that it would have turned. that's for another day. driving? >> somebody else in control. >> what age children? my children are grown children. yes, i would trust them. i wouldn't trust a 6-year-old in here. >> you would feel comfortable driving your family around? >> of course. of course. and it's very, very smooth. and despite all the washington potholes, it was still smooth. thanks, guys. now, auto industry experts talk about efforts to develop self-driving cars. this senate commerce science and transportation committee hearing is about two hours.

[ no audio ] [ no audio ]

[ no audio ] [ no audio ] [ no audio ]

>> good afternoon, everyone. i want to thank everybody for coming today as we discuss automated vehicles and the bottomless opportunities that these technologies offer. americans love their cars. since the automobile first rolled off the assembly line in river rouge, michigan, cars and america have offered independence, mobility and adventure. now, profound changes are coming to our roads. technological advancements advancing at a rapid pace. we're facing an opportunity to expand the options for transportation by car while also making it smarter and safer. yet, technological challenges remain and people need to become comfortable of the idea of becoming passengers in their own car. we like that feeling of control

holding the steering wheel. perhaps the greatest hurdle may be a regulatory environment with a patch work of state and federal laws unable to keep pace with these evolving technologies. everything from driver assist functions like lane departure warnings to completely autonomous vehicles will transform transportation and mobility profoundly affecting safety issues that have confronted society since the invention of the car. in 2014, 32,675 americans lost their lives due to car accidents. more than 90% of these tragedies are linked to human error, driver choices, intoxication and distraction. automated vehicles have the potential to reduce that number dramatically. unlike human drivers automated vehicles don't get tired, drunk or distracted. combatting drunk driving is a particular priority for me. south dakota program working to change behavior through

monitoring is one successful program. i'm eager to hear how autonomous vehicles could further reduce accidents due to drunk driving. in addition to helping reduce accidents on american roads, autonomous vehicles promise to improve the quality of life of older americans. no longer will a lack of accessible transportation hinder opportunities for employment or community involvement. as america's population ages, families may no longer have to struggle with the issue of when to take the keys away from mom or dad. automated vehicles could also -- and one of the most frustrating parts of modern urban life, the traffic jam. this alone would improve the quality of life for many computers as commutes shorten. and if the car does all of the driving, time spent in a car could be productive. such as reading work e-mails, checking the boxscore or catching up on the highlights on

"sportscenter." i'm speaking of my own pastimes here. with no more gridlock traffic will flow more smoothly and efficiently and fuel economy is likely to improve. these advancements also have the potential to reshape communities. currently, parking garages and surface lots take up one third of the land in cities. imagine a technology that will revolutionize parking as we know it allowing that land reclaimed and repurposed. implement this future we need to challenge ourselves to overcome the 20th century conception of what a car must have. side and rear-view mirrors, a steering wheel and even the concept of a licensed human driver. because so much is possible, we must be careful not to stymie innovation because of a lack of imagination. federal and state governments may need to rethink how they regulate and license vehicles for the future. we must ensure that the united states is the cradle of

innovation and we continue to lead the way in the development and deployment of automated vehicles. in addition, questions regarding liability, insurance, privacy, security and infrastructure need answers. these aren't small things but none of them is insurmountable. if congress, the department of transportation, industry and stakeholders work together we will see all of the benefits promised. this morning, the committee had the great opportunity to see some of this technology in action when we brought self-drive to capitol hill. continental, volkswagen, bmw and tesla gave us experience to see what the future may hold in a preview to the discussions at this hearing. i want to thank them for making those vehicles available. this afternoon, we're joined by witnesses representing google x, general motors, delphi and lyft, companies with direct stakes in automated technology. we're also joined by dr. cummings, from duke university

who is a distinguished nave am aviator and a returning witness before our committee. dr. cummings, thank you for your service to our country. we look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses to learn more about what they're doing in this space and their vision for the future. but before we hear from our witnesses, some will also by the way play a short video assuming the technology works. i'm not sure when we get under way it did. first up, senator nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so, i'm in the tesla. and we're coming back across the anacostia river and getting up on -- on the bridge then to get on to the ramp on to 395. and i'm instructed in the driver's seat engage the autonomous switch. i click it twice. take your hands off the wheel.

and so, all of a sudden the car is speeding up. and they say, it automatically will go with the flow of the vehicles in front and back. but now we are approaching the onramp on to 395 and it is a sharp turn. and the vehicle is still speeding up. and they said, trust the vehicle. and as we approach the concrete wall, my instincts could not resist. and i grabbed the wheel, touched the brake and took over manual control. i said, what would have happened? they said if you'd left your hands off the wheel it would have made that sharp turn and come on around. so, i'm here to tell you -- >> we're glad you're here. [ laughter ]

>> that i'm glad i grabbed the wheel. but we know if this is working as it apparently is then they're going to be many lives that could be saved by preventing preventable accidents because what if you suddenly look down at your cell phone and all of a sudden the car in front of you stops or the one comes over in to your lane? things like efficiency and productivity could also increase considerably. underserved communities without reliable means of transportation could finally be integrated in to the national economy. in so many states, this technology could be particularly

beneficial. for seniors and those with disabilities. but we have to have the technology right so the self-driving cars can live up to their promise. so, in the federal government, we have a critical role to make sure that the regulatory environment and the legal environment in which american business does business is able to develop and manufacture these vehicles. and it also means that we're going to have to in our case exercise responsible oversight. and as we've seen in this committee on other subjects, such as the takata airbags and the gm ignition switch recall, individual components of vehicles with defects can

suddenly snowball into major problems. so, with an autonomous car, the stakes are all the more going to be high. you can imagine in this world of cyber security and cyber attacks, imagine what would happen to autonomous vehicles to get hacked while they're out on the road. one small defect could end up in a massive safety crisis. and if the problem comes up, manufacturers and regulatories are going to have to get together and quickly find those solutions. no more cover-ups. no more head in the sand approaches to safety. if we're going to avoid the tragedies, we've got to be johnny on the spot. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator nelson. they didn't let me get behind the wheel. >> i know! >> i suppose they figured if you

navigate a spaceship you can navigate a driverless vehicle. >> well, it was terrestrial challenge. >> i want to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record statements from the national council on disability, the global automakers association and a letter the global automakers a ten auto alliance to secretary fox at the department of transportation. so those will be included without objection. we have before us today a great panel. i want to welcome them here. first dr. chris urmson director of self-driving cars for google x. mr. mike ableson, vice president strategy and global platform planning, general motors company. mr. glen devos, safety at delphi ought m

automaker. joseph okpaku, vice president of government relations for lyft. and as i mentioned earlier dr. mary missy louise cummings, director of human and autonomy lab and duke robotics at duke university. so welcome to all of you. thank you for participating today. we'll start on my left and your right with dr. urmson and proceed as each of you complete and as close as possible stay to the five-minute time allotment for we have ample time for members to ask questions. i think we will have good participation today. thank you all for being here. dr. urmson. >> thank you, chairman thune, ranking member nelson and members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify today about the potential of self-driving cars to improve the lives of people everywhere. my name is chris urmson and i've been leading the google self-driving car since 2009. the video we would have shown earlier captures many of the reasons why we're excited about this technology. nsta estimated 38,000 people were killed on america's roads last year and 94% involve human error.

self-driving cars can help us change that. not only could the roads be a lot safer but self-driving cars could bring every day destinations and new opportunities in reach of those who might be excluded by the inability to drive a war. we believe that to actually realize all those benefits and many more you need cars fully self driving. that is the car must be designed to do all the work so that the occupants are not expected to take control of the vehicle at any time. we're now testing self-driving prototype vehicles in three different states and over the last seven years we have driven over 1.4 million miles in autonomous mode all testing using complex scenarios help us analyze and evaluate and improve how our cars perform. we have an opportunity to help ensure they're deployed at scale. we currently face a growing patchwork of state laws and regulations on self-driving cars with the potential of unworkable. in the past two years, 23 states introduced 53 pieces of

legislation that affects autonomous vehicles. all of which include different approaches and concepts. if every state is left to go its own way, it would be extremely impractical to employ a self-driving car across state lines. we're grateful for the vision for self-driving cars. ntsa issued helpful clarification of safety standards and remember that current regulations written when the idea of a car to drive itself was science fiction. and ntsa indicated new authorities may be needed to safely deploy the technologies going forward. congressional action is needed to keep pace. we propose the congress move swiftly to provide targeted new authority to approve life saving safety innovations. this authority would allow the department of deployment of innovative safety technology that meet or exceed the level of safety required. while ensuring a prompt and transparent process. we look forward to working with this committee, d.o.t. ntsa to ensure the type of new safety for fully self driven cars. we also believe it to help continue u.s. technology

leadership. the importance of getting self-driven car technology safely in people's hands is summed up by those who need it more. during a workshop to discuss the technology, regulators heard from justin hartford, a man who is legally blind. justin said, what this is really about is who gets to access transportation and commerce and who doesn't. and frankly, i'm tired of people with disabilities not being able to access commerce. our team of google believes that self-driving cars can remove these transportation barriers from our society. thank you for your help in creating a path for this technology and for your time and consideration today. >> thank you, dr. urmson. mr. ableson. >> good afternoon. thank you, chairman thune, ranking member nelson and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you on autonomous vehicles and the way they could improve the safety,

convenience and effectiveness of our 21st century transportation system. my position inside general motors is vice president of portfolio planning and strategy and in that position i spend a lot of time thinking about what will happen to our industry over time and what opportunities there are and how to position general motors to take advantage of those opportunities. as you may know, general motors has been very active in the autonomous space with several recent announcements. all of these are aimed at our goal of earning customers for life by redefining the nature of personal mobility and extending our relationship with our customers beyond the car. there are four principal areas to this initiative. autonomous driving, connectivity, electrification, and ride sharing. all of these are built on the same bedrock principle: our top priority must be safety. i would like to focus my few minutes today on autonomy. gm has a long history of autonomous vehicle research.

as recent announcements have shown, it is striving to lead in automated driving technologies. from our partnership with carnegie mellon university, to our acquisition last week of cruise automatic, gm is rapidly redefining personal mobility. many of today's active safety technologies such as cruise control and lane keeping assist, are steps towards autonomous driving. we are deploying these technologies across more of our portfolio and are bringing additional safety enhancing technologies to vehicles at all price points including inexpensive models. gm expects to be the first automaker to bring dedicated short range communications, a vehicle to vehicle safety technology, to market late this

year in the 2017 cadillac cts. this technology will enable vehicles to communicate important safety and mobility information to one another. super cruise, a feature that allows hands-free and feet-free driving on the highway, will also debut in the 2017 cadillac ct 6. it incorporates many of the camera, gps, mapping, and radar technologies that will be crucial to increasing automation in the future. additionally, our recent investment in the ride sharing company lyft complements gm's expertise in autonomous vehicles by providing a ride sharing platform to support potential deployment programs. our acquisition last week of cruise automation is another important milestone in our work to deploy autonomous vehicles. founded in 2013, cruise has moved quickly to develop and test autonomous vehicle technology in san francisco's very challenging city environment. cruise's deep software talent and rapid development capability

when combined with gm's resources and expertise will further accelerate our development of autonomous vehicle technology. these efforts inside the company are being spearheaded by a recently formed vice president-led engineering team focused on accelerating the deployment of autonomous vehicles. make no mistake, our focus will be on doing this safely. we believe the next logical step will be controlled ride sharing projects such as those we are planning with lyft. these projects will allow the public to safely experience autonomous vehicles without making a significant financial investment. this could speed public acceptance of autonomous vehicles while ensure safety by the vehicle manufacturer. this style of deployment also encourages partnership with local and state governments, which will help ensure full public benefit of the technology.

in closing, gm enthusiastically supports policy initiatives to accelerate the development and adoption of safe, high level automation through real world projects. we look forward to working with congress and nhtsa to spur development of these technologies as safely and rapidly as possible. i look forward to answering your questions. thank you. >> mr. duboss. >> good afternoon, chairman, for giving me the opportunity to testify on behalf of delphi automotive. my name is glenn devos. i'm the vice president of engineering and services. we're a high tech company that integrates safer, greater, and more connected solutions for the automotive sector. we spend more than $1.7 billion annually in engineering development activities and operate major manufacturing and technology centers across the united states.

delphi's portfolio places us at the center of vehicle evolution and innovation, making products smarter and safer as well as more powerful and efficient. i would like to start by thanking the committee for incorporating the safety through informed consumers or stickers act into the fast act which was signed into law last year. in particular i would like to thank the bill's sponsors, senator heller and markew as well as the chairman and ranking member for their effort to get stickers enacted. with the incorporation of stickers, the adoption of 8-s systems is a critical step since those same systems will enable automated driving are part of today's active safety systems. as noted in our video, which we were unfortunately not able to show, last year we made an

historic 15-state trip with a car that for 99% of that driving time was driven without human input. it took place during daylight hours and included an engineer behind the wheel with the ability to assume control if the car encountered a situation where the vehicle could not clearly navigate on its own. the vehicle performed flawlessly. it was able to make complex decisions to drive across the country while, unlike human drivers, remain alert the entire time. one of the primary takeaways from the cross-country drive is we have technology available today in the consumer marketplace that can dramatically reduce deaths and injuries on the roads. these technologies are not just lifesavers but as demonstrated by that drive, the building blocks for automated cars in the future. this is true from a consumer

adoption standpoint. as a recent aaa survey confirmed, this technology will help drive consumer accepts of vehicle autonomy. the committee's inclusion of stickers and the fast act was a major step forward. they intend to modernize the new car assessment program to require passenger vehicles to have 8-s systems in order to achieve a five-star rating. this is great process and should dramatically increase the availability of active safety systems on vehicles at every price point. it is critical that we capture these safety improvements quickly. stickers requires nhtsa to promulgate the new m-cap rule within a year of enactment. and it is important that this timeline does not slip. in an automated future, we need to be able to communicate with not just a driver or the owner but also the surrounding environment. knowing when traffic signals are going to change and where vehicles or vehicle traffic is

heaviest not only adds to the safety of the vehicle but allows the vehicles to be driven or drive themselves more efficiently. keeping the necessary spectrum available and free from harmful interest veer answer is critical as v to v and the short communications are rolled out. it is also important to consider the manner in which existing vehicles can be retrofitted to accommodate dsrc requirements. there are approximately 262 million vehicles or passenger vehicles registered in the u.s. roadways with an average vehicle age of 11.5 years. unless retrofitting is built into the planning process, the rollout of dsrc may take decades. in addition to supporting technologies that are needed to enable automated vehicles, congress and the administration and state governments will need to provide the flexibility and the regulatory framework necessary to enable driverless car development and deployment.

one of the primary -- i'm sorry. >> that's the hazard of not numbering the pages. >> or the hazard of not having my reading glasses. finally, as we talk about cyber security, delphi is keenly aware of the threats associated with with today's connected vehicles and taking measures to enable a safe and secure driving experience. we are participating in the auto isak activities to improve awareness and coordination throughout the country. delphi is dedicating resources focused on cybersecurity matters and are working with the nist to ensure that we meet their requirements and leverage open source and industry accepted

information security protocols. thank you again for your time and your opportunity to testify before the committee today. >> thank you, mr. devoss. mr. apaku. >> chairman thune, ranking member nelson, and members of the committee, good afternoon. i am the vice president of government relations for lyft. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this very exciting and important topic. my fellow panelists represent all the components required for the successful deployment of autonomous vehicles. you have the auto manufacturers with the expertise in designing and building autonomous vehicles. you have the parts manufacturers whose products will be vital to making these cars run. you have the best engineering minds in the world who have made it possible for these cars to be safer than human drivers. and you have lyft, a company perfectly suited to bring this technology to cities and consumers all across the country. there are at least two other equally important components that will determine the future of autonomous vehicles.

the first is the interaction of everyday people with these new vehicles. the second is the much more unpredictable interface of the government with this entirely new transportation resource. lyft has unique experience in these two areas, and this is where i'll focus my testimony. lyft launched four years ago as the first digital platform that uses a smartphone to allow people to give other people a ride in their personal vehicle. lyft's goal was to encourage people to give up their own vehicles and instead use the empty seats in a neighbor's car. in order to accomplish this we knew that certain critical factors needed to be addressed. first, it had to be safe. extensive background checks for drivers were a must followed by unprecedented transparency and accountability for everyone involved in the ride. innovations that include realtime consumer feedback, all digital receipts with the driver route and driver picture are a key part of the reason for the

rapid adoption of lyft. it's also why 30% of our drivers and the majority of riders are women. second, the service had to be efficient for drivers to participate. it is easy for a driver to apply to drive on the platform. they can initiate the process from their smartphone. but difficult for them to qualify. third, for consumers, we knew that a vehicle had to arrive within minutes of pressing a button for it to feel like a good alternative to grabbing your own keys and driving your own car. in a few short years, these key principles have enabled an entirely new transportation industry to evolve out of preexisting and largely idle resources. by any measure, it is remarkable, and it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't safe, affordable, and convenient. this rapid evolution of the transportation industry has clearly demonstrated that consumers are increasingly

willing to give up the steering wheel and have a vehicle arrive at the push of a button. this underscores a shift of consumer priorities. in 1983, 46% of 16-year-olds obtained a driver's license. in 2014, this figure dropped to 24%. that's a 50% change in something that i was 100% certain that i wanted more than anything else when i was 16 years old. something very real and fundamental is shifting here. we are on the doorstep of another evolutionary leap in transportation and technology, where concepts that could once only be imagined in science fiction are on the verge of becoming reality. the partnership between lyft and again motors are based on the realization that autonomous vehicles can bring enormous benefits in road safety, congestion, and public spending on parking structures, just to name a few. the fastest way to bring these benefits of autonomous vehicles to consumers is via a ride sharing network like lyft's.

to be sure, there are very serious challenges to be faced in bringing the full value of autonomous vehicles to market for mass consumption. and the greatest potential obstacle is constrictive regulation and legislation. the worst possible scenario for the growth of autonomous vehicles is an inconsistent and conflicting patchwork of local, municipal and county laws that will hamper efforts to bring autonomous vehicle technology to market. regulations are necessary. but regulatory restraint and consistency is equally as important if we are going to allow this industry to reach its full potential. this is an area where lyft has vast experience and has learned very valuable lessons. three years ago, only one state had issued a regulatory framework for the ride sharing industry. today, 30 states have enacted legislation for this industry with another bill currently sitting on the governor's desk awaiting signature. this is the experience that lyft brings to the table as we embark upon the mission of providing

autonomous vehicles to the public. with the help of this body, a dedicated effort to tackle hard questions, and a commitment to ensure that regulation doesn't inhibit innovation, we can succeed. we look forward to working with this committee to ensure that autonomous vehicles can arrive safely and efficiently on america's roads. i thank the committee for holding this hearing and for working towards this common goal. i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. thank you. >> thank you. dr. cummings. >> thank you. thank you for having me back. good afternoon, chairman thune, ranking member nelson and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss issues about the future of self-driving cars. i am the director of the duke robotics program and duke university's self autonomy laboratory, which focuses on ought ton mouse systems and

complex soes ycio-technological systems. i have conducted driving research and provided future technology recommendations to automotive manufacturers for more than a dozen years, including ford, nissan, toyota, google x, thanks, chris. i was the program manager for a navy helicopter that carries th helicopter that carries the very same sets of sensors you will see on many autonomous cars today. i am also currently conducting research for the national science foundation on the interaction of self-driving cars and pedestrians. while i enthusiastically support the research and development of self-driving cars i'm less optimistic about what i feel to be a rush to field systems that are not ready for widespread deployme deployment. here are a few scenarios that highlight the limitation. the first is operation in bad weather, including standing water on roadways, drizzling rain, sudden downpours and snow. couple these limitations with the inability of self driving cars to follow a traffic policeman's gestures especially on a rainy day in a poncho means

they should not be operating near elementary schools at this time. another major problem with self-driving cars is their vulnerability to malevolent or prankster intent. it's relatively easy to spoof the gps which involves hacking into their system and guiding them offcourse. it is feasible they could come deer self-driving vehicles. while such hacking represents a worst case scenario there are potentially other disruptive problems to be considered. it is not uncommon in many parts of the country for people to drive with gps jammers to drive in the backs of their trunks so no one knows where they are. additionally, recent research has shown that a $60 laser device can trick self-driving cars into sensing objects that are not there. moreover, we know that people will attempt to game and spoof self-driving cars in effect trying to elicit or prevent various behaviors in attempts to get ahead of the cars or simply

to have fun. lastly, privacy and control of personal data is also going to be a major point of contention. these cars carry cameras that look both in and outside the car and will transmit these images and telemetry data in realtime including where you are going and your driving habits. who has access to this data whether it is secure and whether it can be used for other commercial or government purses has yet to be addressed. given these and other issues need to be addressed before widespread deployment of these cars takes place but understanding very much that there are clear potential economic and safety advantages, how can we get there with minimal risk exposure? in my opinion the self-driving car community is deficient in its testing programs with no leadership that should be provided by nhtsa. google x chris just told you has advertised it's cars was driven 1.4 million miles. but u.s. t

this is indicative of a larger problem in robotics where demonstrations are substituted for principled testing. rand says that to verify self-driving cars are as safe as human drivers, 275 million miles must be driven fatality-free. we need a significantly accelerated self-driving testing program but it's not simply good enough to let these cars operate in california or southern texas to accrue miles. nhtsa needs to provide leadership for a testing program that ensures that self-driving cars are rigorously tested for the corner cases which are extreme conditions. we know that many of the sensors on self-driving cars are not reliable in bad weather. in urban canyons or place where is map databases are out of date. we know gesture recognition is a problem. we know humans will get in the backseat while they their cars are in autopilot. we know people will try to hack into the systems. given self-driving cars

dependence on reasoning, there are many unknowns the systems will encounter. but there are also many known knowns we are aware of that are not being openly tested in principled and rigorous man they're would be expected in similar transportation settings. for example, the faa has clear certification processes for aircraft software. and we would never let commercial aircraft execute automatic landing without verifiable test evidence approved by the faa. however, any certification of self-driving cars will not be possible until manufacturers provide greater transparency and disclose how they are testing their cars. more i don't ever, they should make such data publicly available for expert validation. let me reiterate that as a professor in the field of robotics, i am wholeheartedly in support of the research and development of self-driving cars but these systems will not be ready until we move away from demonstrations to transparency and evidence. based -- to this end in

collaboration with private industry, nhtsa needs to provide stronger leadership and guide nens this space. thank you. >> thank you, dr. cummings. i think we do have -- we can try this. if you want to turn to the monitor there, this is something that i think -- >> today we have something -- >> delphi and google -- >> you will be some of the first people outside of our team and outside of google to ever ride in it. >> there it is. >> isn't that -- >> okay. annie, here we go. >> all right. connie, let's go. >> there's no steering wheel. >> it's really cool. it was like really kind of a space age experience. >> sit back, relax. you don't have to do nothing. it knows when you need to stop. it knows when i need to go. >> what she really liked was that it slowed down before it went around a curve. and then accelerated in the curve. she's always trying to get me to

do it that way. >> that's the way i learned in high school driver's ed. >> if i have a self-driving car i could hang out with my kids or help them with their homework, even just tending to them. >> our lives are made up of lots and lots of little things and a lot of those little things for most people have to do with getting from place to place and in order to connect and do things so there's a big part of my life that's missing and there's a big part of my life that a self-driving vehicle would bring back to me. >> i love this. >> in 2015 delphi's car drove itself across the country from coast to coast. now 50 terabytes later we're applying all we've learned to the next step. this year at ces in las vegas delphi's car talked to everything, to the street signs

and the traffic lights, to the cars all around us, to the guy who was crossing the street on foot or on bike, to the nearby mcdonald's or that starbucks that's up ahead on the left. why? to make it safer for all of us. >> delphi driver available. >> consumer-based adoption of active safety technology could save approximately 11,000 lives annually. last jeer we toyear we took a l active safety technologies that are on the road today and some that are going to be on the road in the next few years and equipped the car to talk to a variety of different information sources. so vehicle to vehicle, vehicle to stoplights, vehicle to pedestrians, for example, and take -- we can call that vehicle to everything actually. so you're able to take information from a lot of different sources on top of all the sensors you have on the car and help complete the scenario

better for decision making, for safety purposes, and now improve the consumer experience in the cockpit. >> the car is letting us know everything it sees immediately. i see green. so that idea of safety and confidence we want you, the passenger, to feel comfortable in the car. >> delphi drive ending in 1,000 feet. prepare to take over. >> great. well, thank you again, all of you, for being here, for sharing your thoughts on this subject. we'll get into some rounds of questions now, and i wanted to start by just asking kind of a general one because i think we're talking about something that often was thought of as very futuristic, and there are manufacturers who expect that these cars are going to be on the market in just a few years.

all of you have different roles in this area, but when do you think these types of cars will be ready and available in the marketplace? i'll just open that up to the panel if anybody would like to respond to that. what's the time frame we're talking about? >> from gm's perspective the way we envision introducing this technology into use in the public is through the idea of a ride sharing fleet. we think this gives access to wide -- a wide part of the public, including underserved communities. we would introduce it originally as vehicles with drivers because we do agree we need to collect data and make sure that the systems are operating as we expect them to before we actually start deploying the vehicles without drivers. we think this offers a framework that we can develop and deploy

this technology in a very safe way. to your question on timing, we would expect the vehicles with drivers to appear within the next couple of years, and then when they actually start worgeing without drivers will depend on how the technology develops and what the criteria agreed with with the regulators are. >> mr. okpaku how will lyft's partnership with gm do you think on autonomous vehicles more r rapidly advance it? >> i think the starting point for the answer is our experience in the explosion of the ride sharing. a few short years ago as i mentioned in my testimony, the idea of get into a stranger's car was pretty much unheard of. it was something your mother warned you against, and yet through the safety innovations that lyft implemented, we got people very comfortable with the idea of riding in a stranger's car. we did so at a scalable rate

that allowed us to expand to nearly 200 different cities in less than four years. so it's this ability not only to use innovation to enhance the customer experience, to ensure safety, but to reach a mass audience that we think we'll be using to ensure the quick deployment of autonomous vehicles to the community at large. we have the ability to reach a nationwide audience very quickly with our technology and frankly, give the cost that will most likely be involved with the first iterations of autonomous vehicles, this will be the most cost-effective way of getting it to the public as well. so this is the role that lyft envisions for itself as part of this process. >> i just want to -- if i could get some of you to react to some of the concerns that were raised by dr. cummings. she mentioned weather, packihac privacy, obviously the transparency of the tests and that sort of thing, but how do these vehicles when you talk about them not performing as

well under those types of circumstances. so those of you that are involved in the develop and testing of these things, how do you respond to some of those concerns? >> i think the first thing to know is when we talk about automated driving cars, we're talking about multiple types of sensors, radar, lydar, vision, as well as v to v, v to xp and to each of those technologieses have strengths and weaknesses. radar is very strong in weather and similarly with other conditions. so the key is by having a multimodal and multisensor approach you expand your range of coverage in the performance envelope. it's true sensors have strengths and weaknesses but by combining them you have a much more capable package, certainly a greater perception capability than an individual driver relying on vision alone. >> in response to a google inquiry, nhtsa has said that

some federal motor safety or vehicle safety standards will require additional rulemaking in order to allow for google's self-driving car features. are you concerned google's ability to continue to develop and deploy these technologies will be impeded by nhtsa's need to update its rule through what could be a lengthy rule-making process. >> chairman, that's a really important question because many of the companies at the table here have been involved in developing this technology and america is currently in very much a leadership position in this space. that said, we look at what's happening in europe. we look at what's happening in china and japan, and they're hot on our heels and, nin fact, nota day goes by where a company particularly from china is not trying to recruit engineers from our team and poach talent. this technology is advancing at an incredible rate. we need to see the safety benefits and mobility and access benefits and the economic

benefits in america first, and by finding a way to give nhtsa an approval process that would allow them to expedite in a very safe way innovative technology that is will allow us to continue this technology in the united states. >> and this could be to the companies who want to respond to this, but nhtsa recently determined that google's self driving system could be interpreted as the driver for purposes of nhtsa rules. conversely, the california dmv is proposed requiring a licensed operator to be present in autonomous vehicle. how will the concept of driver change with deployment of self-driving cars and how should we resolve potential conflicts such as the one i just mentioned? >> i think to the point in the technology without the driver, at some point you need to designate the vehicle can operate without a driver. so i think the nhtsa interpretation in order to encourage the roll out of this technology is entirely appropriate. as far as working with the

states, we at general motors will continue to work with the various states to try and craft legislation understanding the complementary roles that the federal government and the states play in this area. >> do you see the federal role in all this in terms of the way the government plays -- i should say having a role when it comes to ensuring that there's nationwide market? the federal government have a role in this? >> so what obviously would be an issue for any of us working in this area is if we end up with the states with a widely varied patchwork of regulation that's inconsistent from state to state, obviously we all -- we develop these vehicles, we'd envision them crossing state lines, so we absolutely need and support nhtsa's initiative to give guidance to the states on legislation in this area and look forward to that initiative and that helping us in working

with the states. >> okay. time is up. senator nelson. >> we do a lot of neat things to protect the national security. cyber attacks, worms, gps jamming, et cetera. dr. cummings, what are we going to do to protect this technology? >> i think that this problem of cyber physical security is not just unique to drones. it's certainly present in all transportation industries, and so i think that there are many lessons to be learned. certainly the military is working on some technologies that are helping. there are a lot of companies who are getting into the anti-drone community that are bringing new technologies to bear. so i think it's a maturity of the industry that we're going to have to see and it's going to be a multidimensional solution. it's not going to be easy, but

i'm hoping that my peers here at the table and i'm sure that they will, we're just going to have to start having dedicated focus in these areas instead of just leaving it up to the military, for example, to develop. >> well, it's interesting that you mention drones because tomorrow in this committee we're going to mark up the faa bill, and one of the things that we're concerned about is you put the drone in the flight path of either an inbound or an outbound airliner, and if it gets sucked into the jet engine, that's a catastrophic failure. there are technologies that have already been demonstrated to the chairman and me of taking over that drone, and that is available, and sooner or later we're probably going to have to employ that in the vicinity of airports. so what is the protection for the autonomous vehicle that

these kind of technologies -- you saw the "60 minutes" program where they completely take over the car. what's the answer? anybody? >> so from gm's standpoint, we think cyber security is obviously an important issue in this area, and it's something that we've spent time thinking about. we have more 4g lte data connected cars on the rootad. we started a cyber security organization. inside of that cyber security organization we use a technique learned from other industries employing a red team that goes in and actively tries to identify vulnerabilities in our systems. the senior executive in charge of this cyber security organization reports on a regular basis to both the ceo and the board on these matters.

the seepor executive also happens to be the vice chairman of the committee that was set up to share information amongst oems in the industry on v vulnerabilities and that committee we believe has been very effective. >> so you think they're going to be the capability of protecting against this even without it being extremely, extremely expensive. let me flip now. what about privacy? what about privacy? let me get to somebody, mr. okpaku? >> yes, senator nelson, thank you very much. lyft, as i mentioned in my testimony, has to be a safe platform for it to work, and part of that safety is ensuring the privacy of its users and it's drivers. it's something that we have been 100% committed to since we launched. it's something that we devote an enormous amount of resources to

because we know our platform involves a lot of people across the country. we have an internal team that is constantly reviewing our privacy policies. approximately one-fifth of our overall team constitutes engineers and a similar number of people who are dedicated to trust and safety. so this demonstrates how much -- how many resources we dedicate to ensuring the safety and in this respect the privacy of our users. >> so what you're saying is technology will be -- allow you to protect the privacy of people even in an autonomous vehicle and all the gadgets in it? >> senator nelson, i think technology is the means that will use it, but i think it first starts with the commitment and a dedication to ensuring it and i think that's the point i'm trying to make here. it's part of the reason that we wanted to partner with the company like general motors because we knew of their commitment to ensuring that the deployment of autonomous vehicles had to be done in a way that was safe and protected, not

only the safety, but the privacy of the people relying on these services. this is something that we've had a lot of experience in over the last three to four years and growing from a company that serviced just one state back in 2012 to a company that services nearly 200 cities now. >> maybe you ought to confer with apple since apple seems to be pretty good on its privacy of being able to get into the iphone of the terrorist. anybody, is the federal government's agency nhtsa, is it prepared to deal with all this? >> i don't think it's just the responsibility of nhtsa or any one particular part. it really will take a collaborative effort between industry, the technology developers, swlas well as the regulatory agencies. so it really is important that as we talked about initiatives where we're working together to promote standardization and a

uniform approach, but also to do so in an effective regulatory framework. so i think the key message for us is it has to be a collaborative activity in order for it to be truly effective. >> thank you, senator nelson. i have senator heller up next. >> mr. chairman, thank you. and thanks for your leadership on this issue. i'm disappointed that i didn't get a chance to see one of the cars earlier this morning. i would have really have enjoyed that. thank you for being here and for your expertise in this particular yaarea. the chairman asked the question which is when, when will this be available? i guess the next question is does it -- is it integrated into the current car that you own or do you have to actually buy an autonomous vehicle in order to use one of these things? >> so we believe very strongly that for some of the cyber

security reasons that were cited, we need to design a vehicle with this in mind and look at its entire electrical and information system to make sure that we can get the highest level of protection into the vehicle. so we believe that going forward you're going to buy vehicles that may look similar to vehicles on the road but inside we'll have designed in the cyber protection and the redundancy that autonomous vehicles need to operate safely. >> so it would be a new car? >> yes. it would be a new car, and i think that's one of the great advantages in applying this ride sharing model is that we can let members of the public experience the technology without having to go out and buy a new car and some of the questions about adoption and how people will react to this technology i think we can see with real human beings in real settings again without them having to spend money on buying a vehicle. >> what would you anticipate the price range being? >> i think like any technology,

the autonomous technologies are going to be very expensive when you start because as was referenced earlier, you need an array of different sensing technologies as well as some pretty sophisticated computing power on board to make it work. it's hard for me to predict what they're going to cost because as with any new technology, much depends on how quickly we can build scale and deploy in volume. again, as mr. okpaku explained in his testimony, we think this ride sharing model lets us move forward in volume even at a relatively high initial cost of the vehicle. >> do you anticipate using this with electric engines or come bution engines? >> we think it's interesting to use it with electrical vehicles because of some of the environmental benefits. we'd be operating in urban environments where i think everybody is interested in reducing pollution and the environmental impacts of the automobile. >> okay.

thank you. i think nevada was the first to issue a u.s. -- in the u.s. to issue a license for testing the vehicles for going. . in fact, i noticed it on the screen that most of those shots were las vegas strip or somewhere near to it. >> the delphi vehicle. >> very good. it's my understanding you were also very involved with the testing. is this accurate? working directly with the department of motor vehicles in nevada? >> yes, senator, that's correct. >> what was the extent of your exercise in testing? >> so the state of nevada wanted to be a leader in this space and passed legislation instructing their department of motor vehicles to vehicle language that would a first in the nation kind of rule set for self-driving vehicles -- >> how important was that? >> i think it definitely placed

a line in the sand, i guess, around how important this technology was and kind of brought it to national attention. at the same time i think that it kicked off something that i think many of us are worried about with this potential patchwork of state-by-state r regulations that would potentially lead to a challenge in delivering the technology broadly. >> also based on what dr. cummings said a little bit, you had a vehicle at ces if i'm not mistaken, and i understand you had an unexpected obstruction. can you explain to us what that unexpected obstruction was? >> sure. and one of the reasons we really enjoy testing in las vegas is because it does provide a lot of diversity of use cases in a really challenging environment including some of the pedestrians that are there in that environment who may have

either be intoxicated or maybe a little bit unpredictable in terms of where they're going on the roadways, and so as we were driving around downtown vegas, one of the fairly regular basis we had pedestrians coming out into the path of the vehicle and the vehicle, of course, seeing them accurately and taking the precautionary measures of slowing down and, you know, it's a lot of pedestrian traffic in vegas. so there were all different points of the vehicle and it really highlighted to us the fact that the sensors look all the way around. 360 around that car at all times. and so the car sees much, much better than we as a human driver would actually see. and so it never failed to find the person and avoid them. >> i understand one did step out in front of you and it did avoid that individual. >> it did, yeah. >> very good. thank you very much. mr. chairman, thank you. >> your home state and that city would be a good test case for a

lot of things. >> it certainly was. >> i have senator booker up next. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. so one of the big concerns i have had since coming to washington is that this -- our global economy is being guled more and more by innovation and america is by far the global exporter of innovation, ingenuity. we have been for generations in this country. the problem i'm seeing more and more being in washington is we're not creating a regulatory regime here, an environment that really cultivates and spurs innovation and keeps us competitive. i have seen this with the fda on inhibiting companies like 23 and me. i have seen this with the faa and what they're doing with drop technology that's now being investigated and innovated upon more outside of our country than inside of the country. so this is definitely one of those areas where i feel the same significant amount of concern. my goal obviously principally is safety, but in this time of great research, innovation, and

development it's difficult for me to hear companies say like audi say, you know, they describe this current patchwork of rules as an impediment to testing their cars in the u.s. and prefer to continue the testing in europe. i just don't like to see us falling behind with creating an environment for testing, and especially because if we had regulatory regimes like this, i always say if this was around during the time of the wright brothers, we would have never gotten them off the ground and exploring air travel. and so we were the first to introduce legislation trying to permit the testing of autonomous vehicles but other countries now are clearly leapfrogging over us by offering more flexibility to companies to test this technology. and the uk, for example, is rapidly moving forward. those wishing to conduct tests in the uk are free to drive all over the country. japan has allowed nissan and toyota to test theirs vehicles there since 2013. and so my question really is, is

in your experience, are we falling behind because other countries are creating a better regulatory environment for testing? what is the regulatory environment like in terms of dealing with this development of this technology, and what can we as legislators do to ensure that our regulations in this space keep up with the pace of innovation and i don't mean just keep up with the pace of it, ensure that america leads. i'll open that to anybody. >> i think one of the key things has really already been done and that's passage of the stickers act and the fast act. that sets the foundation. so the faster we can deploy that, get the n cap standards increased and get that out there, both from a technology development as well as a consumer acceptance standpoint, that's good for our -- good for the u.s., good for these technologies. it builds on success as you do that. i think the other piece that is

important is, you know, in terms of how do you support really standing up or evaluating real-life use cases or proof of concepts or pilots, if you will, and that's what we're seeing other countries doing is helping support actually getting these systems up and running to learn from them as quickly as possible. and so -- and that takes infrastructure support. that takes things that really the government is best equipped to help execute and manage. and i think that's another big area where we would really welcome the support of these agencies. >> and just -- when you're talking about infrastructure, we're planning smart cities, investing in infrastructure. we need to be thinking, you know, five years ahead, ten years ahead in terms of the ability for us to be having smart devices and the like. >> the vehicle to infrastructure piece of it, the markings on the roadways, basically equipping the infrastructure to be ready for the technologies. >> if we're talking about large

investments in infrastructure coming from the federal government, we should be looking into that. >> i think ann arbor is a good city. the u of m and a company of companies have come together to create a test bed both in ann arbor and the surrounding areas as well as a dedicated test track on the campus grounds. >> mr. abelson? >> i was going to say we've been very encouraged by the way that secretary foxx has approached this in recognizing that it's important to allow us to work together to develop the technology safely and to find ways to deploy it. so we don't -- we certainly don't know at this stage of the technology development all the answers, and i think we've seen flexibility to learn as we go and respond to those -- respond to what we learn. >> so instead of promulgating rules trying to imagine what the future is going to look like, shouldn't we be focusing on testing 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 and the technology is advancing very rapidly. where we're most concerned is about bringing this to market and regulations that would limit the operation of the technology and that's where we think that the congress and the federal government can help pave the way. >> thank you. and i just -- i wanted to give a public thank you to gm for being such a good partner on the spectrum issue as you all leaned in and worked with news a cooperative manner. that meant a lot to me as a senator. >> we very much appreciate your support of that issue as well. >> thank you very much, sir. >> thank you, senator booker. senator peters is up next. >> thank you, chairman. you have to say as a senator from michigan and representing the motor city that i'm very excited about these incredible developments in our auto industry and 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 and as we've heard from your testimony and others deal with some of our mobility challenges generally for various individuals. so i want to thank the witnesses for being here today to discuss this frontier, particularly connected and automated technologies and their life-saving benefits. now, we know there are still some significant challenge that is we're going to be facing as policymakers in order to actually see this realized. i think it's clear that what the we are on the cusp of is disruptive technology in the auto sector, probably unlike anything we've seen for i can't imagine how many decades but it's many, many decades since we've seen this sort of disruptive technology. as we've heard today but i think it's really important to repeat is we know that over 38,000 people died on our highways last year, and your companies are

developing technologies that could very well dramatically reduce that number saving tens of thousands of lives. and that's why i believe as members of congress and my colleagues here that we have to do everything we can to make sure that your efforts are not delayed or unnecessarily deterred. that means that congress has to ensure that the fcc, the dot and the ntia are thoroughly testing any proposal for spectrum sharing in the 5.9 gigahertz band between the dsr critical safety signals and unlicensed wi-fi devices. connect the vehicle technologies should not be compromised by someone connected to a toebser 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 stunt the development and deployment of these technologies, and instead work to implement consistent national policy. and we must think carefully about the insurance implications

as well of connected and automated cars and the possibility of liability shifting to the manufacturers as human control of the vehicles dissipates. and finally we must increase our investment in connected and automated vehicle research and development. i support the administration's ten-year, $3.9 the billion proposal for this purpose and particularly the $200 million in the dot fy '17 budget request for funding a large-scale pilot program that will accelerate these al qaetechnologies. i think it's critical a portion goes towards designating a national facility to conduct connect the and automated vehicle research testing, product development, and certification. as we have heard, countries like sweden, korea, china, japan have already established these test sites. we need to do it as well.

i appreciate the comment about m city associated with the university of michigan which is involved in some detailed testing on a track which brings all the manufacturers together. and perhaps i'll just get some comment from some of you as to how important it is to have a national testing facility that can bring all the manufacturers together, suppliers together to make sure that all of these technologies actually work together. doesn't do any good to have a great product if it's not working in conjunction with the toyotas and hondas and ford and everybody else on the road. as was mentioned in all weather conditions as well. snow and ice is important to test. but perhaps some of your comments as to how important it is for us as government officials to be focusing on creating a national center where we can do this sort of testing? >> can i address that, senator? >> i think that would be great. my concern would be that the data, the test data was made available to a more academic/expert base community

for that validation that these tests are meeting the standards that we think they should. >> so that should be led by academic center -- >> an independent group, not necessarily academics, but, sure, i would be happy to. >> i take that you're volunteering. thank you. folks from industry? >> i think to your point, senator peters, it's very important that 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 and 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 in all kinds of weather conditions. it's part of the reason why we've done as much testing as we have in different locations and we'd certainly love to learn more. >> i also wanted to pick up from at report that the department of

transportation just released last week that posed to automated vehicles under the current motor vehicle safety standards. the report concluded many standards assume the presence of a human driver and the cars that deviate further from this conventional vehicle design, vehicle certification becomes a lot more difficult and dependent on some new standards and how we interpret those standards, so i would certainly encourage your companies to continue to submit questions for interpretation to nhtsa so working together the automotive industry and government can determine how to address potential regulatory advances which all of you have expressed we need to have in order to move this legislation -- or this technology forward. i also encourage you to share testing data with nhtsa as well to assist them in developing these new national standards for automated vehicle functions and so perhaps some comments from you as to how you're working now with nhtsa, sharing information,

and there was a discussion about some new targeted authority for nhtsa as well. if you could elaborate on some of those ideas, i'd appreciate it. >> we continue to work very closely with nhtsa as our regulatory agency. obviously being an oem we have a very long relationship with nhtsa. we have worked together collaboratively with them around this topic of autonomous vehicles. we look forward to learning more on both sides and continuing to work with nhtsa on appropriate regulatory authority because, as i think we emphasized many times, we want to develop and deploy this technology safely, and safety is our primary concern in making -- and making sure we can do it safely is very important to the company before we actually introduce these to the public. >> i couldn't agree more. safety has to be front and foremost in this and for the last six years we've been

engaged with nhtsa sharing our lessons from the road and tanging their feedbook. we're very excited about secretary foktsx's initiative in building guidelines over the next six months and look forward to taking part in the public workshops that will be happening which will i think bring a degree of transparency to the process which is important to building confidence. >> senator klobuchar and senator danes. >> thank you slech, mr. chairman. in 2014 3,179 people were killed in distracted driving crashes and another 431,000 were injured but right now too few states are receiving federal funding. senator hoeven and i worked on this, it got included in the fast act to make sure states besides connecticut were able to receive some of the funding for educational efforts on distracted driving. and we know these incentive grants are helpful. could you talk about what

advances in automated vehicles would mean for reducing the incidents of distracting driving? we know it's just a major issue. it's expanding. it's not just kids. it's adults too. we just had today in our newspaper front page two people hurt, one man -- a man killed, he was a school bus driver, 79 years old, and he lived in a rural area. he was just going out to get his newspaper at the mailbox and it turned out the woman who hit him was going a text and she's been charged with a crime. that's just today. every single day there's something like that. could you talk about how the automated vehicles, whoever can take it, would be helpful? >> i think what that unfortunate and tragic example highlights is the roles these systems can play. with systems like lane departure warning, imminent driving and

other alerts and ultimately the car taking evasive action, those are direct countermeasures to the effects of distraction where the driver is not really paying attention to what the car is doing. and that's that immediate safety benefit that systems that are commercially available now can bring which is why we're so excited about the implementation of the stickers act and getting that out there into the consumer base. but as you continue down that path, automated driving and the sensors that go with it are what really enable the car to avoid those situations regardless of what the driver is doing, and that's the ultimate safety benefit. not just for distracted driving but all forms of driver related accidents. >> i think the distracted driving instances are tragic, but autonomous vehicles can address the large percentage of

accidents 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, and autonomous systems and automated vehicles should be able to address that in a very substantial way. >> senator, this is really at the heart of why we're engaged in this work. when we look at the 38,000 people that nhtsa estimates were killed last year on america's roads, it's really an unacceptable status quo and there's so much opportunity to do good here. now, the technology will never be perfect, but the opportunity to reduce those accidents and those tragedy is incredible. >> this is one of the key things we think lyft brings to the equation. looking at the issue of drunk driving specifically, it has now been determined by more than one research project that the advent

of ride sharing has significantly reduce the incidents of drunk driving across the country. the ability to deploy av technology to the consumers on a mass level is where lyft really believes it can contribute to this discussion. so by enabling a ride sharing platform like lyft we can bring these safer options to the public at a mass scale and get it ready for mass consumer adoption much quicker than other models could. >> okay. are you okay, dr. cup sntion. >> sure. but if i can just weigh in here, all of these things are absolutely true, my specialty is human error, so this is definitely something that's going to help address these problems. i think the real trouble that we're up against is the hybrid time. we're in a very strange time where you're going to see more and more autonomy start to be introduced and it's going to increase people's distraction. recently tesla suffered from one of their drivers getting in the backseat of their car while the car was on autopilot when, in fact, tesla made it quite clear

you were supposed to be in the seat. and so this is the funny thing about human behavior is if humans just think the car is pretty good, then their behavior is going to be even worse. the best thing that we could do is for everyone to get out of their cars today and have them all be driverless with no steering wheels tomorrow. that would be the safest thing we can do. but until then where we have gremlins on the same road as the teslas on the same road as the no steering wheel google car we really have to be careful about how we set up that human autonomy interaction. >> if i may, so we've seen this, you know, completely agree with the research. a few years ago we were at the point where we had technology that could drive well on the freeway. imagine a product where you get in the car, drive it, put it on the freeway, press the button, and then it drives for you. and we had 140 employees test that capability and they loved the product. they thought it was fantastic.

i think a former vice president at general motors has said for their customers, driving is the distraction, and, you know, and we saw that live and it really comes down to the fact that at some point the automation technologies are just so good that people overtrust it even when they're told they shouldn't and have to be there. and so this is, again, why we're taking that leap towards fully self-driven vehicles. >> thank you. >> i would have to add the technologies exist to make sure that if people are going to climb into the backseat or aren't paying attention to the road, that the system can warn them and get their attention back on the road. >> okay. and i'm put on the record just another question because i'm out of time here about autonomous vehicles and increased mobility for senior citizens as we're seeing what i no longer call a silver tsunami because that is too negative. i have been told by my senior

groups to call it a silver surge of more seniors so i will be curious, i'll ask some questions on the record about how there can be some help for seniors as well. >> good questions and we're going to be there soon. but actually this is my neighbor from minnesota, thank you, senator klobuchar for those questions. this will have great application for people who need an autonomous car to keep them awake physical they get to south dakota as they're driving across minnesota. >> you mean when they're driving through south dakota to get to wall drug -- >> senator danes from montana. >> thank you, chairman. >> it's the perfect segue here talking about big, wide open country we have out west and thank you for testifying today. i can tell you as a guy who was in the technology business many, many years it's refreshing to hear about the innovation, the job creation that's actually occurring outside washington, d.c., lo and behold so kudos. my home, montana, is the fourth

largest state. we have the second highest rate of vehicle ownership. we have 75,000 miles of public roads. 95% of those are rural. our interstate highways generally you can go 80 miles an hour. that is the speed limit. and so i see these autonomous vehicles as having the potential for significant safety improvement. i want to talk through some safety issues and get your comments. they've been addressed a little bit already. first of all, on driver fatigue. my wife and i were ledding out for dinner this weekend and we saw where they had -- they were investigating the highway patrol. there had been a rollover. claimed the life of a man from my hometown. billions of losses, dollars in losses every year. billions of dollars, thousands of lives lost because of driver fatigue. how will autonomous cars reduce driver fatigue? >> i think in our model they're not driving anymore so the question is moot.

even in the case of the study that i talked about earlier, we had 140 people use the vehicles. one of the most touching stories was a woman who lives about an hour and a half from work and commutes every day, and she told us that coming in that she wanted to cook for her family and exercise and that she didn't have the time anymore. she used our car for a week and she said every day that week she got home and she was able to go for a run and cook for her family because she was not exhausted from fighting traffic. so i think these i call them maybe the softer elements, the social benefits of this technology, are going to be innumerable and hard to quantify up front. >> they're also developing systems that, you know, for highway pilot or some of those semi autonomous vehicles where we look at the driver. we have cameras that look at the driver to sense where is the driver looking, are they blirnging, are they shut? so we can now determine the state of the driver and is

fatigue is factor and take the appropriate countermeasures to either stimulate or re-engage the driver. so those technologies will roll out towards the end of the year along with that broader suite of autonomous driving capability. >> probably more the semi autonomous is where we're at. i appreciate that. that's helpful. i want to pivot over and talk about drunk driving. how will this reduce drunk let's talk the sec my you a t-- autonomous mode. >> as you indicated in the fully autonomous mode it's an obvious answer. >> how about semi autonomous? >> there are technologies under development to try and interpret whether a driver is capable of responsibly driving. to be honest i think at the pace that autonomous technologies are moving, i would hope that we can get to these autonomous vehicles relatively qu lly quickly and tl

absolution for several of these issues. >> 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, doctor, is there some way if it can detect if you were in an eastbound in a westbound. is it possible? >> i'm sure sure that's a technology that could be developed. obviously we're building vehicles that wouldn't make that mistake but, you know, geofencing, geomodeling technologies could be in place to address that. >> and animal/vehicle colonel l litions is a big problem. deer populations are up. and in montana it's elk and moose. billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of deaths potentially. how can this help reduce

animal/vehicle collisions? >> i think important lly and reference was made to it earlier. these autonomous vehicles use an array of sensors not just cameras. between radar, lydar, and cameras, i think the potential exists that the vehicles could be even more perceptive of when animals are approaching the roadway than human beings are. in michigan we have a significant issue with deer in the highway and these technologies offer a real -- >> and often times at night. as i have taught my kids, you're better off if you don't swerve. it's a swerving that oftentimes results in the significant injuries. lastly, privacy. is got talked about a little bit. we heard the stories of current vehicles operating, systems being hacked. there was a famous one from last summer. as the internet of things continues to grow, this threat becomes ever more real. what is gm doing to ensure consumer' current vehicles are

secure? >> as far as cyber security in particular, we have a dedicated organization that spends time on these issues. it is managed by a senior executive in the company. we have learned from other industries on how to approach cyber security issues. we employ red teams that are not involved in designing our systems but only spend time trying to find vulnerabilities. i would tell you just a week ago i spent time with one of these engineers. he brought in a module and demonstrated to me all the things he did to try to get in and compromise this module and it's really very impressive. as we said, we also now have an industry group auto isac that shares best practices as well as reports and vulnerabilities across the industry. we're very proud that jeff is the vice chairman of that group. and so we take cyber security very, very seriously, and we think going forward the car needs to be designed from the ground up with cyber security in mind and that is our intent.

>> thank you. >> thank you, senator danes. senator gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to the witness for your time and testimony. i think there's been a lot of great questions and a lot of interest and intrigue in how this will move forward and what technologies will emerge on top and the questions i think are just the tip of the iceberg as we all try to figure out and understand how this is going to affect our culture, our society, our innovation, our safety, and our economy. a couple things, 2005 probably when auto steer tractors really started -- became the latest rage in agricultural, useful economic tool for productivity. today based on that over a decade long experience, i think if you want to get down to say a 12-inch accuracy in the field whether your planting corn or drilling wheat it probably costs $7,000 to retrofit an old piece of equipment, a tractor that's 10 or 15 years old. to have it down to 1 inch

accuracy it's probably around $28,000 to retrofit an old tractor. but if you're dealing with a car that's going down the interstate though, the questions of accuracy is not something -- well, we had the accident because we had 24-inch accuracy. this is satellite guidance versus radar, lydar, cameras. >> the vehicles will use gps but they also use an array of other sensors and some very high-definition maps to understand exactly where the vehicle is in the world and position itself very accurately. >> as you're rolling vehicles off the eye assembly line that could be -- that could have the autonomous technologies off the factory line and we retrofit older vehicles to it, i mean, how are we going to make sure that -- who is the responsible body -- from a regulatory landscape to make sure that that used car that's 10, 15 years old

that has an after market autonomous system placed 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 we've discussed earlier, cyber security and safety, we don't see this technology necessarily being applicable as far as retrofitting to vehicles. to do an autonomous vehicle successfully and safely you need to touch a number of the fundamental systems in the car, you need to design in redundancy that's not here today so the idea of trying to take that system and somehow retrofit it on an existing car we don't think is practical. >> somebody is going to develop that, don't you think? like they did for a piece of farm equipment. somebody is going to figure out how to retrofit an old car and who is going to be responsible for that? wroo we don't see a path to be able to do that. >> the other question is, is there a state -- a lot of the questions between federal and state, is there a state that's getting it better than some

states in terms of allowing that innovation to flourish and if so who is that and what are they doing that's so good about it? >> i think that is an important question. i think we've seen many states that have expressed enthusiasm about this technology and looking for ways to kind of ensure the technology will come to their state. and what we found actually is in most places the best action is to take no action. and that in general the technology can be safely tested today on roads in many states and that what we really are looking for is the leadership that secretary foxx has announced around -- at a federal level bringing some guidelines for innovation. >> because i guess the other question then would be who is doing the best job of not doing anything? >> i'm sure i don't have a good answer. >> the other question i had just out of curiosity more than

anything is the question, the example of the deer. i guess you're driving down an interstate in colorado and you have an animal on the side or perhaps even a child that runs out after a soccer ball or something to a road. how are we going to address issues of sort of the moral choice that a computer is going to have to make? a car is going to have to make whether it veers left if there's a car next to it, if it veers right into the ditch, maybe the car itself is carrying passengers. obviously carrying passengers. how do we address that? how do we research that? how do we study that? how do we make that happen? >> i think this is a very important point. this is a question that humanity has struggled with for hundreds and hundreds of years. and there isn't a right kind of philosophical answer. and so the approach we're taking is to try and reduce this to practice in a way that we can actually implement something and

see the broader safety, economic, and mobility values, and so the way we think about this is let's try hardest to avoid vulnerable road users, a users, pedestrians, cyclists then other vehicles and then avoid things to don't move in the world. and be transparent. if you're in this vehicle, this is the way this will behave. and then make the decision, am i okay or not? >> i would only add, the intent with the various sensing technologies is to do absolutely the best we can to make sure those vehicles never get put in thoes situations in the first place. i think there are real opportunities here. >> in colorado, we added about 100,000 new residents to the state.

theive 9 pbz between pueblo and fort collins. this technology is i think one of the keys to allowing a thriving ski industry if you're limited to the amount of tunnels you can put through a mountain, both from a cost perspective and a physics perspective as well. i think this is an incredibly fascinating opportunity. >> there are lots 06 reasons people are moving to colorado. >> and automation is probably a good thing for that. >> we may need more autonomous cars in colorado for that reason. but thank you, senator gardner. senator markey. >> thank you senator very much. these new vehicles are computers on wheels. it's absolutely amazing what is

happening. i just went out on to the highway across the 14th street privilege in a tesla vehicle and i looked right, i looked left and it was like look mah, no hands. i'm just driving along down the highway at 11:30 this morning in one of these demonstration vehicles and it was just absolutely amazing. very impressive. clearly we're still at the dawn of the era, but the promise is there and we can see it. very glad i took the demonstration this morning. back in 2013, and again last yea year,/asked our auto makers what

they're doing to protect them? and they're not doing enough. i released a report and it's titled tracking and hacking security and privacy gaps put american drivers at risk. thieves no longer need a crow bar to break into a car. they just need an iphone. today's cars are also collecting tremendous amounts of personal driving interaction. where where you are, where you've been. and even the mile laj since your last oil change. some of that is good. some of that is important to have gathered. if all cars were fully autonomous and we were relying on human driver to get to where you are, to get to where you want to go, those will become more pronounced in our society. >> introduced with senator

number one, we need enforcement rules of the road to protect driver security. and introduced with senator bloomenthal, the security and privacy in your car act, or the spy car act that directs the national highway traffic safety administration and the federal trade commission to establish federal standards to secure our cars and protect our driver's privacy. so, for each of the panelists, if you would, i would like to you answer this question on mandatory cyber security standards, including hacking protection that meets all -- to protect against hacking attacks. data security measures that means that all collected information should be secured and hacking mitigation so that vehicles are equipped to stop hacking in real time. dr. cummings, what do you think? do we need rules of the road

that -- >> i'm in complete agreement with all those rules. the concerns that i have and that i testify two years ago in front of this same committee, it's happening so quickly that the government institutions cannot keep pace. the government is -- cannot hire the same people that chris is hiring at googlex. >> no, this would just be to say to the companies, build in the hacking protections. >> i agree. but i also think that you need a regulatory framework that can ensure that this is happening. >> that's what i'm asking. can we say to ntsa and -- >> i'm saying ntsa, at least today, has the people on staff that they need to do that. >> that's the problem with the securities exchange commission, they had a bunch of lawyers but couldn't deal with the meltdown that occurred.

they had been computerized. they moved to a different trading model. obviously, agencies have to get the technical expertise they need. it would be important, though, to have the rules if they had the personnel to do it. >> i agree. i think that's a real challenge. >> i understand. we have to meet the challenges of the future. >> not only are we fully committed to ensuring that prevent any instances of cyber hacking, but, yes, we are in support of well thought out principles that would codify our previous existing steps to ensure that. >> that there be a consistency of what these principles look like, in order to do so, that whatever principles are put in place to ensure the privacy and safety of our uses. >> i think the chairman is going to catch on to me. >> standardized in the approach. >> regulation trying to stay

ahead of this very fast changing area, we think a more flexible approach is purposeful. >> google is attacked on a regular basis. very dynamic space and important to adapt the principles at which you defend overtime. >> i understand what you're saying. witnesses sat here 30 years ago and said the same thing about air bags and seat belts. how it would be hard to mandate a specific air bag. i understand but at the same time people expect air bags to protect their children and they're going to expect certain standards mandated across the board that will protect people. i was chasing two 9-year-olds, i was only 5.

i could see how it's difficult for the driver to see how i was going to do it. clearly, hackers will have the ability to break into these vehicles. if ten companies and ten don't, then that will be identified by the hackers and i think we need minimal standards that every company is going to meet. the sooner we start the discussion and accept that as a responsibility, the better off we'll be.

>> thank you, senator markey. senator bloomenthal? >> may i respectfully suggest that the answer to the question, should there be mandatory privacy and safety standards, the answer is yes. and i didn't hear that from all of the witnesses. i heard answers that basically implied maybe there should be, but the clear need, it seems to me, and for the sake of this will be yes. that your technology is meeting mandatory standards. is ntsa equipped to establish those standards, in your view? >> no, they're not, in my

opinion. >> should this be implemented widely until there are such standards? >> no. i think we need to address these issues before there's wide disemnation of the technology. >> do any of the other witnesses disagree? >> i would say yes. we talked about cyber security. we operate only with an opt-in principle. >> so you agree there should be mandatory standards? >> no. i think we're operating with privacy as a very important part of how we implement this. i think we'll continue to work with regulators on what is

appropriate. >> i have to say -- i'm not a technology person. i'm a country lawyer from connecticut. if i ask somebody, do you think that that red light means stop and they came back and said, let me put it this way. under these circumstances maybe. 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 will be extremely fragile if people can't trust standards that are

uniform and mandatory, not necessarily for you but all the other actors that may come into this space at some point. it's a reason that senator markey and i have introduced this legislation. 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 that i was also driving yesterday in downtown new york, manhattan, in the midst of the rainstorm i was not driving myself, i was riding, thankfully. i don't know how this technology will fare in terms of safety in that kind of environment. so i would just close by suggesting that there is a need to develop rules of the road here, standards and distinctions in spaces. thank you very much for being here today. i look forward to working with you. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. can we go on the privacy issue

as well? what about privacy? saying no to data collection, other features and ensuring that personal driving information not be used for advertising or marketing purposes without -- dr. cummings? >> yes, senator markey. these are issues we're facing across a number of industries and a number of technologies. the fact of the matter is that these cars will be one big data gathering machine, telemetry data. once this happens -- right now, the cars really do need to talk to each other. they need to talk back. for the near term, they need to talk. they will be gathering a lot of data. it's not clear who will be doing what with that data. i personally would feel better to know there are some set of standards in place that were protecting my personal data.

at least, like i said, allow me it know what's happening. >> you think there should be rules that the information can't be used for marketing purposes? >> absolutely. >> do you agree with that? >> senator markey, thank you for the question. lyft has personal policies in place. strict opt-in by its user. >> should it be mandatory? >> the way i would address that, sir, there should definitely be standards. how they're develop sd really the question. we put upon ourselves, with respect to safety, privacy, insurance. as an example, we develop aid whole new type of insurance that provided $1 million. this is not required by any law. >> let's take me as a passenger and 100 people who live in the boston area and somebody just

wants access to the names of all the people and where they went using your service. do you think there should be a privacy protection for that, that you're bound by, that you can't sell that information even though people would want to know who is coming into that area? don't you think that should be an absolute prohibition? >> there should definitely be privacy protections. there are very unique situations that can't always be for seen in the development of new technology. >> assuming you're already doing the right thing, which is what your saying, why would you have a problem with kind of just work ing to create a standard?

>> if you will, sir, that was the point i was going to make. >> enacted of their own volition. i think that was important to make sure that the involvement of the industry to ensure what the appropriate standards were. >> my time is going to run out. you already heard the options here. yes or no, mandatory? >> we haven't really taken a position on mandatory or not. but what i will say is we would like to be part of that discussion to form late how do you approach it. >> you should first decide yes or no, and that would be helpful. >> we should work on the

regulations -- >> you don't have a yes or no, in terms of minimal privacy standard? >> no. >> i know you do. we don't pass murder statutes for our mothers. we do it for the people who think might murder people. you meet a minimal standard. let's assuming your company never does anything wrong, you still need a statute for people who might do things wrong. you don't think we need that statute or -- >> senator, we'll continue to -- >> i appreciate that. dr. urmson? >> what about making that foundation standard, though? >> i'm not in a position to comment on that.

>> ultimately yes is the right answer. there's a minimal standard. and hopefully, we'll reach that day. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator markey. and there is no requirement for the panelists to agree with him. you can answer the question the way that you want. >> this whole issue of consumer -- consumers may welcome a new technology because it's exciting and may offer mobility that people would find valuable, certainly not met by traditional cars but then other consumers who prefer the look, feel of traditional driving and may resist autonomous vehicles because they have reservations of giving up control of the car. where do you see spurring demand for autonomous vehicles?

>> the underserved communities we talked about earlier, deploying this technology in this ride-sharing model allows us to do that in a very effective way. we'll do it in a very safe way. people don't need to purchase an autonomous vehicle to get experience with the technology. as people gain more experience with it, they'll get more comfortable with it. >> the aaa report that was on -- showed that the minority, also showed that aid systems are helping to prepare that groundwork and gain consumer acceptsance of those technologies. that's why we think it's important that we have a broad application of technologies for the safety benefit.

>> senator, from our experience, when someone first hears about the idea of a self-driving car, it comes across as alien or very far out there. and without fail, whether someone comes in, thinking that this is all smoke and mirrors or that this is never going to happen, within about five minutes of riding in one of our vehicles, they're in the back, on the cell phone as if this was anything -- any other day. i think part of it is that people are so used to riding in vehicles that have been driven by someone else, whether it's their parents or loved ones. and so i think letting people have the chance to experience it will increase adoption very quickly.

>> just as a follow-up to that, during your test. do they feel safe? you indicated you feel like they have a very -- it seemed like -- >> we've done some studies of this. the first five minutes is a little intense. this car is driving itself. then 10 to 15 minutes it feels like it drives pretty well. 15 minutes on, it drives better than me. is their impression. >> they're going to enjoy it and really appreciate the values. >> it's just not that exciting. accelerate harshly, slam on the brakes. obey the traffic laws and very quickly the ride becomes --

driving is no longer the activity. your focused on whatever it is you're doing. that's exactly what we want the technology to bring. it's not about the drive. that fades away into the background. >> in order to make sure that this is readily available, it has to be safe, convenient and cost effective. essentially same challenges that was faced a few years ago when launching a purely peer to peer platform. and that was considered fairly out there when we brought that product to market. a few years later, it's become probably one of the most popular modes of transportation today. i think everyone here is committed to doing. and in order to make sure it is

cost efficient, a ride-sharing platform like lyft must be involved. >> senator, i want to add one thing. timing is everything. there is no question that someone is going to die in this technology. the question is when. what can we do to minimize that? i speak for many people to say we are strong advocates but if a death or fatality were to occur at the wrong time, it could set back the full innovation of this technology which will help to prevent those deaths on the road. many academics in this community are very concerned that we do want the safety testing data out there so that an accident that

could have been prevented will not happen. >> this has been very helpful. in just looking at the technology, it seems like there's enormous potential there on so many levels and, first and foremost, of course, is safety. if we could reduce by any amount the number of fatalities we have on america's roadways in a given year, that would be a remarkable accomplishment. in terms of economic, quality of life, environmental, congestion. all these things that we talk about in our society today seems to me at least. one of the things that's been raised today is the issue of cyber attacks, hacks and that sort of thing. and cyber security and measures being taken.

i think that's something that people will inevitability raise concerns about, given just the overall cyber threats we face in the worlded to. too, with redid you know dancy that's built into the vehicles, any types of gaps that occur. if there were some sort of disruption. so we encourage that and want to continue and make sure we do our job to ensure it's done in the safest manner possible but not in a way it inhibits or imposes any kind of barrier or impediment to something that has tremendous upside and potential for the american economy and safety of our nation. thank you all for making your

time available to us today, your thoughts and insights. we'll continue the conversation about this. sky seems to be the limit, so to speak. i would conclude that the record remains open for two weeks during which time senators are asked to submit any questions into the record and, upon receipt, witnesses are asked to submit answers to the committee as soon as possible. thank you very much. this hearing is adjourned.

>> mmy governor rick snyder and gina mccarthy will testify on the waeter crisis in flint, michigan. this will be the third hear on the contamination. we'll take you there live at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. >> every week on american history tv on c-span 3, feature programs that tell the american story. some of the highlights for this

weekend include saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history. dickinson college professor david o'connell discusses presidential legacies and the factors that contribute to a successful presidential term. and at 10:00 p.m. on real america, in september of 1963, two months prior to his death, president kennedy traveled across the united states to promote conservation of natural resources for future generations. on road to the white house rewind, a 1984 democratic iic e in atlanta includes former vice president walter mondale, gary hart of colorado and john lynn of ohio. former presidential nominee george mcgovern and reverend jesse jackson. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go to cspan.org. israeli