before going into public service, i practiced orthopaedic surgery for over 20 years. that firsthand experience taught me that there is nothing more sacred in health care than the doctor-patient relationship. our better way plan respects and protects the doctor-patient relationship. it is the plan america needs. it is how we can turn things around - a bold vision to bring america's health care system into the 21st century. house republicans are offering a clean break with the past: a plan to repeal obamacare and start over with real, patient-centered solutions - that puts patients and families and doctors in charge - not washington, d.c. thanks for listening. >> c-span, created by america's cable television companies and brought to as a public service i your cable or satellite provider. and this week on the

communicators, a discussion about the guidelines and rules proposed for self driving cars. our guest, mark rosekind who is the administrator of the national highway traffic and safety administration. what should the public right now know about self driving cars? dr. rosekind: they are here. the question, not even a year ago, when will they arrive? they are here. and so, really all of us need to focus on how they are as safe as possible because they offer us tremendous, lifesaving potential. mr. peter slen: your agency just put out some guidelines for self driving cars. what was your focused? dr. rosekind: we focused on four areas. the vehicle performance guidance was for people who will manufacture these. test, and deploy, here is a 15 point safety

assessment you have to go through before it gets on the road. it is a total reversal. right now, we are trying to look at how do we build safety into a vehicle beforehand. has only beenntsa reactive. you have to wait until someone is injured or killed. how do we will safety in at the beginning? the second is a model state policy. we wanted to be as specific as we could for the potential to have a uniformed framework of policy throughout the country. if patchwork would kill the technology. the last thing focuses on what tools and authorities do ntsa need? what with the future need to help us expedite the safety? mr. peter slen: could you speak more about the premarket approval process? that is a big change. for bill --: thanks bringing that up.

the secretary has talked about that a lot because he is trying to emphasize that for 50 years, it has all been reactive. we have put out a regulation and then we wait to see if you comply with it or if someone gets hurt or killed we have to find out if there is a defect and then recall. it is all reactive. what the secretary is focused on is trying to become more proactive. how do we get the safety in the front? specific to the premarket approval, that is one of the 12 tools identified. we do not ask for it, but it highlights the kind of future method that we might need to get the streets.on it is different. it would take a while to get there but we need a conversation to explore how we can use new tools. mr. peter slen: joining our coverage is dave shepardson. he is a previous auto reporter. mark, one of the things that for theses opt

guidelines instead of regulations. is that because there were too many unknowns or was there not enough time to go through the regulatory process? both.sekind: start with the regulatory side. there are many people that said you have to regulate and that is the only way to get safety. the last date technologies we have had, rear visibility cameras, electronic stability control, and advanced airbags -- it took 10 years to get those rulemaking -- to get that rulemaking done. technology is changing so fast, it would be outdated before you got the regulation passed. the other, which you highlighted is that there are a lot of unknowns. -- what is and say your performance objective? what is your data? we do not have all of that.

we have to figure it out. let me finish by saying that we try to find how to provide a safety framework but support innovation. by having our 15 point list, both of you could come and meet those performance items in different ways and be as innovative as you want but show the data. prove you have come up with a safeway and we will pick who does it best with the data to support it. it sets a beautiful state for future foundation for regulation but let us fill in those unknowns. mr. peter slen: what is the auto communities early reaction? would congress agreed to preapproval authority? dr. rosekind: the initial reaction has been fairly positive. i think -- i am trying to position this as -- we are

trying to be innovative as we can from the government i as what we are trying to encourage on the technology and manufacturing side. we are flipping it on its head. the people in this area, appreciate the fact that we are trying not to jam them into a box with regulation. but open it up for safety to see what they can do. as far as congress, those discussions are for the future. what we did was identify 12 different tools. each probably requires a group to look at what they should do. secretary in particular highlights that because it is an example of flipping it on its head. to be a lot of discussion before there is reaction. do you think california will drop its plans to go ahead with its own rules? dr. rosekind: for sure, you can

ask california that. what i want to highlight is the -- andn association of they represent the dmv's. we have had a lot of reaction from states including california. they participated in helping us understand what the state issues are. i think california has been extremely collaborative in telling us what their challenges veryut they have also been patient waiting for us to come out before they chose to act. we will be hearing about their next steps. initial indications show that they want to be in step with our policy. were there any guidelines or discussions prior to your announcement on september 18? thank you for your question. we did our own analysis. you look at the current motor vehicle safety standard. how are motor vehicle safety

standards addressed? they are not. if you think about it, if you manufacture a car that complies with all of the current anders, ,nd you -- current standards you can put any automation you want on the road. this policy says that if you want to do that, here is how you have to address safety before you put that on the road. mr. shepardson: why choose self driving cars for the change in how you want to approach policy? dr. rosekind: that is another critical element. 35,092 is the number of lives lost on our roads. a 7.2% increase from 2014. over a decade, we saw a 25% drop in lives lost. last year, we lost a third of that progress in one year. people will say -- keep doing stuff so we can save lives.

it was einstein saying -- keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. it is not going to happen. we need a new solution. representsinnovation that transformative opportunity to save lives. everyone has the potential to save lives. mr. shepardson: given that it is otherlogy, will there be government agencies involved in setting rules and regulations? dr. rosekind: that is a great question. everyone keeps talking about their vision for this space and i think we are watching it be created in front of us. that is a great question because is in the middle of it. when you think about all of the other areas -- the motor vehicle safety administration deals with trucks. we are looking at spectrum and how that is shared from vehicle

to vehicle communication. we are looking at connected automation. there will be a a lot of government agencies that could be involved. but when you start with the vehicle as the central point, it is the department of transportation. mr. shepardson: the critics on self driving cars say there is not enough data. google has driven 2 million miles. one of the witnesses that testified at the hearing in the senate said we need hundreds of millions of miles in testing and it is too early to have these vehicles on the road. what do you say to that? i hope as people start to read the policy, they understand how thoughtful it is. either way, i was not at that senate hearing and i say that because i think one of the questions i have been asking is what are the new safety metrics we need? we are in a transformative place totally different from where we were. we need new safety metrics.

how many miles traveled -- is that the metric that we need? if you read the policy, i hope people will see how thoughtful it is. it talks about simulation. exemptiones the process to get more on the road for better data. i really think we need more data through different mechanisms then some we outline. that we will have more data in different ways. the bottom line is what will this new safety metrics be. in california, an example -- what about a hard break. what about if that was because someone stepped in front of a car and they did not hear -- they did not hit the pedestrian. heartbreaking good. proving that this is saving lives is harder to do but those are the safety metrics we will need to figure out. mr. peter slen: you mention the basic rules.

mr. shepardson: google this year had a crash where it admitted some responsibility for heading of us. had the auto pilot crash where it acknowledged that the system did not work as intended. should the systems be on the road without ntsa having some sort of preapproval or oversight into these near fully automated vehicles? dr. rosekind: what you just highlighted is how fast this is moving. in january, secretary fox talked presidents proposal for funding. the secretary announced that within six months, we would come out with this guidance. what is interesting is how much has happened in that time. fast --celerating so trying to get in front of it is tough for anyone. , put aour challenges was stake in the ground that says going forward, this is what we expect.

there is also a section that says if you are already on the road, we will give you a grace period but you have to fulfill the same safety requirements now. mr. peter slen: isn't the question then -- if a company reports to you and meets the 15 guidelines -- if they don't, what is ntsa's recourse? dr. rosekind: this is why this is so important. this is a policy but we have high expectations that people will follow them. one of the things that also came out when this policy was issued was an enforcement bulletin. 's currentl of ntsa -- it applies to new vehicle technology as well. we have a lot of authority. we could use more that would help us be more effective. but our current authorities

apply to what is going on here. canave investigations we start. and we have other tools already available for us to try to be sure that safety is built into the process. mr. peter slen: who can comment on this -- during the 60 day. period?y dr. rosekind: everyone. learn about it. there is a public -- docket that is open. any kind ofubmit comments. i point out that in the policy we identified 23 steps beyond the comment period. will have interactive workshops. an expert review of the policy. working groups to look at the legislative issues. we specifically recommend a commission that states put together to look at liability insurance issues. there is a whole set of next steps. besides the 60 days, there are

many other activities that we expect everyone, manufacturers, media, passengers -- everyone should be making comments. we made a commitment to annually review and potentially update this policy. mr. peter slen: on your checklist of 15 points for the guidelines, the first one is data recording and sharing. is this a sharing of check elegy or data -- is this a sharing of technology or data? dr. rosekind: the one caution people like to raise is data sharing because of confidential business realms. highlight, i am a recovering nasa scientist that comes out of aerospace. in the aviation area, where they have done so well, there is a lot of sharing of safety data. we are focused on sharing safety data.

there are a lot of people that talk about corner cases. that unique, google valentine's date where google meets the bus. everyone trying to program their vehicles should learn about that one instance. the other thing is that what you are talking about -- all of the vehicles on the road that learned that safety information, they get to share that information. you only know that your driving will improve because of the experience you get on the road. think about the millions of vehicles that could be adding to your understanding. mr. peter slen: on that checklist there is also vehicle cyber security. mr.ecently visited with rajkumar at carnegie mellon university. here is a little bit about what he had to say. mr. rajkumar: because these are driven by computers and

software, we have to be cognizant and cautious about possible threats to the technology. these could include cyber security attacks. out, in send information can also receive information act in. he,entry and exit points potential portals for attack. that theo be careful attack could come from across the state were globally. or globally. besides cyber security threats, we should also be worried about what can be done in the physical context. we can jam gps. spoof gps.sibly even

you can use a simple laser device to confuse the light sensors. so there are cyber security threats and there are also physical attacks possible. mr. peter slen: dr. rosekind? dr. rosekind: we have to look at both the positives and the negatives. starting with a positives, one example of how all of the technology could be tremendous would be over the air updates. overan now update software the air. you could have a brand-new car with new safety features when you wake up in the morning. remarkable. another 1 -- let us say there is a recall or a defect, everyone wakes up and there is 100% recall completion when they wake up. that is remarkable. what has been pointed out is that it also represents a vulnerability where you could have any bad actor concerned about cyber security risks -- that opens it up. will shortly be

coming out with cyber security best practices. automatic guide that the industry has started. they are ready have these systems in the energy and infrastructure systems. it is acknowledged to. the question that and challenge is that it has moved so quickly. mr. shepardson: there is a lot of two schools of thought. will,self driving cars much faster than we thought and others say there are too many complexities. toyota says it is further away. where do you come down on when we will see the level four or level five vehicles? dr. rosekind: let me go at that by saying that one of the challenges everyone has is trying to segment these more clearly than the way we talk

about them. you talk about levels -- only the three of us know what you're talking about. there is full self driving and that is where we expect no input from the human. and then there are other levels where the humans are still responsible for monitoring the environment. the reason i say that is because i think that only self driving in all environments -- that is probably 2020 and beyond. i think we're looking longer than that. but it is on the road already. the question more is we may get specialized versions of these. to do with15 have operational design demand. where should the car operate? if you have a pizza delivery during these specific days on these three blocks -- that is a very specific place. all the way up to the self driving. it depends on what you are looking at.

these things are already on the street. full of self driving in all environments -- at least 2020 and beyond. mr. shepardson: one of the things the guidelines say is that the self driving car should follow the law. google for example as it reports is gettinges rear-ended because it is driving very safely. it is coming to complete tops. should in the future self driving cars be allowed to drive more like human beings do which is going beyond the speed limit, maybe not coming to full stops at stop signs? human drivers are less than ideal and self driving cars that are following the letter of the law. dr. rosekind: this points out how complicated this is. lives lost, 35,092 90% are due to human error. we't it ironic that we say want to teach at the car to be a little more human?

the irony in that. what is interesting in the policy is that we do address that. we are talking down to city laws. cross the double yellow line? there has to be times where you break the law. those are things that these vehicles have to be programmed for as well. there are a in number of scenarios, and you tell us others, and how your vehicle has been programmed to deal with those specifically. are connected: cars a step in that direction or is that a separate issue? dr. rosekind: at ntsa we see them as connected. credit forsecretary his vision. many say it is one or the other. but it means is that your car is talking to another car or the infrastructure.

cars can see a cross the intersection. that can do things that an individual vehicle cannot do. or let the vehicle stand on its own. connect did automation -- connected automation gives us a safer system. the policy just came out. at the same time, we are pushing a new role on vehicle to vehicle communication. a combination of those offer the greatest safety for all of us. mr. shepardson: what role will -- if evidence tree and walks in front of a self driving car, should it avoids the pedestrian, or protect the occupants of the vehicle? what is your role in that? dr. rosekind: that is a great question that we decided to highlight because no one has an answer. i would like to get credit for

not stepping in. believeat because -- we one of the biggest most important things going forward is consumers accepting these vehicles. those kinds of -- if my car can get hacked and i am in danger, i am not getting into it. what about the ethics? will it protect me or --? very complicated. there is not a lot of information. in the policy, we identified that as one of the concerns. we specifically talk about how companies need to address that and they need to be specific on how they will resolve them. when i talk about innovation. this is part of innovation as well. how will we handle those ethical dilemmas in this technology revolution going on? deliverso decide what

in safety for the public. mr. peter slen: will we be entering a time frame much like 100 years or so ago when horse and buggies lived on the same streets as horseless carriages? dr. rosekind: i am not blowing smoke. at that is a great question. we do not talk about that enough. i think there are two transitions that do not get discussed. one is in the vehicle. that is your level three. you are human but you still need to know what is going on. if it is bad, you may need to take over. there is a transition from the automation to the human. a lot of questions about how that will go. the other transition is what you highlighted. the average age of cars, 11.5 years. if you had a perfect self driving car tomorrow, it could for that new years

technology to penetrate the fleets. if you have it tomorrow, it would still take 20 or 30 years. i really like having the top down on a highway in california. don't take my drivers license away. it is what you just described. decades, we are going to have a mix of human drivers and automation on the same road. 94% of those crashes are due to human error. we are trying to eliminate that. but that is the transition of the mixed fleet that we have almost no data on that i think will be the future for the next couple of decades. when selfslen: driving cars become so much more reliable -- that it will be too big of it -- of a risk to allow human beings to drive. governmentmagine the

saying --human beings, you are not careful enough to drive? dr. rosekind: you see the irony in these questions. man, if they get as good as we think, they could prevent the loss of every one of those lives. why would we allow the risk of a human to take over the wheel. i don't think we will ever get there. that may be a question for the next 30 years. when they really have the data to show how far we have come. it will probably be my kids they gearing out if we will ever hit the point is that question becomes a reality that has to be answered. mr. peter slen: why is this coming at us right now? dr. rosekind: here is the personal part. i am third-generation san francisco from silicon valley. --why are weology talking phones? i literally stood in line for

the first iphone with my son. push weat because the are getting is the way technology happened. --what is thelley surprise here, people? there is a kid in a garage or their room thinking up the next startup ready to save lives. that is the excitement. what is so interesting to see is that there has been so much focus on the road safety value. for all of the technology in this push, we have phones and the internet -- what is so fascinating now is the focus on the vehicle. safety,ealize that nobility, as we get older or you are disabled -- the sustainability. for the whole planet. the secretary is thinking about expansions and the other things without pouring another truck of concrete because of ridesharing. those, it is at no-brainer that we need to be

going at this as strongly as we can. miss theut we cannot opportunity represented here. it has been fascinating to see this pickup by different segments. the technology will not be the issue in the end. silicon valley -- they will figure things out. but the issue is the kind of things you are bringing up about the human. will they accept it? what about the ethical issues? would you ever want to give up your driver's license? mr. peter slen: mark rosekind is the administrator of ntsa. dave shepardson covers technology for thomson reuters. over the next two weeks, the communicators will travel to both pittsburgh and ann arbor where we will visit carnegie mellon university. a ride and show you the technology in an autonomous vehicle and then we look at connected cars at an city, part of the university of michigan in ann arbor.

thanks so much for watching. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] to tuesday's debate between senator tim kaine and governor mike pence, we look at past vice presidential debates tonight. starting with the 1984 debate with george h w bush and geraldine ferraro. >> we have been hearing that on the commercials, i expect the american people to believe i will become a one-woman truth squad. >> they deliver 21 and a half percent interest rates. they delivered interest rates that were right off the charts.