information. the problem is, the toyota thing in some of these others, [inaudible] the auto industry has@@@@@@@ br$ and the auto industry has put in and -- about giving the codes out so that people can get the correct information. >> dr. martinez? >> well, you know, it is true. at general motors, we first learned about the chip onboard from general motors. we did a crash investigation that cost us $14,000. very concerned. the gentleman had almost pulled out to seat belt. we figured there was a defect. we calculated $14,000. a 22-26-mile-per-hour crash. this thing shouldn't fail. general motors, it turn out the

crash was 56 miles an hour. we said where did you do that? we have to put this information in. general motors has always allowed and i think ford, too, to allow anybody to download the information. the other companies, some have said this is proprietary information. they could talk about things like whether they had the brake on or not and speed and things like that. . sh re been concerns about the integrity of the box. if you look at the emergency medical service providers, they say they can do a better job at determining whether someone is injured or not. the national academy of sciences, and just a few weeks ago put out some basic standards that should be there to protect privacy in protect the integrity information and the ability to retrieve it. we are on the verge of these

things, but it is taken a while like the viewer said. what is the price we're paying? why guess when we can know? >> the caller mentioned you both have medical backgrounds. how did that shape your tenure? how did that shape your tenure? >> it was everything. what drove dr. martinez and i to this in the first place was this revolving door of trauma. this preventable condition -- in the mid '80s, injury prevention and control began to be looked at as a science. it took a long time for them to evolve away from these random acts of god, that these things follow patterns. this progress and injury control science, and dr. martinez

pointed out to people that you think your federal bureaucrats, the your apply to public health practitioners. i spent some time at nhtsa just being the doctor in the house. once you get the safety agency's to understand that they're all about preventing the number one cause of death in america between the ages of 3 and 34 years of age. i happen to share the same bias. the leadership of an agency inculcates the staff to stay vote -- to save lives, not to address consumer problems with cars and things that break -- it

changes the culture and it changes coming to work every day. >> may i make a point? we actually had the engineers and our staff, thus to trauma centers and spend an evening there. -- and our staff come with us to trauma centers in spend an evening there. i never really saw that. i saw trying to do good your neighbors and your friends, so i saw the most dedicated people i met with my time at nhtsa. he asked for an office with a window, so we painted a window on his cubicle. >> i am not sure either one of you can answer this tweet, but does toyota still use a mechanical cable to connect the gear shift to the transmission, or is the shifter 100%

electronic? >> it is a good question. the electric vehicle can put it in the sport mode and can change, you did see a lot of move toward electronics which has a lot of opportunity because he could be much more precise, get feedback to it. it really saves fuel. >> i hate to branch into this, but the fuel economy is set by the government. everything they do, they have to take weight at of the vehicle. if you can substitute electronics, you can add other conveniences like safety features. it is not as simple as let's go back to the old mechanical stuff. we're going to be driving by wire for ever. we must figure out what the issues are.

>> there are going to be new standards for vehicles. what impact will that have on nhtsa? >> when we were there, nhtsa the standards for utility vehicles. the automobile standard was set 27.5 mpg. here is another emerging safety issue that the agency has to try to get out in front of. we will certainly see smaller, stiffer cars that will deliver a bigger pulse of energy to people when they do crash, and the manufacturers have to figure out how to mitigate the crash portions in order to crash -- in order to pass the crash test. it may be material science will change, they may just to deal with what they've got.

it will be an engineering challenge. >> there is a certain amount of gamesmanship in any regulation you put out. what adverse effect is that he started making big cars in smaller cars. there are some safety dynamics with that. the goal is to make sure you maintain safety and energy security. you can't really play that game. you have have parameters that you have to design. it doesn't already a just makes small cars compared to getting a big car, but to make sure that -- i was going to make one comment to you real quick. paillette is an interesting phenomenon right now. -- toyota is an interesting phenomenon right now. at my time and health care, we

are looking at toyota to improve health care. what happened here? we're trying to do what toyota does. they have lost control of the culture. has it been a matter of grabbing the data and getting it to the right organization because they are somewhat distributed? or are the designs coming down the field. we really don't know yet, we may not know for the next two or three months, maybe more. >> alike to think c-span, and also dr. runge and dr. martinez. i served at the institute of electrical and electronic engineers. it is significant that dr. martinez got the ball rolling back in 1998, and we have had a decade of progress, we have a

standard for preventive recorders. this to a few minutes ago, he mentioned that just canal, the consumer protection part of this, if nhtsa sides to mandate it, -- decides to mandate it, there may be a consumer backlash. i would like to ask dr. martinez what he thinks about the initiatives so far and what does he think -- how could ieee help nhtsa in the future? >> when people think black box, they get the wrong idea. this is like a five second refreshen buffer. it does not say if you were drinking or if somebody should to be there. it just gets a vehicle information.

with some protection put in, it helps allays some of those fears. you either give the data to somebody like you when you get your car fixed, and you give it to your insurance company and put a claim in, or it turns out there is a legal discovery process. we take your car anyway and maybe come up with the wrong information, or third, there is the legal proceeding where the car is impounded. we can go forward with the proceedings getting your claim* as we have better error formation. in some states, one at a five claque -- crashes are fraudulent. i think it may help the administration now.

>> we have run out of time, but i want to thank you for being with us. in a doctored jeffrey >> first lady of michelle obama focused on child the obesity and sits down today with cspan's studentscam winner of honolulu. his prize-winning documentary was on child of obesity. that is live on c-span this morning at 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> david represents the auto companies, he is the president and ceo of the auto alliance in washington d.c.. you are in d.c., yes? i wanted to get your reaction to the news, a $16.40 billion fine?

>> the system works. the agency determined that there was a violation, and they took action against the company. it is not an issue of the level of the fine, but the reputation. >> what will be the impact on toyota's image? >> they have real bland loyalty with consumers -- real brand loyalty with consumers. i think they survived, they addressed the problems. recalls are part of a regulatory model that works, because even though there has been an increase in the number of recalls.

it is a way to remedy potential defects much sooner than otherwise would be the case. >> how do you think the other car companies are going to react? >> it is a process. there really develop a cooperative, working relationship. the underlying case, like what both a doctor runge and dr. martinez were talking about, they talked about saving lives. it is lower than it was in 1954. they really are making vehicles safer. that is a time when the number of drivers have actually doubled, so there is n nhtsa as

a success story -- has a success story here. >> there's an expectation that this is an electronic issue, not necessarily a pedal defect as toyota has said. if it is an electronic issue, to electronic companies need to come forward with their software codes and tell the public the safety administration how the cars work? >> i was in the presence of the -- i was on the technology committee that oversaw an asset

and the department of defense, so i would tell you the solid state technology is far more reliable than the mechanical systems with that in the past. if you look at the innovations that are occurring@@@@@@@ @ @ a we worked with the administration to fulfil the requirements for duty the electronics to accomplish that. these are systems and that have to work together. the reliability requirements for the audit companies is 99.99%. that is not met in many other agencies in the federal government or other industries. there is the reliability and redundancy there that is unmatched across the -- a cross and the industry.

is minutes up able with limited resources -- is now it's a -- is nhtsa able to stay up on this with limited resources. the run this protests that no other industry can match. if there is a potential defect, that is where the recall works. i and the reliability is there more than ever before. that is what is increasing safety and lifesaving technologies that are deployed today that we have to be careful that we don't develop our regulatory system that actually stifles that innovation and the deployment of that technology. >> david is here to give us the perspective of car companies.

>> a good evening. i have a bit of a background in software engineering. i hear that they were hiring 66 people, it doesn't make me feel very comfortable. >> why is that? >> software is offshore. a lot of it is proprietary. we have millions of lines of code in a car right now, having 100 million lines of code is probably our reality. software engineers are able to assess the quality and architecture of the code, and most of that will be written in a foreign language. it is not going to be in english, and that is a false start. being sought for engineers is not the answer is the role is to try and assess the quality of the software that is being delivered the the car. it is probably the industry's

role and responsibility to pull that out. they certainly won't have the tools or the expertise or the time to analyze code, 100 million lines of code, let's say. >> what is a solution in your mind? what should happen? >> the producers of the software de it korea, japan, china, must documents that in provide the open source code -- not the open source, but he saw for documentation in a language we can understand, and the test results. >> i was on the board of this offer institute, and i am not a software engineer, but i have a bit of respect for them. having just a few software engineers is not going to be able to understand the types of

assistance and complexity of the auto itself, plus the range of auto manufacturers. their architecture designs that meet incredibly rigorous standards that ought companies use and actually lead in and they have worked with institutions to actually build the standards and requirements. there are literally thousands of engineers in the society of automotive engineers that are looking to develop standards for software and computers, and the system itself. an automobile has about 3000 different parts, and they all have to work together as a system. that is why it is very important that the automaker is not only do the design into the development, but they work with their suppliers to make sure that they're working effectively

together. that is where this high standard of not only reliability -- actually more than any other industry. >> chris in boston, go ahead. >> i am an electrical engineer, and i really don't think you people really understand what is really going on. you are really being manipulated, you are being used. what they're trying to establish here is taking simple minded people like yourself in using new to establish a global governing system about auto industry standards. they're creating global government programs through agencies like this agency to oversee world government. by creating small departments that oversee these different issues and stuff like that about our safety on a global level, what they're doing is establishing a global governing

system. what they're also doing is protecting the interest of the brand, and one of the callers was absolutely correct that there is an agenda behind a global government. >> well, it is a global industry. our industry manufactures and designs systems here in the united states as well as around the globe. it is one of the most competitive industries in the world. i don't think people understand how hyper competitive it is. there is a marketplace at work, and it is the most efficient of any other industry i am aware of. as far as standards globally, there are a lot of competing standards, and we have not reached the point where the un has established some sort of department that is working on this as part of the un, but they

are really looking at standards that there is consensus on. they're following a the manufacturers. the doctor mentioned electronics instability control. it is really the reason that we save thousands of lives every year. that was voluntarily developed by the manufacturers, and government took it to get converted it to standard after the fact. that is okay. it is actually good. i don't agree with the caller that there is a global conspiracy here to try to dominate. regulators may get a heavy hand, but i don't know that part. >> is the odd alliance working with companies to come forward and get ahead of this situation that we have seen with toyota by volunteering to take safety

precautions? are you working on something to with all the auto companies? >> we are represented the odd alliance and the trade association. it is about 70% of manufacturers. we continue to be incredibly proactive on a lot of the safety measures whether it is the current situation with sudden unintended acceleration. back in 2000, we had the tragic incident, the firestone case. there is a number of requirements of reporting, etc.. the industry complies with that, but we think there are ways to build on it. a lot of the questions are about the kinds of solutions that may be needed. the industry is releasing that or adopting a dozen coming forward.

two of our manufacturers have announced break override technology that they are voluntarily deploying in their vehicles, trying to make sure that there is redundancy in safety, that there are fail-safe method so we can avoid those incidents that may have occurred in the past. >> of viewers may remember the headlines during the last couple of months, one that came out of the situation with toyota that some employees have been hired by the car companies. is that appropriate? >> absolutely. the experience on both sides of the aisle. he doesn't understand the technology industry, and those in the agency's need to understand the technology and vice versa. the need to understand the system and in regulation. most are in cooperation with the manufacturers and it is not adversarial.

it is not the kind of relationship. it may have been in the past, " someone may be wanted to be the corporate cop. what we see today is a much more constructive engagement, trying to anticipate those challenges and building a consensus. we're working on a program, looking a research in regard to impaired driving, drunk driving, which is the single largest cause of fatalities in this country. 1% of all drivers are the ones responsible for those deaths. we're looking at the technology and research from across the globe in other areas of science to see if it would apply to technologies to prevent a drunk driver from engaging a vehicle and going out and doing harm. >> the next phone call comes from sheppard, florida. >> i wasn't on a mechanic student in the '70s, became a

-- became a mechanic in the 80's. i now build fire trucks. one of the problems i have seen with the manufacturer is the fact that a lot of this new technology fails to get the proper testing that needs. some examples are 1975, going to widespread electronic ignition. there is nothing with problems -- and nothing but problems with them until 78 or 79. then they went to widespread use of computer control. i can't tell you how many times card would -- cars would come back with the infamous check engine light. in this is you solve one problem, another one would pop up. it was not likely solved until the early 90s when they came out with the systems on board diagnostic. then they came out with the anti-lock brake systems, and there were a few problems when

those started. they need more real-world testing on any of these systems before their release them to the public. >> testing? >> this test -- this industry does more testing in a crash test, reliability, extreme temperature, it is the most stringent of any industry today, even within the federal government. there is considerable testing. there are 240 million vehicles on the road. there are hopefully roughly 12 million that are sold in this coming year, and that technology means to be deployed as quickly as possible. even if it is 99% reliable, there is that small percentage of risk there.

the want to have a perfect before you get it deployed? a perfect example, the institute has the fiftieth anniversary of crash tests. in 1959 chevy, there was a lot of metal, big engines, people thought they were safe. they crafted against a smaller chevy, a 2009 model, and i think we have a chart that shows those, when you look at the comparison, the 1959 model, you can see that the passenger compartment is actually crumbled. there is no air bag there that would protect the chest and upper torso. >> de 1995 yet -- the 1950 vehicle was on top, and below that is the 2009 vehicle. >> that passenger compartment is

safe, a 49 mile an hour head-on crash. the technology has changed dramatically, and each year, it improves. we have to make sure we don't stifle innovation in search of a risk free society or risk free industry because of potential litigation or a small percentage of problems. i think that is the virtuous cycle that the regulators in the industry are trying to engage. >> bought from ohio as our next caller, go ahead. >> respectfully disagree. you are saying that electronics are superior that mechanical parts, that they are better. moving parts where, it doesn't matter if it is a mechanical or if it is electrical. you have made it