws and things like that? we don't know. there's a possibility that common-law liability can evolve without any intervention. number for logically follows, we should always seek to minimize let slip and regulatory intervention.

regulators are slow. however, well-intentioned. this is moving pretty quickly. 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 they shouldn't be involved in sort of developing the technote or deploying the technology. and then finally once we get to the state where we're talking about updating motor vehicle code to reflect these new automated world really doing some serious legislating, if it comes to that, we should focus on developing clear and simple rules that preserve technology neutrality. i see a big risk with the first movers, so the first company that ends up with the consumer ready vehicle coming to market and then regulators saying, well, we are done. this is the technology we're going to mandate. i think it's a terrible idea to mandate technology in generation one, despite the fact that regulators may believe that this

will enable us to get generation one check out to consumers more rapidly. so with that i am finished, i don't forget to any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you, marc. our next speaker is adam thierer who is a senior research fellow with technology post program at the decatur center at george mason university. he specializes in technology media, internet and free speech policies. he is writing so good in "the wall street journal," the economist and the "washington post," the atlantic and forbes. adam has authored or edited eight books on media regulation, safety issues. his latest book is innovation, continued case for technological freedom. before working on mckay to come at them with his of the progress and freedom foundation, go to documentation studies here at cato and a senior fellow at the heritage foundation. he got his masters as national

business with entry to the university of maryland and his bachelor's in journalism and political philosophy from indiana university. >> thanks, becky, and great to be back at decatur. is always and i want to say it's a pleasure to follow randal and marc. i've learned a lot. i cibecue my remarks refocused by merrily on the privacy and secured implications of intelligent vehicles. i have a new paper out on the subject from the mercatus center a george washington -- george mason university. in thinking about privacy and security and smart cars or driverless cars, we need to begin first by understanding, acknowledging that security and privacy are relative concepts with a very amorphous boundaries. not everyone affixes the same value on security or privacy.

it's a very subjective notion and concept. some people are hyper cautious and hypersensitive about their privacy the others are risk takers that are just somewhat indifferent or more pragmatic about their privacy but we all say we love our privacy but sometimes we do things that actually in the real world act differently. this is called the so-called privacy paradox. secondly, we should understand security and privacy norms tend to evolve over time and do so very rapidly. with any new highly disruptive technology, such as intelligent the coal technology, we tend to often panic at first especially about the privacy applications of new technologies but then we very quickly move to a new plateau. we established new ethical and legal baselines about new technologies fairly rapidly. i have written about this and silver resolve all review articles and in my new book. there's essentially as i described in that work a familiar cycle at work of

initial resistance to a techno to, gradual adaptation and then eventually assimilation of the tech tilted to our lives. not without some heartburn along the way of course. this was just as true for the first course became a local procedure go and will be true for the smartcard technology of the revolving today. is especially true that these norms evolve a as a pretense to privacy and security precise because they're so subjective and relevant. the third point, for almost every perceived privacy or security concern or harm, there is a corresponding consumer benefits that sometimes bounces those out or even outweighs those perceived harms. we see this with a broader internet and digital technologies and we will stay with intelligent vehicle technologies as well. consider this comparison. compared today's vehicle telematics and intelligent technology onboard our cars with diverse types of tracking technologies that are on board in every smart board that all of

your caring with you right now. tracking creates enormous benefits. we now know in real time what traffic looks like we were in the cars that just because the technology, it's because we can sit on a map in real time that happens because we are all connected and we are all being tracked. so again we have to be clear that not every theoretical boogiemen is just a big bad awful thing to be exposed with. it has a corresponding benefit that we have to take into account before we address it. the 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 likely to be the same tomorrow. today's intelligent vehicle technologies, privacy issues, likely to be somewhat more pressing i would argue and tomorrow's.

that's because things like event data recorders and telematics are recording real-time actions today as we are doing them with her hands on the wheel. this raises a variety of interesting questions such as can the information be used for automobile insurance purposes? it is today on a volunteer basis. could be used for law enforcement purposes by driving erratically or too fast? these things are possible today. they raised obvious privacy consideration. that may lead to considerations or concerns about discrimination associate with the data that's collected by our vehicles. but it's 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 that we own and more like a service that we just use to it on occasion? what happens when we combine the power of today's sharing economy with the power of self driving technologies? the car the future may look like some sort of robotic chauffeur, as randal described with a

hybrid of uber and zipcar. we dialed it up as we needed to in that environment the privacy considerations are very different than they are today. clearly we can still be tracked, our activities the track but not as personally manually operating that people and so it's a different type of consideration but that's something to take into account. fifth point, and this is the most important point i will make you today, that any security and privacy solutions must take into account these sorts of considerations that i've just outlined and must be able to accommodate the many different types of views and values that people have as it pertains to privacy and security. in essence, and i write a lot about this in my recent book, there are no silver bullet solutions to concerns about safety, security, and privacy. it will be difficult for law to keep pace with, not just rapid innovation space, but the rapid

evolution of consumers individual taste and values. this is why we need a flexible layered approach to addressing security and privacy concerns. we need to borrow a phrase from richard epstein of chicago, simple rules for a complex world. we need rely on things like contracts to enforce existing terms of service. when you do think about how common law and towards might evolve. i want to recommend a wonderful new paper at the brookings institution where it talks with evolution a product led the law historically and says there's a reason to expect it should stop there. in fact, he says when confronted with a new often complex questions involving products liability, courts have generally gotten things right. product labeling is been adapted to many new technologies that have emerged and will be quite capable of adapting to emerging autonomous vehicle technology as the need arise. i completely agree with that. it will be interesting to see of these liability and insurance standards evolve again as we

move from our vehicles being final goods to services. this will change what economists call the lease cost avoid or in these situations. right now use the driver of the vehicle is the lease cost, the person can take action to avoid potential types of hardware there to be safety related or otherwise. may be privacy inscrutably. but what happens when you know longer own your vehicle? what happens if you could be the created no more information about the vehicle and i use it than you do? it could be the locus of knowledge and, therefore, is both good and liability moves from you to them. it already thinking about this. 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 that manufacturers of intelligent vehicle technologies can be taken to alleviate a lot of problems and headaches headas themselves, special essay, to

deal with more liability potentially. and this leads to a lot of proposals for so-called privacy by design or security by design to the idea of baking and best practices regarding data security for data collection or data availability in systems as you manufacture them. this could include things like data collection minimization or limitations. basically not allowing third parties to access certain types of data that are being collected about you. they could include best practices regarding better transparency about how your data is being used if it is being shared with other parties. potentially clear use practices about how to use these things are probably with better information or empowerment or education of the users come and clear consent for any type of new uses or iterations of technologies as they are evolving and more innovation is occurring. you might want to take a look at the wonderful work the future of the party from is doing coming

up with best practices for intelligent vehicle technology providers. this is an ongoing process. there is no endpoint. the standards and best practices involve not just every couple of years but every couple of months because there's always some new technology that's collected more data that raises to get another privacy and security concerns. there's a theory might have. we might say this is all fine and well but shouldn't there be some minimal legal standard? shouldn't there be some federal or state regulation regarding driver privacy or security? these values are important to a lot of people. but i think for all the reasons i've already stated, we now know especially in light of what randal and marc have presented that these technologies are fast moving targets. this is a very but hard for me to imagine that any longer put in place today will be applicable to whether is down 18 months down the road. you need to have that flexible ongoing evolutionary approach of voluntary best practices along with the evolution of

common-law, and probably better addressed evolving cases and controversies that will develop in this field. as marc and round will know to we are probably better served by adding a wait-and-see strategy, therefore, that avoids that caution at principle approach as marc discuss and have our innovation to this is the point where i do the plug for the book. i argued that for technology searches tribal scars and many others, the benefit of the doubt should be given to those indicating and innovation were generally. that ongoing extreme edition and trial and error will permit us to find new and better ways of doing things, new and better ways of being safer, more secure and even potentially funny more privacy. we can't be living in fear of short-term worst-case scenarios for our long-term best case scenarios will never come about. so one final point i want to make about privacy and security,

especially privacy, special consideration needs to be paid to the rollback of a place in this regard. government actions can affect user privacy in a very profound way, whereas many of the presidency to the concerns regarding private-sector data collection with regards to intelligent vehicle technology are problematic, and, obviously, deserve some discussion. governmental data collection and use raises an entirely different level of concern and set of issues. private entities was obviously cannot find or taxi or imprison you since they like the sorts of powers governments have. and moreover, although it is possible to ignore -- certain parts of technologies including wireless technologies, the same is not true of governments who can obviously their grasp cannot be faded. 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 constitution and statutory protections should apply. the courts are going to need to consider revisiting the so-called third-party doctrine which holds an individual sacrifices his or her fourth amendment interest in their personal information when they divulge with third party or sure for whatever reason is that parties promised to safeguard the data. that's are problematic because what we want is a world where many intelligent people companies are competing on security and privacy, and maybe some are offering those are more privacy sensitive better protection than you assert industry norms or best practices. again, industry is moving in this direction. we had a recent gao report laughter that survey 10 makers of these technologies and found they were taking steps to address these things to various degrees. but, of course, more could be done and more is being done now especially with the liability question loomed large. but when the government comes in and says we must have access to everything our we need

backdoors, we'll having this debate right now with our smart phones. apple and google star using data encryption on her smart phones, a lot of people in government are saying you can't do that. in a lot of people are clamoring for better security on their smartphones. at the exact same debate that will unfold for drivers cars and intelligent vehicle technology in the short term. we should make sure our government doesn't do anything to impede that process and we allow innovation to go forward. thank you very much. >> thank you, adam. and thanks to all of our speakers. we're not 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 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 a question and answer session, not a statement and answer questions at if you like

to direct at one of the speakers, please make it clear. i will begin with the gentleman at the back. >> is the microphone on? >> perhaps. >> thank you. >> i have my own company, channel design group works with fred. i am here thinking about the role that he played in transportation research. for the last speaker, you talked about privacy and all. ..

>> although it may be difficult, y, having fleets of freight vehicles that are essentially robotically operated raises a whole host of security questions about who has access to that data and that information. that's part of the spectrum upon which companies are going to be competing, is to offer greater security to make sure those sorts of trade secrets don't get out. it deserves more consideration than i'm giving it here. >> we have this gentleman at the front, please? >> hi, i'm tom curry, a reporter with congressional quarterly roll call. i talked to the h o