>> i think the other piece that is important is, in terms of how do you support really standing up or evaluating real-life use cases for proof of concept or pilots come if you will? that's what we're seeing other countries doing is helping support actually get these systems up and running to learn from them as quickly as

possible. that takes infrastructure support. that takes things that the government is best equipped to help execute and manage. i think that's another big area where we would really welcome the support of these agencies. >> talking infrastructure, we're talking smart cities, investing in infrastructure. we need to be thinking five years, 10 years ahead in terms of the ability for us to have smart devices. >> exactly. the vehicle to infrastructure piece of it, the markings on the roadways. putting infrastructure to be ready for these technologies. >> if we're talking about large investments in infrastructure from the federal government we as legislators should be looking into? >> federal and state. ann arbor is a good example were a number of companies have come together to create a test bed both in ann arbor and the surrounding areas as well as dedicate test track on the campus grounds. >> mr. abelson?

>> we've been very encouraged by the way secretary fox has approached this in recognizing it's important to allow us to work together to develop the technology safely and find ways to deploy it. we certainly don't know if the state of the technology development all the interest. i think we've seen flexibility to learn as we go and respond to what we learned. >> so promulgating rules, try to match with the future is going to look like, shouldn't we be focusing on testing right now and rules that focus on creating a good environment for testing? >> actually we so far found that we don't actually have particular challenges with testing, at the technology is advancing very rapidly. where we are most concerned is about bringing this to market and regulations that would limit the opportunity for technology. that's where we think congress and the federal government can help pave the way. >> thank you. i wanted to give a public thank

you to gm for being such a good partners on the spectrum issue. you all leaned in and work with us in a cooperative manner. >> we appreciate your support as well. >> thank you senator corker. senator peters. >> as the senator from michigan and representing the motor city, that i'm very excited about these incredible developments in our auto industry, and to see auto manufacturers coming together with suppliers, with technology companies, all cooperating together to create some partnerships that will ultimately create an awful lot of new jobs and are going to just lead to some extraordinary breakthroughs in terms of vehicle safety as well as performance. as we've heard from your testimony and others you with some of our mobility challenges generally for various individuals. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today to discuss this frontier, particularly

connected in automated technologies and their life-saving benefits. we know they're still significant challenges that we will be facing as policymakers in order to see this realize. i think it's clear what we are on the cusp of his disruptive technology in the auto sector, unlike anything we've seen for i can't imagine how many decades that it's many, many decades since we've seen this or disruptive technology. as we heard today but i think it's important to repeat is that we know that over 38,000 people died on our highways last year. and your companies are developing technologies that could very well dramatically reduce that number, saving tens of thousands of lives. that's what i believe as members of congress and my colleagues here, that we have to do everything we can to make sure your efforts are not delayed or unnecessarily deterred. that means congress has to ensure that the fcc, the beauty and the ntia are thoroughly test

any proposal for spectrum sharing. connected vehicle technologies and should not be compromised by someone connected to a toaster or a light switch. the technologies of today and tomorrow must be safe from cyber threats and protect users privacy as well. we must avoid a patchwork of state regulations that will only start the development and deployment of these technologies, and instead work to implement consistent national policy. we must think carefully about the insurance implications as well connected and automated cars and the possibility of liability shifting to the manufacturers. and, finally, we must increase our investment in connected and automated vehicle research and development. i support the administration's

tenure, $3.9 billion proposal for this purpose, and particularly the $200 million in the dot fy '17 budget request for funding and large-scale pilot program that will accelerate these technologies. i think it's particularly essential that a portion of this money goes towards funding a designated national facility for academia, industry and government can come together to conduct, connected and automated vehicle research testing product development and certification. as we've heard countries like sweden, korea, china, japan have already established these 10 sites. we need to do as well. i appreciate the comment about mcso through with university of michigan which is involved in some detailed testing out a truck which brings all the manufactures together and perhaps to get some comment from you and so important it is to have a national testing facility that can bring all the manufacturers together, suppliers together to make sure

all these technologies work together. doesn't do any could have a great product if it's not working in conjunction with the toyotas and hondas and the gm in everybody else out on the road. in all weather conditions as well, snow and ice is important to test. but perhaps your comments as well important it is for us as government officials to be focusing on creating a national center where we can do this sort of testing. >> i think that would be me. my one concern would be that the data, the test data was made available to a more academic/expert-based community for that validation, that these tests are meeting standards we think they should spirit so that should be led by academic centered? >> an independent group. not message to academics but sure, i would be happy to. >> i take that you are volunteering. thank you. >> i think your point, senator

peters, it's very important we do find a way to thoroughly test these technologies. as you indicate it will take a lot of work amongst various companies and suppliers and regulators. so i do think that having a way that we can approach this in a coordinated fashion would be very important to us going forward. >> anyone else? >> we very much value the opportunity to test and all kinds of weather conditions. that's part of the reason why we didn't as much testing as we have in different areas. >> i also want to pick up from a report that the department of transportation just released last week that opposed to automated vehicles, under the current motor vehicle safety standards. report concluded that many of the standards assume the presence of a human driver and that cars that deviate further from this conventional vehicle design, vehicle certification becomes a lot more difficult,

and depended on some new standard at how we interpret the standards. i would encourage your companies to continue to say that questions for interpretation and it's so working together the automotive industry and government can determine how to address potential record with advances which all of you have expressed we need to know to move this legislation will this technology forward. i encourage you to share testing data with nhtsa as well to assist them in developing these new national standards are automated vehicle function. so perhaps some comments from you as to how you're working now with nhtsa sharing information. there was a discussion about some new target authority for nhtsa as well, you could elaborate on some those ideas i would appreciate it. >> we continue to work very close with nhtsa as our regulatory agency, being an oem we have a very long relationship with nhtsa. we worked together collaboratively with them around this topic of autonomous

vehicles. we look forward to learning more on both sides and continuing work with nhtsa appropriate record with a 40. we have emphasized many times, we want to develop and deploy this technology safely. safety is our primary concern, and making sure that we can do it safely is very important to the company he formed actually introduce these to the public. >> senator, i couldn't agree more. safety has to be front and foremost for this. osha we've been engaged with nhtsa sharing our lessons on the road and taking their feedback, incorporate that into our program. we are very excited about secretary fox's initiative in building guidelines over the next six months of afford to taking part in the public workshops that will be happening which will i think bring a degree of transparency to this e

process. >> great, thank you. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. in 2014, 3179 people were killed and distracted driving crashes, and another 431,000 were injured. but right now to few states receiving federal funding. senator hoeven and i worked on this but it can't include in the fast act to make sure states besides connecticut were able to receive some of the funding for educational efforts on distracted driving we know these incentive grants are helpful. could you talk about what would come advances in automated vehicles would need for reducing the incidence of distracted driving? we know it's just a major issue. it's expanding. it's not just kids. it's adults also. we detected in our newspaper front page, two people hurt, a man killed kidding, he was a

school bus driver, 79, and he went out, he lived in a rural area katusha squad allocated everyday to get his newspaper at the mailbox at the turn of the woman who hit him was doing a text. and, of course, she's been charged with a crime. that was just a bigger every single day there's something like that. so could you talk about how the automated vehicles whoever can take it can would be helpful. >> with that unfortunate and tragic example, highlights the role that a disk systems can play like lane departure warning, breaking another driver alerts. ultimately, the car taking evasive action as it gets more and more automated. those direct countermeasures to the effects of distraction with occupant or the driver is not moving attention to what the court is doing. that's the immediate safety business -- benefit, which is why we are so excited about

implementation of the stickers act in getting that out there into the consumer base. but as continue down that path, automated driving and the sensors that go with it are what really enable the car to avoid the situation regardless of what the driver is doing. that's the ultimate safety benefit, not just for distracted driving but all forms of driver related accidents. >> i think of distracted driving incidents are tragic, but to the point, autonomous vehicles can also address a very large percentage of our actions that are due to drunken driving or speed related, over speed related accidents. so there's a very large percentage, over 90% of accidents are attributable to some sort of driver error. autonomous systems and automated vehicles should be able to address that in a very substantial way. >> this is really at the heart of why we are engaged in this

work. when we look at the 38,000 people that nhtsa estimates were killed lester competes in unacceptable status quo under so much opportunity to do good. the technology will never be perfect, but the opportunity to reduce those accidents and tragedies is incredible. >> go ahead. >> this is one of the key things we think let's bring to the equation. looking at the issue of drunk driving specifically, it has now been determined by more than one resource project that the advent of ridesharing has significantly reduced the incidence of drunk driving across the country. the ability to deploy technology to consumers on a mass level is where lyft can contribute to this discussion thereby enabling a write-in platform like lyft we can bring these safer options to the public at a mass scale and

get it ready for mass adoption much quicker than other models could. >> okay. >> if i can just weigh-in. all of these things are absolutely true. my specialty is human error so this is deadly something that's going to help address these problems. i think the real trouble we are up against is the hybrid time. we are in a very strange time were used more and more autonomy start to be introduced into cars and that's going to increase people's distraction. i have -- recently tesla discovered one of its drivers getting into the backseat went to estimate what you're supposed in the seat. so if i think about human behavior is if humans just think the car is pretty good been the behavior will be even worse. the best thing we could is for everyone to get out of their cars today and have them all be driverless with no steering wheels to more. that would be the safest thing we could do but until then where

we have gremlins on the same road as the tesla's on the same road as no steering wheel google car, we will have to be careful about how we set up that she would autonomy in the action. >> if i may. so we've seen this completely agree with the research. a few years ago. we were at the point where we have technology that could drive while on the freeway. imagine a product we get in the car, press a button and then it tries for you. we had 140 employees test that capability. they love the product. they thought it was fantastic. the former vice president of general motors has said for the customers, driving is the distraction. we saw that live, and it really comes down to the fact at some point its automation technologies are just so good that people over trusted even

when they're told they shouldn't and have to be there. this is again why we are taking that leap towards fully self driven vehicles. >> technology exists to make sure that if people are going to climb in the back seat are not paying attention to the road, the system can warn them and get their attention back on the road. >> i will put on the record another question because i'm out of time about autonomous vehicles and increased mobility for senior citizens. but i no longer call a silver tsunami because that's too negative, mr. chairman. i've been told by my senior groups to call it a silver surge of more seniors. so it will be curious. i have some questions on the record about how effective these him help for seniors as well. thank you very much. >> good questions. we will be there soon. my neighbor from minnesota, thank you for those questions. is one of great application for people who need an autonomous

car to keep them awake until they get to south dakota. the driving across minnesota. [laughter] >> you mean when they are driving through south dakota to get to wall drug? >> senator daines. [laughter] >> it's the perfect segue, talk about big wide open country we have out west. west. faq for testifying today. i can tell you it's refreshing to you about the innovation, the job creation that is occurring outside washington, d.c., lo and behold, so kudos. montana is the fourth largest day, the second highest rate of vehicle ownership we have 75,000 miles of public roads, 95% of those are world. our interstate highways generally to 80 miles an hour. that is the speed limit. and so i see these autonomous vehicles as having potential for significant safety improvement or i want to talk about safety issues and get your comment.

first of all on driver fatigue. by wife and i were heading out for dinner this weekend and we saw where they were investigating, clearly a rollover, most likely driver fatigue. claimed the life of me for my hometown. billions of dollars in losses, thousands of lives lost because of driver fatigue. how will autonomous vehicles help reduce that? >> in our model they are not driving anymore so the issue is mediated or even in the case of the said i talked about earlier where we had 140 people use vehicles. one of the most touching stories was a woman who lives about an hour after work and commute every day. she told us that coming in, that she wanted to exercise that you didn't have time anymore. she used our corporate w we can choose it ever did that week she got home and just able to go for

a run and cook for her family because she was not exhausted from fighting traffic. i think i called and maybe the softer elbows, the social benefits of this technology are going to be innumerable and hard to quantify up front. >> we are also developing a system that for advanced highway pilot or some the semiautonomous vehicles where we look at the driver of webcammers the look of the driver 2 cents were is the driver looking to arthur eyes on the road? are they blinking or they shut? we cannot determine the state of the driver. and is fatigue factor, and take the appropriate countermeasures to either stimulate or reengage the driver. those technology will roll out towards the end of this year, along with a broader suite of autonomous driving capability. >> it's probably more the semiautonomous and i appreciate. that's hopeful. let's talk about drunk driving.

publishes reduce drunk driving let's talk about the semiautonomous mode as well. how do we reduce drunk driving injuries and fatalities? >> as you indicated in fully autonomous mode it's an obvious answer. semiautonomous the art technologies and government to try to interpret whether a driver is capable of first possibly driving. to be honest at the pace of autonomous technologies are moving i would hope that we can get to these autonomous vehicles relatively quickly, and there will be a solution for several of these issues around driving. >> we had a horrible wrong way crash on interstate 94 in eastern montana, killed three people two weeks ago. thinking about the way google is working, maybe this is for you, dr. urmson but is there somewhersome waythat could detee eastbound lane, westbound, to detect a wrongly situation and

prevent it? is that possible? >> i'm quite sure that's technology that could be developed. we are building vehicles that would not make that mistake but geofencing, geo- modeling technologies could be in place to help address that. >> and animal google coalition, another big issue around the country. deer populations are up. it's not just your it's also held and is as we'll get that little bit different collection. release of dollars, hundreds and thousands of deaths potential. how can this help reduce animal vehicle collisions. >> important a reference was made to it earlier. these autonomous vehicles using raise incentives, not just cameras. i think the potential exists that you could be even more perspective --% of what animals are what was then we human

beings. in michigan with a significant issue with the on highway. i think these technologies offer a real opportunity. >> at often times at night. as i taught my kids, you are more likely come you're better off if you don't swerve. it's the swerving that results in significant injuries. privacy, we've all heard the stories of current vehicles operating systems being hacked, the famous one from last summer. as the internet of things continues to grow this threat becomes ever more real. what is deemed doing to ensure consumers current vehicles are secure? >> as far cybersecurity in particular, we have a dedicated organization that spends times on these issues. it is managed by senior executive in the company. we have learned from other industries on how to approach cybersecurity issues. we employ red teams that are not involved in designing a system but only spent time trying to find for the goods.

just a week ago i spent time with one of these inches who brought in a module and demonstrated all the things he did to try and get him and compromise this module. it's very impressive. as was the also not having industry group that shares best practices as well as reports vulnerabilities across the interest. we are very proud that jeff is the vice-chairman of the crew. so so we take cybersecurity very, very seriously, and we think going forward the carnage to be designed from the ground up with cybersecurity in my. that is our intent. >> all right, thank you. >> senator gardner. >> thank you to do it is for your time to dig i think that been great questions today and a lot of interest and intrigue into this will move forward and what technologies will emerge on top of the questions are just the tip of the iceberg as we all try to figure out and understand how this is going to affect our

culture, society, innovation and safety and our economy. a couple things, 2005 probably when auto steer tractor's really became the latest rage in agriculture. useful economic over productivity. today based on that over a decade-long experience i think if you want to get down to a 12-inch actors in the field whether you are planting corn or drilling week, it costs around $7000 to retrofit an old piece of equipment, tractor that's 10, 15 years old or so, to have it down to one inch actors to get it probably down to $28,000 to retrofit an old tractor. didn't come off the assembly line with auto steer capabilities on. if you are dating with because it's going to on interstate though, the questions of factors is not something that we had actually because we are 24-inch actors to get this is satellite guidance versus right or cameras

on the vehicle itself. we are not talking satellite, correct? >> vehicles use gps also an array of other centers and very high definition maps to understand exactly the vehicle is in the world and position itself for accurately. >> as you are will vehicles off the assembly line, could have this autonomous technologies or capabilities of the factory line as we retrofit older vehicles to get. how are we going to make sure, whose the responsible body regulatory landscape to make sure that used car that is 15 years old but as an aftermarket autonomous system place on it is up to the same sort of calibration or specifics as a factory line car? >> so in our view for some of the reasons discussed earlier, cybersecurity and safety can we don't see this techno- geek necessarily being applicable as far as retrofitting vehicles.

to do and autonomous vehicle successfully and safely, you need to touch a number of the fundamental systems of the corporate you need to design -- the idea of trying to take a system and so retrofit onto existing we don't think it's practical. >> some will develop that, don't you think, just like a piece of farm equipment. some will figure out to retrofit an old car. who will be responsible? >> we don't see about to be able to do that. >> the other question that is the state, a lot of this is the question the federal and state, is there a state that is getting it better than other states. what are they doing that's so good about it? >> i think that is an abort in question. we've seen many states that have expressed enthusiasm about this technology and looking for ways to kind of ensure that technology will come to the

state. without is the best action to take no action. in general the technologies being safety tested a in many states and what we are looking for is the leadership of secretary fox has announced at a federal level bring some guidelines for innovation. >> that gets to the other question of who is doing the best job of not doing anything? [laughter] spiff i'm sure i don't have a good answer. >> the other question out of curiosity more than anything is, the question, example of the dear. you are driving down the interstate in colorado and have animal on the side oppressed even a java runs out after a soccer ball -- a child who runs out after a soccer ball, how do we address the moral choice the computer lab to make. a car is going to have to make

whether it veers left if there is a car next to him if it veers right into the ditch, maybe the car itself is carrying passengers, obviously carrying passengers. how do we study that? how do you make that have been? >> i think this is a very important point. this is a question that humanity has struggled with for hundreds and hundreds of years. there isn't the right kind of philosophical answer or so the approach we are taking is to try and reduce this to practice in a way that we can implement something and see the broader safety, economic mobility values. so when we think about this, let's try hardest to avoid vulnerable road users, pedestrian, cyclical and then beyond that try to avoid other vehicles and the beyond to avoid things that don't move in the world and be transparent as if you're interested, this is the way this will behave to the best

ever and the to make the decision, a and i okay with that or not? others may have different judgments. >> i would only add i think the intent, talked about the various sensing technologies come institute actually the best we can achieve the goal never get put into the situations in the first place so again with the emphasis on developing these with safety preeminent in our minds, i think there are real opportunities. >> in colorado we had about 100,000 new residents to the state in 2014-2015, the second fastest to think second fastest to think of what numbers you let a growing state in the country. 80% of the gross between public all right and fort collins. this technology is one of the keys to a filing a thriving ski industry and resort industry up an amount for your limited to the mountain tunnels. i think this is an incredibly

fascinating opportunity and i just look forward to learning more from you as we progress. thank you, mr. chairman. >> there are lots of reasons people are moving to colorado. [laughter] >> and automation is probably a good thing for that. [laughter] >> we may need more autonomous cars in colorado for that reason. thank you, senator gardner. senator markey. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. these new vehicles our computers on wheels. it's absolutely amazing what is happening. i just went out onto the highway, 395 and a tesla vehicle, and i looked right, i looked left look, ma, no hands. just driving along down the highway at 11:30 a.m. in one of

these demonstration vehicles and which is absolutely amazing, very impressive. and clearly we are still at the dawn of the era of the promise is there and we can see it and i'm glad i took the demonstration this morning back in 2013, and again last year, i asked 20 automakers with her doing to protect our computers on wheels. and what i found is that they are not doing enough. after reviewing the original responses on automakers, i released a report, the report is entitled tracking and hacking security and privacy gaps, put american drivers at risk. and here's what we learned from the study, that these no longer need a crowbar to break into a corporate they just need an iphone.

today's connected cars are also collecting tremendous amounts of personal driving information. cars know where you are, where you been, how fast and slow you drive, and even the mileage since your last oil change. some of that is good. some of it is important to have gathered. but if all the vehicles out there were fully autonomous and we're all relying upon computers and not a human driver from the start to get to where you are to get to where you want to go, those vulnerabilities will become more pronounced in our society. so just have a couple questions for the panel. number one, we need enforceable rules of the road to protect driver privacy and security. i introduced with senator blumenthal the security and privacy in your car act, or the spy car act address the daschle

traffic safety administration and the federal trade commission to establish federal standards to secure our cars and protect our drivers privacy. so for each of the panels if you would, i would like you to answer this question on mandatory cybersecurity standards, including hacking protection and that means all access points in the car should be equipped with recent measures to protect against hacking attacks. data security measures. that means that all collected information should be secured of unwanted access. and hacking medication so that vehicles are equipped with technology that can detect and report and stop hacking attempts in real-time. doctor cummings, what do you think, do we need rules of the road that are skittish i'm if general agreement with all of those issues but i would to a university professor on the cutting edge of the second to the concerns that have and i testified two years ago in front of the same committee is that

it's happening so quicker that the government institutions cannot keep pace but the government cannot hide the same people that chris is hiring that google likes. speed to the companies build in the hacking? >> i agree but i think you need a regulatory framework that can ensure this is happening. >> that's what i'm asking or should we say to nhtsa and -- >> i say yes, but i'm saying i don't think nhtsa to be a lease of the people on the stuff they need to do that. >> again that's a problem with the securities and exchange commission. fat ho bunch of lawyers but couldn't deal with meltdown at ferc because it moved to a different trading moderate obviously the agencies have to get the technical expertise they need, but it would be important of the rules and the personnel to do it. >> i agree but i think that's a real challenge. >> i understand. we have to meet the challenges of the future. mr. okpaku? >> thank you for the question.

we at lyft are not only are we fully committed to ensuring that we prevent any instances of cyber hacking or any violations over user privacy but yes, we are in support of well-thought-out principles that would codify our previous existing attempts to ensure that. i think it's important of the agenda this has been discussed before that there be a consistency of what these principles look like. we are dealing with a technology that would be deployed across the country, and in order to do so we need to make sure whatever principles are put in place to ensure the privacy and safety of our users that is consistent across the country. >> i think that chairman is going to catch us. doing the mandatory standard or not? >> i don't think it's been determined whether we need it or not but what we've determined is that it does help to standardize, standardized testing and approach. the question is how do we get

there. >> we support the way to trade information across the oem. i think oems and suppliers i think the point of regulation tried to stay ahead of his very fast-changing area, we think a more flexible approach is preferable. >> dr. urmson? >> google is attacked on a regular basis. with hundreds dedicated to cybersecurity. what we learned then that is it's a very dynamic space and it's important they will do adapt the principles for which you defend overtime spent understand what you're saying that witnesses after 30 years ago and said the same thing about airbags and seatbelts and how they should just leave it to the individua individual compan. it was hard to mandate a specific airbag andover expensive, so i understand the consistency over the decades but at the same time people expect airbags to protect their children and they will expect certain standards that will be mandated across the board that will come to protect people.

i was hit by a car when i was five running across the street and i was chasing to nine year old. i was only five and i can se set difficult was for the driver in retrospect did i was going to. just want to make sure that we don't have unnecessary accidents and clearl colt haaker's ocwen e ability to be able to break into these vehicles the whole bunch of very smart young people who will start playing games with the technological importance of the kind of protections you built in can be voluntary but it didn't at least it and then don't then those 10 will be identified by the hackers as once they will be playing games with out on the highways. i just think we need animal standards that every company is going to be. i think the sooner we start the discussion and except as the responsibility of the better off we will be. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you all for being here. may i respectfully suggest that the answer to the question,

should they be mandatory safety and privacy standards is yes. and i didn't hear that. from all the witness. i heard answers that basically implied maybe, they should be, but the clear need it seems to me and for the sake of this technology, the answer should be just because that's the credibility you want to establish is that your tech knowledge he is meeting mandatory standards. -- your technology. is nhtsa equipped right now to establish the standards in your get? >> no, ma they are not come in my opinion. >> should this technology be implemented widely until the are such standards? >> no. i think we need to address these issues before there is wide dissemination of the technology. >> do any of the other witnesses

disagree? >> i would say yes, i want to speak up about privacy because we talk so much about cybersecurity, but from a privacy standpoint gm is very clear. privacy is very important we operate only with an opt in principle. we operate only where customers know what the data is in use for only retain the date as long as we need to spend you agree to should be mandatory standards? >> no. i think we are operating with privacy as a very important part of how we implement this. i think that we will continue to work with regulators on what is appropriate. >> i have to say, and i'm not a technology person, i'm just a country lawyer from connecticut, but if i ask somebody, do you think that red light means stop, and they came back and said well, you know, let me put it this way, and under these

circumstances may be. we have great respect for stop lines and et cetera. i would say the answer is yes. because again the credibility that this technology has may become exceedingly fragile if people can't trust standards that are uniform and mandatory, not necessarily for you but for all the other actors that make them into this space at some point. and so i don't want to belabor this point, but it's one of the reasons why senator markey and i have introduced this legislation. and for everyone who says the private sector, companies can do it voluntarily, i would have more trust in that argument if

the answer to this question was yes, we will respect mandatory standards that are applicable uniformly throughout the industry. i went for a ride today in one of the vehicles that uses the current technology, and it's impressive. it occurred to me when i heard about the open spaces of the dakotas and minnesota and montana, i was also driving yesterday in downtown new york, manhattan, in the midst of a rainstorm. i was not driving myself or i was writing, thankfully, and i just don't know how this technology will fare in terms of the safety in that kind of

environment. so i would just close by suggesting that there really is a need to develop rules of the road here, standards and distinctions in spaces to assure that driving public safety and privacy will be respected. thank you very much for being here today. i look forward to working with you. thank you. and i yield to my friend from massachusetts spent i thank the gentleman. can we go down on the privacy issue as well? we dealt with the question of safety, but what about privacy? do you think there should be a mandatory minimum for privacy protection which is put on the books so that owners have to be made explicitly aware of collection an transmission retention and use of driving data, providing owners -- about

losing access to key navigation or other features and ensuring that personal driving information not be used for advertising or marketing purposes without the owner clearly opting in? dr. cummings? >> yes, senator markey. i think these are issues where facing across a number of industries and a number of technologies. the fact of the matter is these cars are going to be one big data-gathering machine, visual images, all of your personal data. and so i see it in a way that once this happens, right now the cars really do need to talk to each other and they need to talk back to the manufactures to let them know what's going on. so for the near-term they need to talk with you are going to be gathered a lot of data and it's not clear who is going to be doing what with that data. i personally would feel better to know that there were some set of standards in place that were

protecting my personal data or at least like you said about me to know what's happening. >> so you think there should be rules that information can't be used for marketing purposes? >> absolutely. >> do you agree with that? >> thank you for the question. similar to what mr. abelson said, lyft has strict policies place for personal data cannot be us or any other purpose without strict opt in -- >> should they be mandatory? >> the way i would address that is that there should definitely be standards. how the standards are developed is a really good question. if i can drive us back to the right should interest which is what area of experience is, we've examined is that when we first launched, we put upon ourselves a lot of bystanders with respect to safety, privacy, insurance. as an example we developed all hold the title of interest that the thought that provided one thing dollars of coach all of our passengers.

this was not required by any law. >> let's take me as a passenger and another one of the people who live in the boston area and so we just want access to the names of all the people and where they went using your service. you think there should be a privacy protection that you're bound by that you can't sell that information in the people would want to know who is coming into that area? don't you think that should be an absolute prohibition on your selling the information as to what people are going? >> there should be privacy protection. the only point i'm trying to raise is that are unique situations that cannot always be foreseen and the development of new technology that we need to be mindful of in developing standards for this and that so we -- >> assuming you already doing the right thing, just what whatu are saying, then why would you have a problem with kind of just working to create a standard that can be used across the industry? >> that was the point i was going to make, that in lyft developing these policies we've

now seen policies that lyft and other ridesharing countries have become kind of the standard for the industry. i think that was important to make sure that the involvement of the industry to ensure what the appropriate standards work. >> my time is going to run a digital regard the options. yes or no, mandatory? >> we haven't really taken a position on medical or not. but what i would say is we can like to be part of that discussion. >> you should first decide yes or no though. that would be helpful. mr. abelson? >> we will continue to work with the agencies speed so you don't have a yes or no on in terms of mandatory minimum privacy standards? >> i believe we have fulfilled the -- >> i know you do but all bad companies out there are not as good as your company. we don't ask statutes for our mothers. we do for the people who we

think might murder people so need a minimal standard. let's assume your company never does anything wrong or just delete a statute for people who might do things wrong. so you don't think we need a statute or -- >> said we'll continue to -- >> i appreciate that. dr. urmson. >> we offe operate public and -- >> what you think about making that foundation a standard that would have to be met -- >> i would have to submit an answer for the record. i am not in a position to comment on that spill i think again ultimate yes is the right answer is a minimal standard. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator markey. there is no requirement for the panelists to agree with him so you can answer the question the way you want it. [laughter] i just want to have a couple questions is sort of close things out, but one has to do

this whole issue of consumer acceptance because it's a very new technology and into a new technology comes to the market of consumers who may welcome that technology because it's new and exciting and affords a lot of mobility benefits and i think people would find very valuable. certainly not met by traditional cars within you of others who prefer the look and feel of traditional driving and may resist autonomous vehicles because they have reservations about giving up control. i guess i would say from a consumer standpoint one of the biggest challenges you see in terms of spurring demand for autonomous vehicles? >> i think what's important is to get the technology exposed to a large part of the population including some of the underserved communities we talk about. we think deploying this technology and this ridesharing model allows us to integrate effectively where again will do

it in a very safe way, but people don't need to purchase an autonomous vehicle to get to first experience with the technology. i think like with all new technologies as people gain experience with it they will get more comfortable with it. >> i would add the aaa report that was on come are people ready for automated, showed a minority were picked also showed that systems are helping to prepare and lay the groundwork and gain consumer acceptance of those technologies. that's what we think it's important we have a broad application of technology for the safety benefit but also for the consumer acceptance piece of it. >> from our experience when someone first hears about the idea of a self-driving car, it comes across as maybe alien or very far out there. and without fail whether someone comes in thinking this is all smoke and mirrors or this is never going to happen, within about five minutes of riding in one of our vehicles they are in

the back, on the cell phone as if this was anything, you know, any other day. part of it is that people are so used to riding in vehicles that have been driven by someone else and it's their parents or their loved ones. i think having people have a chance to experiences will increase adoption very quickly. >> just as a follow-up to that, during your test, what have been the reactions of people, consumers who have written in self-driving cars? do they feel safe? you indicated he feel like they have a very, and experience come it seems like it would be an issue a little bit are because of the instinct that you want to control things. >> we've done some studies of this, and will be fine is the first five minutes is a little tense. this car is driving itself, and then 10 to 15 minutes feels like it drives pretty well. 15 minutes on, it drives better

than me. is their impression. we are fairly confident once people try it out they are going to enjoy it and will appreciate the values. >> one of the other comments we get frequent is people say it's kind of boring. they say it's not that exciting. accardo's excellent harsh or slam on the brakes. uh-oh the traffic laws and very quickly the ride becomes, the drive is a longer the activity you're focused on the your focus on whatever it is you're doing. that's exactly what we want the technology to bring the it's not about the drive. that just fades away into the background, and it's about doing whatever is he really needed or wanted to turn the tide. >> from our perspective, in order to make sure that this is readily available for consumers, it has to be safe, convenient and cost-effective. this is where lyft things that can help in making sure that all those three factors are met in

deploying this technology to the people at large practices essentially the same charges that lyft faced a few years ago when launching a peer-to-peer platform and the idea was considered fairly out of at the time that we brought apart to market it as i mentioned before a few years later it's already become probably one of the most popular mode of transportation today. so in order to ensure that consumers are ready to adopt this we need to convince him that it is safer to think and plan your is committed to doing. and in order to make sure it is cost efficient, i believe that ridesharing platform like china must be involved. >> i would like to add one thing, this is a critical point. timing is everything. there is no question that someone is going to die in this technology. the question is when. and what can we do to minimize that? i think i speak for many people in the robotics community to say we are strong advocates of this

technology, but if the death, of the taliban were to occur soon at the wrong time it could really set back the integration of this technology which i fully think will help prevent those deaths on the road. and so that's what i think we are very concerned we do want the safety testing data out there so that an accident that could've been prevented did not happen. >> thank you all very much. this has been very helpful. in just look at the technology, it seems like there's enormous potential there on so many levels. aversive foremost of course the safety but if we could reduce any amount the number of fatalities we have on america's roadways in a given year, that would be a remarkable accomplishment. but i think in terms of the economic and against, productivity, quality of life, environmental, congestion, all

these things that we talk about in our society today seems to be a lease we could have enormous benefits. but always of course with an eye toward the safety in making sure that we're doing things in the right way. what the question that's been raised about the date, the issue of cyber attacks, hacks, and that sort of thing. cybersecurity and measures being taken. i think that's something that people inevitably raised a lot of concerns about, given just the overall cyber threats that we face in the world today. so serve it with autonomous vehicles there will be no exception. i'm interested in some of the responses you all gave to that question. because i think, particularly some of the redundancy that is built in into the vehicles, any types of gaps that occur, if

there were some sort of disruption into connectivity. it sounds like you've given a lot of thought to this and thought to this end is that a lot of testing and a lot of research already done. we encourage that and want to continue it, want to make sure we do our job to ensure that it's done in the safest manner possible but not in a way that inhibits or imposes any kind of a barrier or impediment to what we think is something that has tremendous upside, tremendous potential for the american economy and for the safety of our nation. so thank you all for making this your time is able to us today, for your thoughts, insights. we look forward to continuing the conversation about this. and it's, this guy seems to be the limit in terms of where we can go in this. thank you all so much -- that sky is the limit. >> i would conclude with a record rate open for two weeks during which time senators are asked to submit any questions for the record and upon receipt

the witnesses are requested to submit their written answers to the committee as soon as is possible. thank you all very much. this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] a [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> earlier this week house republicans released their twentysomething budget resolution. 155 page budget promises to cut $7 trillion from the federal deficit in 10 years and is opposed by the house freedom caucus. today members of the house budget committee need for a markup expected to last most of the day. gavel to gavel coverage starting at 10 a.m. eastern live on c-span3. >> and now live to london for british prime ministers questions i get each week the house of commons is in session we bring you prime minister david cameron taking questions from members of the house of commons. normally seen live wednesday

mornings at seven eastern on c-span2 but due to daylight savings time questions on airs this week beginning at eight eastern. we invite your participation via twitter using the hashtag pmqs. .. thank you, mr. speaker. in addition to my duties in this house, i will have further such meetings later today. >> karen lumley. >> unemployment falling by 60%. 5,000 new apprenticeships. i'm jobs fair in the next few