[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VEHICLE-TO-VEHICLE COMMUNICATIONS AND CONNECTED ROADWAYS OF THE FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 25, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-60
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-692 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
_____
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
Chairman
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Ranking Member
Vice Chairman YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi Massachusetts
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana officio)
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, opening statement.............................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, opening statement..................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................ 7
Witnesses
Nathaniel Beuse, Associate Administrator, Vehicle Safety
Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration....... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Peter F. Sweatman, Ph.D., Director, University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute.............................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Harry Lightsey, Executive Director, Global Connected Customer
Experience, General Motors..................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 30
David St. Amant, President and Chief Operating Officer, Econolite
Group, Inc..................................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Barry Einsig, Global Transportation Executive, Cisco Systems,
Inc............................................................ 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
VEHICLE-TO-VEHICLE COMMUNICATIONS AND CONNECTED ROADWAYS OF THE FUTURE
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael
Burgess (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Burgess, Lance, Guthrie,
Olson, Bilirakis, Brooks, Mullin, Upton (ex officio),
Schakowsky, Kennedy, Cardenas, Butterfield, Welch, and Pallone
(ex officio).
Also present: Representative Barton.
Staff present: Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Andy
Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Graham Dufault, Counsel,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Melissa Froelich, Counsel,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Kirby Howard, Legislative
Clerk; Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
Trade; John Ohly, Professional Staff Member, Oversight and
Investigations; Olivia Trusty, Professional Staff Member,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Michelle Ash, Democratic
Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Christine
Brennan, Democratic Press Secretary; Elisa Goldman, Democratic
Counsel; Meredith Jones, Democratic Director of Communications,
Outreach, and Member Services; Adam Lowenstein, Democratic
Policy Analyst; Timothy Robinson, Democratic Chief Counsel; and
Ryan Skukowski, Democratic Policy Analyst.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. The Subcommittee on Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade will now come to order. Recognize
myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of an opening statement.
And I do want to--Mr. Guthrie, you too.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
I do want to welcome everyone here this morning to discuss
vehicle to vehicle communications. It is an innovative
technology that is advancing vehicle safety, and has the
potential to transform the future of our Nation's roadways.
Recently this subcommittee held a hearing on the Internet of
things, and the growing digital economy. During that hearing,
we broadly examined ways in which different markets, different
industries are using the Internet, how they are using wireless
connections and network sensors to create products that gather
information in real time to predict circumstances, prevent
problems, and create opportunities. Vehicle to vehicle
communications technology is a manifestation of that digital
phenomenon. The ability of cars to communicate with one
another, identifying their location, their speed, their brake
patterns, their--and other positioning data, and share that
information with other vehicles and drivers. This creates a
transportation system in which crashes are avoided, mobility is
improved, traffic congestion is avoided, and most importantly,
lives may be saved. Given the life-saving benefits alone, I am
very anxious to see if this technology takes shape and supports
our country's efforts to build a safer and more secure
transportation system. With over 32,000 motor vehicle accident
deaths a year, vehicle to vehicle communications promises to
significantly reduce those fatalities, and further harmonize
roadway activity.
It all sounds great, but the only way this saves lives is
to make it real. I am looking forward to examining how vehicle
to vehicle technology will work on today's roads, at a time
when we face an aging vehicle fleet, where many cars are not
equipped with the latest in groundbreaking technology, and
where Americans, still facing an uncertain economic future,
continue to hold off on buying big ticket items. We must
understand how this technology will be accessible and available
to everyone, and, in fact, accepted by everyone.
In addition to understanding how we will make vehicle to
vehicle communications a reality, I do look forward to
discussing how to maximize vehicle to vehicle's driver and
vehicle safety benefits. We need to understand the costs and
the expenses associated with devices, and what will be required
to maintain that communications network. Other considerations
are also necessary, including how current roadway
infrastructure will impact the implementation of this
technology, and what infrastructure is needed to support V2V,
and the process for developing performance and safety
standards, how the technology will be compatible and
interoperable among the entire vehicle fleet, and how the
technology will impact driver distraction and disruption, what
kind of driver education is needed to operate vehicles equipped
with this technology. These and many other factors will need to
be considered as we move forward in this technologically
advanced transportation era.
As with all network connected products in our day and age,
protecting personal information, and ensuring that the
appropriate safeguards are in place to guarantee vehicle
security will be an essential part of fully realizing vehicle
to vehicle communications, and its economic and public safety
benefits. In our examination of privacy and security issues, it
is important that we understand what kinds of information are
collected from vehicle systems to support this technology, and
what other safety applications, and what kind of information
can be shared between vehicles. In addition, we must understand
the security of those connections, and how it will be impacted
with aftermarket devices, applications, and services that are
brought into vehicles.
Last month the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration announced that it was taking steps to accelerate
road safety innovation, including moving ahead with its
proposed timetable of requiring vehicle to vehicle devices in
most new vehicles. I have said before, I am anxious to see this
technology implemented on our roadways, and to begin
demonstrating the life-saving benefits. However, we must make
certain that the technology is ready, and that the
implementation is done right. We must ensure that the
appropriate level of expertise is available to oversee the
entirety of the vehicle to vehicle system so that it functions
and operates properly, and can speedily remedy any system
failures without disruption. As we all know, lives will depend
upon that. And I also want to parenthetically add that I am the
chairman of the House Motorcycle Caucus, and I do see value in
being aware of other occupants on the road, even if those other
occupants are seemingly small and insignificant. Big trouble
can result if you violate laws of physics.
And, finally, I do want to note that there are multiple
facets of vehicle to vehicle communications, and the committee
as a whole, through its various subcommittees, is examining all
of them. This hearing, however, is focused on what the
technology could mean for safety, and what industry and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration need to do to
bring the technology safely into the marketplace. I want to
thank in advance the witnesses for their testimony, and look
forward to an engaging discussion on this very important topic.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess
I want to welcome everyone to our hearing today as we take
an opportunity to discuss vehicle-to-vehicle communications: an
innovative technology that is advancing vehicle safety and has
the potential to transform the future of our Nation's roadways.
Recently, this subcommittee held a hearing on the Internet
of Things and the growing digital economy. During that hearing,
we broadly examined ways in which different markets and
industries are using the Internet, wireless connections, and
networked sensors to create products that gather information in
realtime to predict circumstances, prevent problems, and create
opportunities.
Vehicle-to-vehicle communications technology is a
manifestation of that digital phenomenon. The ability of cars
to ``talk'' to one another--identifying their location, speed,
brake status and other positioning data--and share that
information with other vehicles and drivers, creates a
transportation system in which crashes are avoided, mobility is
improved, traffic congestion is avoided and, most importantly,
lives are saved.
Given the life-saving benefits alone, I am eager to see
this technology take shape and support our country's efforts to
build a safer and more secure transportation system. With over
30,000 motor vehicle traffic deaths a year, V2V promises to
significantly reduce those fatalities and further harmonize
roadway activity.
It sounds great. But the only way to save lives is to make
it real. I look forward to examining how V2V will work on
today's roads. At a time when we face an aging vehicle fleet
where many cars are not equipped with the latest groundbreaking
technology and where Americans, still facing an uncertain
economic future, continue to hold off on buying big-ticket
items, we must understand how this technology will be
accessible and available to everyone, and accepted by everyone.
In addition to understanding how we will make V2V a
reality, I look forward to discussing how to maximize V2V's
driver and vehicle safety benefits. We need to understand the
costs and expenses associated with V2V devices and what will be
required to maintain the V2V communications network. Other
considerations are also necessary, including: how current
roadway infrastructure will impact the implementation of V2V
and what infrastructure is needed to support V2V; the process
for developing V2V performance and safety standards; how the
technology will be compatible and interoperable among the
entire vehicle fleet; how V2Vwill impact driver distraction and
disruption; and what kind of driver education is needed to
operate vehicles equipped with this technology. These and many
other factors will need to be considered as we move forward
into this technologically advanced transportation era.
As with all networked-connected products in this day and
age, protecting personal information and ensuring that the
appropriate safeguards are in place to guarantee vehicle
security will be an essential part of fully realizing V2V and
its economic and public safety benefits. In our examination of
privacy and security issues, it is important that we understand
what kinds of information is collected from vehicle systems to
support V2V and other safety applications and what kinds of
information is shared between vehicles. In addition, we must
address the security of those connections and how they will be
impacted when aftermarket devices, applications, and services
are brought into vehicles.
Last month, NHTSA announced that it was taking steps to
accelerate road-safety innovation, including moving ahead of
its proposed timetable requiring V2V devices in new vehicles.
As I said before, I am eager to see this technology implemented
on our roadways and begin demonstrating its life-saving
benefits. However, we must make sure the technology is ready
and the implementation is done right. We must ensure that the
appropriate level of expertise is available to oversee the
entirety of the V2V system so that it functions and operates
properly, and can speedily remedy any system failures without
disruption. As we all know, lives will depend on it.
Finally, I want to note that there are multiple facets of
vehicle-to-vehicle communications and the committee as a whole
through its various subcommittees is examining all of them.
This hearing, however, is focused on what the technology could
mean for safety, and what industry and NHTSA need to do to
bring the technology safely into the marketplace.
Mr. Burgess. The Chair recognizes the subcommittee ranking
member, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Auto safety has
been a particular focus of mine for years, and so I really look
forward to hearing from our witnesses on this developing safety
feature. More than two million Americans were injured in car
crashes last year, with more than 30,000 deaths. Those
accidents and lost lives are tragic, but there have been
significant auto safety improvements made since 1979, when a
record 51,000 auto-related fatalities were recorded. Safety
technologies like seat belts, anti-lock brakes, rear
visibility, which I was very involved in passing, though not
implemented until--full until 2018, and airbags, despite the
Takata recall, have significantly improved auto safety since
vehicle deaths reached their peak almost 4 years ago. In order
to continue that progress, we must enhance existing safety
features, while at the same time considering new and innovative
technologies.
Dedicated short range radio communication, DSRC, seems with
technology come new acronyms, which enable vehicle to vehicle
technologies, have been researched for 15 years, and it shows
serious promise in further reducing traffic accidents. V2V, as
well as vehicle to infrastructure, V2I, allows for early
detection of traffic risks, and provide advance warning to
drivers in order to avoid accidents. Whether it is ensure
drivers can make safe left turns across traffic, not knocking
over our chairman on his motorcycle, knowing when a driver can
safely pass another car on the road, or minimizing traffic
congestion, these technologies have tremendous real world
benefits. It has been estimated that DSRC technology could
prevent as many as four out of five accidents. Let--I want to
hear what you think about that. I know firsthand how beneficial
this technology could be--passenger in a little scrape that
probably would have been prevented by V2V technology, with a
bus, by the way.
However, there are potential technical, privacy, and
security vulnerabilities associated with DSRC technology. This
technology could be interrupted by other communications
traveling over the same spectrum band. We must ensure that
geolocation information and driving habits are not able to be
collected by auto manufacturers or subcontractors and used for
purposes other than vehicle safety. Even more concerning is the
vulnerability of advanced technologies in cars to remote
access, which could cause vehicles to be breached and
overtaken. Each of these threats needs to be fully vetted, and
safeguards must be implemented to prevent them from occurring.
Cars are already being manufactured with DSRC technology.
As that technology continues to advance and is incorporated
into more and more vehicles and infrastructure, we must
establish rules of the road to maximize benefits while
minimizing risks. NHTSA is working to develop standards and
guidance to maximize V2V and V2I benefits, and I look forward
to learning more about the rules--did you have something you
wanted me to do? OK. More about the agency plans to advance and
meet that objective.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing on
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technology. I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses on this developing safety feature.
More than 2 million Americans were injured in car crashes
last year, with more than 30,000 deaths. Those accidents and
lost lives are tragic, but there have been significant auto
safety improvements made since 1979, when a record 51,000 auto-
related fatalities were recorded.
Safety technologies like seatbelts, anti-lock brakes, and
airbags--despite the Takata recall--have significantly improved
auto safety since vehicle deaths reached their peak almost 40
years ago.
In order to continue that progress, we must enhance
existing safety features while at the same time considering new
and innovative technologies. Dedicated short-range radio
communications (DSRC)--which enable V2V- has been researched
for 15 years, and it shows serious promise in further reducing
traffic accidents.
V2V, as well as vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) allow for
early detection of traffic risks and provide advanced warning
to drivers in order to avoid accidents. Whether it's ensuring
drivers can make safe left turns across traffic, knowing when a
driver can safely pass another car on the road, or minimizing
traffic congestion, these technologies have tremendous real-
world benefits. It has been estimated that DSRC technology
could prevent as many as 4 out of 5 accidents. I know first-
hand how beneficial this technology could be: just the other
day, I was a passenger in a little scrape that probably would
have been prevented with V2V technology.
However, there are potential technical, privacy and
security vulnerabilities associated with DSRC technology. DSRC
technology could be interrupted by other communications
traveling over the same spectrum band. We must ensure that
geolocation information and driving habits are not able to be
collected by auto manufacturers or subcontractors and used for
purposes unrelated to vehicle safety. Even more concerning is
the vulnerability of advanced technologies in cars to remote
access, which could cause vehicles to be breached and
overtaken. Each of these threats needs to be fully vetted and
safeguards must be implemented to prevent them from occurring.
Cars are already being manufactured with DSRC technology.
As that technology continues to advance and is incorporated
into more and more vehicles and infrastructure, we must
establish rules of the road to maximize benefits while
minimizing risks. NHTSA is working to develop standards and
guidance to maximize V2V and V2I benefits, and I look forward
to learning more about the rules the agency plans to advance to
meet that objective.
Again, I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses
to gain from their perspectives on how we can maximize the
potential of V2V and V2I technology while minimizing potential
risks. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. And with just a little over a minute, let
me yield right now to Mr. Butterfield for his comments.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Ms. Schakowsky. Mr.
Chairman, thank you very much for convening this hearing. The
safety potential of V2V communication is very significant. It
is in everyone's best interest to reduce traffic fatalities and
injuries. It is my belief that eventually this technology can
be helpful to that end. I am also interested in how this
technology can potentially benefit even pedestrians, and
bicyclists, and those riding motorcycles.
There are many issues to work out to make sure this
technology can become effective. I am encouraged by USDOT, and
the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration for
bringing all stakeholders to the table to work through issues,
including reliability, interoperability, data security,
spectrum, and deployment. Again, I appreciate the deliberative
process that DOT has been taking with the rulemaking. I look
forward to discussing the potential of these technologies to
improve the safety of all Americans. Thank you for the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Butterfield follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. G.K. Butterfield
Thank you Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member Schakowsky
for holding this hearing on vehicle-to-vehicle communication
technologies. The safety potential of V2V communication
technologies is significant. It is in everyone's best interest
to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries, and it is my belief
that eventually this technology can be helpful to that end. I
am also very interested in how this technology can potentially
benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, and those riding motorcycles.
However, there are many issues to work out to make sure
this technology can be effective. I am encouraged that the U.S.
Department of Transportation and the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration is bringing all
stakeholders to the table to work through issues including
reliability, interoperability, data security, spectrum, and
deployment. I appreciate the deliberate process the DOT has
been taking with this rulemaking, and look forward to
discussing the potential of these technologies to improve the
safety of eastern North Carolinians.
Mr. Butterfield. I yield back to you, Ms. Schakowsky. Yes,
I yield back to you.
Ms. Schakowsky. And I yield.
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The
gentlelady yields back. The Chair would note that there is a
vote on the floor, but I believe we will have time to conclude
opening statements, so----
Mr. Upton. Well, Mr. Chairman, in light of the votes
happening now, I am going to submit my statement for the
record, and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
I often remind you all that I'm from the auto State. It's
because folks from Michigan take special pride in manufacturing
vehicles that offer safety, comfort, efficiency, and superior
driving experiences to consumers throughout the United States
and around the world. We also take pride in being leaders and
trendsetters in the development of automotive technologies that
saves lives.
Today we examine the advancement of a transformative safety
technology: vehicle-to-vehicle communications. This is a safety
technology that helps drivers avoid crashes before they happen
by allowing cars to ``talk'' to each other and sense another
vehicle's movements. By alerting drivers to potential safety
risks on the road and giving them an opportunity to proactively
avoid them, it is projected that vehicle-to-vehicle
communications will save thousands of lives and generate
societal and economic benefits that extend far beyond the
transportation sector.
Last year, following the Department of Transportation's
Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot program conducted at my alma
mater, the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, NHTSA announced
plans to pursue a regulatory proposal that would require
vehicle-to-vehicle communications devices in new cars. As NHTSA
moves forward with its rulemaking, there are plenty of
questions to answer.
Drivers will need to understand what the technology is, how
it works, and why they should adopt it. Congress needs to know
that NHTSA is in a position to do its job--by ensuring that
this safety technology is safely and properly deployed. This is
a technology that has a connectivity curve to it--the more cars
and infrastructure that are connected the more benefits there
are. This committee needs to understand the technology and the
marketplace to ensure that the proper policies are in place to
incentivize adoption--to achieve a connectivity critical mass.
Ensuring that V2V is done right is a committee wide
priority, and I want to acknowledge the important meetings that
Chairman Walden has been leading with Ranking Members Pallone
and Eshoo to address the question of whether and how
Intelligent Transportation Systems can co-exist with unlicensed
uses. Our O&I subcommittee has taken the lead in sending out
letters to ensure that cybersecurity is front and center in
everyone's minds as we move forward. Today, however, we are not
focusing on spectrum or cybersecurity. We are focusing on the
safety aspects, deployment timelines, and NHTSA's role.
The deployment of vehicle-to-vehicle communications is
right around the corner. This is a welcome endeavor that marks
a revolutionary phase in the Nation's transportation system. It
represents the first ripple in what will be a torrent of new
technologies. We all, as policymakers and consumers, need to be
prepared for its implementation and I look forward to exploring
those plans today.
I am pleased that this panel reflects Michigan's leadership
with fellow Wolverine Dr. Peter Sweatman, who has helped
oversee a pilot V2V program at GM. We look forward to your
testimony and seeing these V2V equipped Cadillacs on the road.
We have come a long way since the seat belt was a breakthrough
safety device. Now Jetsons technology is becoming a reality in
our cars. It's an exciting time. I thank Dr. Burgess for
convening this hearing and for the subcommittee's continued
efforts to improve driver and vehicle safety.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. In that case, Mr. Pallone, you are
recognized for 5 minutes for the purpose of an opening
statement.
Mr. Pallone. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, did you--are you
trying to speed it up? Is that the idea?
Mr. Upton. I did.
Mr. Pallone. All right. I will----
Mr. Upton. So I----
Mr. Pallone. I will do the same, and--my statement, like
Chairman Upton.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Today's hearing is a welcome opportunity to learn more
about vehicle-to-vehicle, or V2V, communications--a technology
with great potential to improve safety on our highways and
roads.
Despite the enormous progress we've made over the past
several decades in installing air bags, seat belts, and other
crash-resilient measures in our vehicles, fatalities from car
crashes still number in the tens of thousands each year, and
preventable injuries number in the millions. We can, and must,
do more to ensure the safety of our driving population. One way
to do this is through crash avoidance technologies such as V2V
communications.
Over the past decade and a half, Government, industry, and
the research community have worked together to help make so-
called ``connected cars'' a reality. This cooperative effort
has produced a system that allows cars to communicate with each
other over a wireless network and a host of on-board features
designed to provide warnings to drivers about potentially
dangerous situations detected through those vehicle-to-vehicle
communications.
For example, a V2V system can warn a driver approaching an
intersection if another vehicle is about to run through a stop
sign, thereby avoiding a potential collision. V2V systems have
also been tested to help drivers brake suddenly, avoid blind
spot collisions, and safely change lanes. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that this
technology has the potential to reduce unimpaired vehicle
crashes by 80 percent.
While the progress and potential of this technology are
clear, we in Congress must continue to ensure proper oversight
as NHTSA moves aggressively toward its goal of finalizing its
V2V rulemaking by the end of this year. While pushing for V2V-
enabled cars, NHTSA must also ensure drivers have the most
beneficial crash avoidance and crashworthiness technologies in
all cars, not just those supported by V2V communications.
Vehicle-to-vehicle communications is just one component of an
overall strategy to make our highways and roads a safe place to
drive.
Ensuring privacy and security should also a top priority
for Congress. Safe vehicles must be resilient against hacking
attempts and must ensure the anonymity of drivers' data.
Consumer groups and the Federal Trade Commission provided NHTSA
with comments on how to ensure consumer privacy and security in
its rulemaking proceeding, and my hope is that the agency
addresses these concerns moving forward.
The availability of spectrum is another important component
of our discussion of V2V implementation. Congress has heard
repeatedly from stakeholders in the intelligent transportation
community as well as the unlicensed community about their
legitimate concerns regarding sharing spectrum in the upper 5
GHz band. I am confident both sides can work together to
resolve their difference so consumers see a two-fold benefit--
V2V communications that improve vehicle safety, and an
expansion of Wi-Fi networks that broaden access to the
Internet. This committee recently initiated a series of
bipartisan meetings to facilitate a sharing solution among all
stakeholders in this area, and I look forward to continuing
this worthwhile effort.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for convening this hearing, and
thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. As
Transportation Secretary Foxx stated last month, our goal
should be moving toward an era when vehicle safety isn't just
about surviving crashes; it's about avoiding them.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. In that case, we will move on to
the witness testimony part of the hearing, and I do want to
welcome all of our witnesses. Thank you for taking the time to
testify before the subcommittee.
Our witness panel for today's hearing will include Mr. Nat
Beuse, the Associate Administrator of Vehicle Safety Research,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Dr. Peter
Sweatman, Director of the University of Michigan Transportation
and Research Institute, Mr. David St. Amant, President and
Chief Operating Officer of Econolite Group, Mr. Barry Einsig,
Global Transportation Executive for Cisco, and Mr. Harry
Lightsey, the Executive Director of Global Connected Customer
Experience at General Motors. We do appreciate all of you being
here today. We are going to attempt to get through as much of
the witness testimony as we can before we must go vote. So, Mr.
Beuse, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening
statement. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF NATHANIEL BEUSE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, VEHICLE
SAFETY RESEARCH, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION; PETER F. SWEATMAN, PH.D., DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY
OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE; HARRY LIGHTSEY,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GLOBAL CONNECTED CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE,
GENERAL MOTORS; DAVID ST. AMANT, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER, ECONOLITE GROUP, INC.; AND BARRY EINSIG, GLOBAL
TRANSPORTATION EXECUTIVE, CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
STATEMENT OF NATHANIEL BEUSE
Mr. Beuse. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Burgess,
Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee. I
appreciate this opportunity to testify before you about vehicle
to vehicle communications, its readiness for application, and
its potential safety benefits. For more than 50 years the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's vehicle safety
activities have enhanced occupant protection when crashes
occur. But as Secretary Fox recently said, the Department wants
to speed the Nation towards an era when vehicle safety isn't
just about surviving crashes, it is about avoiding them. To
that end, USDOT and NHTSA have accelerated efforts to bring
vehicle to vehicle communications, automated vehicle features,
and the full complement of advanced safety technologies to the
cars, trucks, and commercial vehicles that Americans drive.
Our studies show that 94 percent of vehicle crashes are due
to driver error, and we believe technologies can help reduce or
eliminate it. NHTSA has been aggressively pursuing two
complementary technology paths to address this issue. One path
involves those technologies enabled by sensors, such as V2V,
camera, and radar, that alert drivers of impending collisions.
The second path involves those technologies, in some cases
enabled the same technologies that I just mentioned, as well as
additional ones that perform some automated vehicle function,
such as automatic emergency braking when the driver doesn't
take any action at all. We have already included some warning
technologies into the Government's five-star rating program,
also known as NCAB, and we have recently announced our intent
to include automatic braking technologies into that influential
program as well. When integrated, these connected and automated
vehicle technologies represent the building blocks that will
bring us the ultimate of full self-driving vehicles.
V2V technology is based on vehicles--sharing their
position, speed, and heading information with each other in
near real time fashion. This anonymous exchange of data occurs
over dedicated short range communications, otherwise known as
VSRC, on the 5.9 Gigahertz spectrum. This piece of spectrum is
quite unique. It has been dedicated for a number of years, in
large part thanks to the Intelligent Transportation Society of
America, the American Association of Highway and Transportation
Safety Officials, and the FCC, which had the foresight to
actually reserve the spectrum to assist in the development of
this important technology.
By providing for enhanced 360 degree situation awareness,
the kind that allows a driver to see around corners, V2V
technology can assist a driver in many challenging crash
scenarios that are very difficult for other sensors to do. For
instance, V2V technology can help drivers avoid an intersection
crash, one of the deadliest crash types on the roadway, where
two vehicles may be on a collision path, but because of
obstructions, are completely unaware of it. NHTSA's testing and
analysis of V2V technology indicates that it can address
approximately 80 percent of all unimpaired crashes involving
two or more motor vehicles.
In 2013 NHTSA achieved a key research milestone when V2V
technology was tested in the real world. The safety pilot model
deployment tested nearly 3,000 vehicles from eight different
manufacturers driven by regular citizens, and not engineers.
For just over a year NHTSA and DOT monitored and collected data
on the performance of the technology as these drivers went
about their daily lives in the Ann Arbor, Michigan area. Data
collected from that study helped shape NHTSA's decision to move
forward with V2V technology.
In August of 2014, NHTSA issued an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. That document initiated rulemaking for a
DSRC vehicle-based communication system on all new light duty
vehicles. NHTSA indicated that the regulatory approach could be
to require the basic radio system, security features, and
functionality to support inter-operability between vehicles,
but we did not specify that we would require safety
applications. NHTSA indicated that this approach would allow
the market and automakers to innovate and compete in offering
safety applications and a whole host of other applications of
their choosing. Concurrent to the ANPRM, NHTSA also issued a
comprehensive vehicle to vehicle communications readiness of
V2V technology for application report. This report provided
details on the technology, results of numerous testing
programs, benefits, deployment challenges, as well as security,
privacy, policy, and regulatory issues.
In May of this year Secretary Fox announced USDOT's intent
to accelerate NHTSA's V2V rulemaking activities, with the goal
of issuing a proposal in 2016. Secretary Fox also announced our
readiness to accelerate testing of potential sources of
interference in the 5.9 Gigahertz spectrum. USDOT, NHTSA,
vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, and technology companies have
conducted extensive analysis, control testing, and real world
field studies of V2V. Our conclusion, based on the body of
work, and the observation of commenters to NHTSA's ANPRM, is
that vehicle to vehicle communications offers an important
opportunity to dramatically improve highway safety in the
United States.
While my testimony has focused on the readiness of the
technology, and its potential safety benefit, there are also
mobility and environmental benefits that will also be enabled
by this technology. Similarly, some innovative States have--who
have been following the development of this technology have
already started making plans to deploy vehicle to
infrastructure, in anticipation of the Department's efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to update this committee on
the game changing potential of this remarkable safety
technology, and the agency's progress towards accelerating its
deployment. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beuse follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair
recognizes Dr. Sweatman. 5 minutes for a summary of your
opening statement, please.
STATEMENT OF PETER F. SWEATMAN
Mr. Sweatman. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today about vehicle to vehicle communications, or
what--I will just call it V2X. My name is Peter Sweatman,
Director of UMTRI. I am a past Board Chair of ITS America, and
immediate past chair of its Leadership Circle. I want to tell
you about our experience with V2X for safety. We conducted the
USDOT's safety pilot model deployment from August 2012 through
August 2014. We deployed 2,843 vehicles, collected 115 billion
messages from 35 million miles of driving. The community,
including about 2 \1/2\ thousand volunteers, embraced V2X. Our
volunteers reported receiving warnings that prevented crashes.
The stoplight application, excuse me, where you are alerted to
a vehicle stopping suddenly several vehicles ahead, was
extremely popular. And analytics on the system testing data by
USDOT confirmed V2X's life saving potential, excuse me, on a
large scale, hence NHTSA's decision to proceed with rulemaking.
This V2X experience compelled us to do more. An incredible
47 companies have come to the table to expand the Ann Arbor
mobile deployment and create larger real world deployments. The
USDOT is still contributing, but this new ecosystem brings both
funding and equipment. It includes automakers, T-1 suppliers,
traffic control, and sensor suppliers, aftermarket suppliers,
insurance, telecommunications, Big Data, IT, and mobility
services. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burgess. Sure.
Mr. Sweatman. We are working with the Michigan Department
of Transportation, the City of Ann Arbor, and numerous counties
to equip the infrastructure. The UM invested in NTC to deploy a
planned 20,000 vehicles over the next 2 years, building on the
I-96 smart corridor created by Michigan DOT. This will be the
first sustainable, production-ready U.S. V2X deployment. We are
currently expanding the Ann Arbor deployment to 9,000 vehicles,
and working with the city to make it sustainable, and that is
the wish of the city. Our current V2X volunteers, many of whom
are parents in the Ann Arbor public school system, are excited
about students being connected into lifesaving V2X via
smartphones. Mr. Chairman, we have also found that
motorcyclists love the idea that with V2X they are more likely
to be detected by other vehicles.
There is no substitute for DSRC, and an entire ecosystem of
companies is committed to V2X using 5.9 DSRC. They are all
building product strategies around V2X, including automation.
DSRC is the only technology that has been successfully tested
for saving lives by both automakers and NHTSA. Infrastructure
costs are very affordable. At the time of the safety pilot,
each set of roadside equipment cost $15,000. We deployed 27
sets to equip roughly a quarter of the city. 3 years later, the
cost of the radios is higher, so the current cost for a city of
140,000 people is under a million dollars. For our enlarged
deployment, that works out at $90 per vehicle equivalent. Most
of the radios are installed at intersections. V2X turns
ordinary traffic signals into adaptive traffic signals without
additional cost, so services like Greenwave, which provide
conspicuous value to consumers on a daily basis, may be
provided by the city.
Initial V2X deployments are being replicated. Our
Southeastern Michigan V2X deployment is designed to be
sustainable and expandable other locales around the country.
V2X also creates innovation beyond its primary mission of
safety. All of our automotive partners are developing DSRC
products, and our traffic control technology partners are also
using DSRC to include maps in traffic signal controllers. This
is not about the auto industry or the tech industry. We are
seeing what happens when the auto industry, the traffic
industry, the infrastructure managers, and broader tech-based
and service industries come together.
V2X also supports automated vehicles. Automation will
transform our transportation system. From the perspective of an
autonomous vehicle, V2X is the most powerful of sensors for a
highly affordable cost. For example, it is hard to imagine the
automated use case of platooning vehicles without V2X. Federal
actions are needed to better define the playing field, and
there is an important role in supporting ever larger
deployments of V2X.
In a few weeks the University of Michigan will M City, a
safe off-roadway urban test environment for connected and
automated vehicles. I invite you to the grand opening, Monday,
July 20, on the University of Michigan campus. Thank you once
again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sweatman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Gentleman
yields back. We are out of time on our vote. There are 280
members who haven't voted yet. I think I can still move faster
than about 100 of them, but, Mr. Lightsey, in order to give you
fair consideration, let us go into a recess while we have this
series of three votes on the floor, and we will reconvene
immediately after the vote series on the floor, if that is
satisfactory to you. So the committee stands in recess, subject
to the call of the Chair.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burgess. Subcommittee will come to order, and Mr.
Lightsey, I think we were at you when we adjourned for votes,
so you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement,
please.
STATEMENT OF HARRY LIGHTSEY
Mr. Lightsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee. GM appreciates
this opportunity to tell you about the progress that is being
made with the rollout of vehicle to vehicle, or V2V, on our
roads and highways. GM is strongly committed to V2V technology,
as we believe it has the potential to revolutionize vehicle
safety and intelligent transportation. Indeed, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that V2V
could, by itself, impact over 80 percent of the over four
million annual unimpaired light vehicle crashes, saving lives,
and reducing the $871 billion cost to our Nation's economy each
year. There simply is no other safety technology available now,
or that is on the horizon, that matches the promise of V2V.
GM pioneered connected vehicle technology with its OnStar
brand, and is also taking a leadership role with V2V
technology. In September of last year our CEO, Mary Barra,
announced that GM would be putting V2V in the model year 2017
Cadillac CTS, which will be available in the latter part of
next year. GM is not only a preliminary adopter of V2V, but
continues to work with the Department of Transportation, and
other automakers, to research, develop, and test the
technologies that form the basis of V2V. In fact, after years
of extensive stakeholder collaboration, research, and
development, GM is now substantiating the promise of talking
cars, and fully supports the shift from the lab into the real
world testing and implementation.
GM is encouraged by the actual road testing that has
already taken place, and by the Department of Transportation's
recent announcement that it will accelerate the rulemaking
process for wide scale V2V implementation. GM seeks to build
upon this positive momentum, and is confident that the industry
and other stakeholders share our sense of urgency. With so much
at stake for vehicle safety, now is the time to advance this
technology as quickly as possible.
I am excited for the opportunity to share more about GM's
commitment to V2V, and am happy to answer the committee's
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lightsey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The Chair thanks
the gentleman. Mr. St. Amant, you are recognized 5 minutes for
your opening statement, please.
STATEMENT OF DAVID ST. AMANT
Mr. St. Amant. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of
the subcommittee, it is my privilege to be part of this
hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
name is David St. Amant. I am the Chief Operating Officer of
Econolite Group, Inc., a nationwide company with headquarters
in Southern California. I am also a recent past Board Chair of
the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, and current
member of the ITS America Leadership Circle. We have been in
the traffic management business since 1933, developing
signalized intersection technology to meet the needs of
municipalities throughout the Nation. Specifically, during the
last 10-plus years, Econolite has focused much of its attention
on helping shape industry standards in collaborating with
leading technology partners to advance the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Vehicle Infrastructure Communication
Initiative.
We believe that the connected vehicle technologies we will
see when we are able to connect every vehicle, motorcycle,
bicycle, or pedestrian and an intersection, and with that
valuable information we will be able to help prevent crashes
and move traffic much more efficiently and safely than with
today's technology. The main difference between the way we will
detect--we actually detect today and how we will process
information used in the V2V infrastructure data in the future
is that instead of detecting vehicles at a fixed point in the
roadway, for the first time the vehicle will be able to send
this local--this location information in real time and let us
know where it is going, and we can predict where it will be,
enable signals to adjust their timing, and warn approaching
vehicles when necessary for preventing crashes, and determine
by modality why it should be a green light of priority.
This new approach changes everything. Our system will be
able to manage all traffic, not just a sampling of traffic. We
will know, for example, the actual number of vehicles in the
left turn lane queue, not just an estimate, and provide a
slightly longer green light to flush traffic through the
intersection, thus avoiding long waits and start and stop
traffic, which causes traffic congestion, increases pollution
and safety hazards. And most importantly, we can reduce the
number of vehicles and pedestrian crashes at intersections, and
help emergency vehicles reach the site of a crash faster and
safer. We believe in this technology so strongly that we are
already building V2I communications into many of our new
traffic signal controllers.
As we are implementing this revolutionary technology, we
are also working to ensure that a connected vehicle and
transportation network is designed to protect privacy and
safeguard against cybersecurity threats. It is also critically
important that the 5.9 Gigahertz band of spectrum, which was
set aside for the V2X communication, be protected from harmful
interference that could result if unlicensed devices are
allowed to operate in the band. DSRC in the 5.9 Gigahertz band
is the only technology currently available that provides the
proven high speed reliable communication necessary to support
the V2X crash avoidance systems and intersections--at
intersections and between vehicles.
We are working closely with ITS America, the USDOT,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
officials, and Institute of Transportation Engineers to bring
all stakeholders together through a V2I deployment coalition
that will advance the deployment of this critical safety
technology. If we are ever going to realize or get close to our
goal of zero deaths on America's roads, this is our best
opportunity. Thank you very much for allowing me to be at this
hearing today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. St. Amant follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Einsig. 5 minutes for a summary of your opening
statement, please.
STATEMENT OF BARRY EINSIG
Mr. Einsig. Thank you, Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member
Schakowksy, and the members of the--I thought I was loud enough
to begin with--and members of the committee for your--for the
opportunity to testify this morning. Our Nation is at the cusp
of the next great leap in automotive technology, one of which
will revolutionize how we get from place to place, and how we
protect ourselves and our children from deadly harm. The next
great chapter represents the single greatest transformation
since the advent of the assembly line.
Vehicles today are engineering marvels, but their
capabilities are not being fully utilized. It is like using a
smartphone in airplane mode, amazing devices, but fulfilling
only a fraction of their potential. So how do we fulfill the
potential of cars coming onto the roads today? We need to
ensure that every single new car designed for the U.S. market
is equipped with radio technology known as Dedicated Short
Range Communications, or DSRC, as we have heard here earlier.
This will take our cars out of airplane mode and open the door
to a constant stream of vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to
infrastructure communications. That will save lives, reduce
cost, improve traffic congestion, and eliminate tons of
pollution. In doing so, we will usher in a new era of
transportation safety, innovation, new business models and
applications.
Why is Cisco involved in this transformation? We are a $47
billion company formed on the simple idea that computer systems
should be able to talk to each other. Cisco not only builds
equipment solutions that route packets of data, but we provide
data storage, cloud, wireless, security, and many other
products and solutions that go in to customers around the
globe. Our business is focused on developing the Internet of
everything. That is the connection of people, process, data,
and things, the Internet, and--the vast majority of which has
never been connected before, including automobiles.
The scope of this transformation is enormous. Cars, and
eventually trucks and all vehicles, will be connected to each
other and to the roadside communications network via the radio
through a complex communications network. This network needs
interoperability, standards-based technology, as well as tested
architectures for delivering a highly secure, mobile, and high
availability solution. That is what Cisco does. We will layer
on it an advanced, secure IP network on the top of the physical
network that consists of the vehicles and the roads. We will
use a combination of DSRC and wired and wireless technologies.
Surface transportation will become a connected system
generating new data, and what that data can do will amaze you.
Most importantly, data will have a dramatic impact on safety.
Cars connected to each other will be able to help drivers avoid
everything from a fender bender to a deadly crash. Cars will
have the capability to warn motorists to brake immediately, or
even to take evasive action when accidents are imminent. This
will save countless lives, and trillions of dollars in property
damage and lost productivity.
Just as importantly, by sending crash data to first
responders in real time, we can direct police, fire, and EMS
personnel to the scene without delay. We could improve traffic
throw--flow through real time traffic lights and ramp metering
systems. American commuters already spend 5 days per year stuck
in traffic. This is a congestion penalty we all pay. It costs
Americans over $1,400 per year per household, and that amount
is expected to rise to $3,000 per year by 2030. We could
improve our ability to manage road maintenance and
infrastructure systems by collecting and analyzing more
specific data on the use of our roadways.
But many of these benefits are today not available, or
exist at much reduced levels because most of the vehicles are
not yet equipped with DSRC technology. At the moment the
private sector is poised to deploy DSRC, not just radios in
cars, but the corresponding IP network that will connect our
roadways in ways never before possible. Once vehicle to vehicle
communications are widely installed in cars and light trucks as
a safety measure, the private sector, and our public sector
partners, will respond swiftly to bring full sets of DSRC
benefits to the American consumers.
The potential of DSRC is not some far off dream. It is
within our grasp. This is the time for America to be leading,
not to be left behind. Other nations, including Austria, the
Netherlands, Canada are adopting intelligent transportation
systems, including DSRC. These technologies should be on
American roads. The future of transportation, and the safety of
transportation, is bright.
We thank you for your attention to these important
developments in road safety, and look forward the NHTSA's
future adoption of the final rule for DSRC installation on
vehicles. Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Einsig follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. I thank all
the witnesses for their testimony, and we will move now into
the question and answer portion of the hearing. And I will
begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes for questions.
And, actually, I want to start, Mr. Beuse, with a public
service announcement for people who are watching, in spite of
all of our interruptions. If you do not know the Vehicle
Identification Number of your car, you need to. It is located
at the lower left hand of your windshield, or inside the
driver's side door post. You need to go to safercar.gov--
correct, Mr. Beuse? You need to go to safercar.gov, put your
Vehicle Identification Number into the database, and check it
to make certain that you are not subject to an airbag recall,
because the accident that could result could be devastating. So
am I correct in offering that public service announcement?
Mr. Beuse. You are, and I thank you very much.
Mr. Burgess. You know, but that actually underscores one of
the challenges ahead of us, and--to get people to bring their
cars in, or to even acknowledge that there may be a recall
notice out there that might affect them, and to get them to
check. When you get to the third or fourth owner on a vehicle,
I mean, this--a lot of times attention kind of drops off. So we
are talking about some fantastic technology, and I believe we
heard in some of the latter testimony that it is going to be--
the technology is going to be so smart that if the other car is
equipped, that the technology is going to smart enough to
detect it, but still it might work better if people had
aftermarket items installed. How are we going to get the word
out to people that they may need to now consider an additional
expense for their car?
Mr. Beuse. Mr. Chairman, we are doing a couple of things on
that front. When we did the safety pilot in Ann Arbor, Michigan
we actually tested aftermarket devices. And the reason that we
did that was to see--could the communication protocol work for
a device that wasn't basically built into the vehicle, and what
benefits would it serve? So we have to address kind of the
technical performance first.
The second part of your question has to do with getting
just consumer awareness up in general about crash avoidance
technologies. We agree with you that the secondhand market and
the third-hand market is an area that needs focus, and, you
know, we are working some issues on that front. It will be no
different with this particular technology, especially because
it is the one crash avoidance technology right now that
actually has strong potential in the aftermarket to be
deployed.
Mr. Burgess. Let me just ask you, as we have heard across
the panel this morning, these devices are going to be developed
by multiple suppliers. What is the process by which your agency
is establishing--is going to go about establishing performance
requirements for the devices, and the types of safety messages
that they are able to support?
Mr. Beuse. In the ANPRM we actually sought comment on how
to do that. One of the things we learned, quite surprisingly, I
think, in the model deployment was that the performance was
actually really good for these aftermarket devices. So going
forward in our proposal, that is one thing we will have to
specify, is how that performance level should be between
aftermarket and sort of built into the vehicle. I think as
proposed--or announced in the ANPRM, there would really be no
desire to have a difference in performance between those two
devices because, from a vehicle manufacturer standpoint, they
have got to be able to know that the message that they are
receiving, no matter where it came from, that is it is--and it
is--actually has the same performance as they are building into
those vehicles themselves.
Mr. Burgess. Dr. Sweatman, let me just ask you this,
because we do see a lot of promise with these--with the ability
for communicating between vehicles, and, you know, we also read
about the driverless car. That is a pretty neat thing too. So
how are these two technologies, how are they--they going to
merge? Are there any issues where we need to be cautious
because there can be conflicting constituencies there?
Mr. Beuse. So the integration question is very, very real.
The way we look at the world is all these technologies will,
yes, converge, that V2V, camera, radar sensors, and a whole
host of others sensors that--will come about with automated
vehicles will all merge together to sort of truly deliver that
full self-driving vehicle that we all imagine, that we get in
our car and go in the back seat, or it is a robo-taxi, or
whatever the scenario is. There--in our view, there isn't a
competing technology. It is not one or the other, it is all of
them working in concert together, and it really will be an
integration issue on the manufacturing side, how they integrate
those various sensors to make sure they are double-checking
each other to be able to do the functions that they want to
deliver to the American public.
Mr. Burgess. And Dr. Sweatman, did you have anything you
wanted to add to that?
Mr. Sweatman. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, we are
very excited about the convergence of V2X and automation. So we
know that autonomous vehicles work, but certain--I think most
of us would take the attitude that if you have the V2X
available, that adds a--brings a lot to the autonomous vehicle.
And in a sense you can think about V2X as being the ultimate
sensor, in terms of its capability, per dollar cost, so it is a
very affordable cost, compared to radars and equipment like
that that needs to be in every vehicle, and really does add a
lot to an automated vehicle.
So we are very strong proponents of bringing the two
together. If you think about V2X as a sensor, not only is it
the equivalent of a visual sensor, that it can see another
vehicle, can see whether it is moving closer to your vehicle or
further away, but if that other vehicle is broadcasting
additional information, such as the anti-lock brakes are being
activated in that vehicle, that information can come into your
vehicle as well. So, in a sense, you can get information that
you would not have in any other way. So by the time you
converge all these pieces of information and technologies
together, we have a very, very robust automated vehicle.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The
Chair recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone. 5
minutes for questions, please.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While test programs
have shown that V2V has great promise in its ability to reduce
fatal crashes, I remain very interested in non-V2V crash
avoidance and crashworthiness technologies that are available
to consumers in many cars today, and have been shown to make
driving safer.
So, Mr. Beuse, what, if any, impact with NHTSA's future V2V
mandate have on other safety technology, such as airbags, seat
belts, and brakes, or other crash avoidance technology, such as
rear visibility cameras, and what non-V2V technology is
currently being considered by NHTSA that also has the potential
to save lives on the road?
Mr. Beuse. So we are looking at any technology that can
save lives. That is what we do. When you talk about how V2V
will be leveraged inside the vehicle, I think it is not clear
yet how that will be done by the vehicle manufacturers. Right
now we are just focused on making sure that the communication
protocol between those devices is secure, and that people can
basically understand each other when they are communicating.
As far as crashworthiness, there are lots of ideas floating
around about how to further use these crash avoidance sensors
to help improve crashworthiness. Think about adaptive
restraints. So the vehicle knows it is about to get into a
crash, and then leverages that camera and radar information to
help prepare the driver for that crash by tuning the system,
let us say. So there are opportunities there that have--haven't
been fully explored yet.
Mr. Pallone. OK. I would like to clarify some of the
statistics we have heard today. The Department of
Transportation estimates that V2V communications could prevent
approximately 80 percent of crashes involving non-impaired
drivers. So, Mr. Beuse, does this estimate reflect V2V systems
that warn drivers of potential dangers and require them to take
corrective action behind the wheel, or does it also include
autonomous V2V technology, such as automatic braking and lane
keeping? Or, put another way, do we see the 80 percent
reduction from warnings alone?
Mr. Beuse. The 80 percent is the target population. So what
is the universe of crashes that this technology can address?
One of the things we did in the readiness report is we actually
looked at two particular safety applications that have no
overlap with existing on board systems, so the ones that you
mentioned, lane departure, and things like that. And so, just
based on those two applications alone, we estimated half--over
a half a million crashes and about 1,000 lives that could be
saved just from two singular applications.
To do the detailed math to get down into overlapping
technologies and things like that, we have not done that yet.
We really just focus--to make it simple, to focus on the two
applications that there is no overlap. So one maybe could argue
that we are, in a sense, underestimating the potential of the
technology by doing that, but that is what we did to make it
clear and simple. And just based on those two safety
applications alone, the benefits were pretty remarkable.
Mr. Pallone. OK. And NHTSA estimates that approximately
33,000 people were killed in motor vehicle accidents in 2013.
Of those, just over 10,000 were killed in crashes resulting
from alcohol impairment. That means that 23,000 people were
killed in unimpaired crashes, is that correct?
Mr. Beuse. It is--yes, and--in a way, but to kind of break
down the math to see how it applies to V2V, there is some
double counting that happens because there are heavy vehicles
in there. There was motorcycles, and things like that, so we
haven't done the math yet in the way that they question was
phrased, but it is true, about 10,000 or so people die on our
Nation's roadways every year from drunk driving.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I understand there are many variables
that affect the statistics, such as whether a crash involved
only one car without another to talk to, but could V2V
technology eliminate close to 80 percent of those 23,000
fatalities, or 18,400 deaths every year?
Mr. Beuse. Our view is that, if you look at the two
applications that have no overlap, it is about half a million
crashes and over 1,000 people. There is not a technology that
we are looking at right now that even approaches that. Even the
automatic braking technologies don't approach those kind of
numbers. And so we haven't done the full math to go all the way
up to the 80 percent applicable crashes. We really only focused
on these kind of very--two narrow scenarios, which is an
intersection kind of scenario, where there is no technology
right now that can address that particular crash type that is
particularly deadly.
Mr. Pallone. I am going to try to get one more question in.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which regularly
tests and rates autos, considers vehicles equipped with
automatic braking superior or advanced in terms of driver
safety. On the other hand, IHS gives--gave systems that merely
detect an approaching vehicle, and warn the driver of an
imminent crash a basic safety rating.
So the vehicles that IHS looked--I am sorry--yes, looked at
in their ratings used technologies such as lasers, sensors, and
radar, but as V2V is introduced in future vehicles, do you
believe warning only systems will be sufficient to protect
drivers from fatal crashes?
Mr. Beuse. It will be all of them. It will be all of them.
We too are very, very excited about automatic emergency
braking. Just earlier this year we announced our intent to put
that into the New Car Assessment Program, otherwise known as
NCAP, which is a same--similar rating system to the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety. It is a very, very good
technology. It gets even better when it has connectivity to
other vehicles.
Right now those systems have to make estimates on what the
vehicle in front of them is doing. Imagine the power that can
be unleashed if they actually know what the vehicle in front of
them is doing. So no more do they have to worry about is that a
Coke can, or is that really a car? They actually know that it
is a car, and so it is not an either-or. It will be all of
those technologies working in concert to really deliver real
safety to the American public.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Congressman Pallone, and I recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beuse, in a New York Times article earlier this month,
on June 10, a law professor at the University of South Carolina
said about V2V that, ``Here is a technology that will
significantly reduce the kinds of crashes we know about. But,
at the same time, it will lead to different behaviors, and it
could lead to new crashes.'' Would you please give us your
expert opinion on that type of statement?
Mr. Beuse. Sure. The--I think the article is mostly
referring to the idea of driver adaptation, and how do drivers
adapt to new technology, and do they become too reliant on
these new technologies, and do they then end up doing things in
the vehicle that they probably normally wouldn't do if they
didn't have these new technologies?
Mr. Lance. Rather like texting in a vehicle?
Mr. Beuse. Correct. We are still studying that. We have not
seen it in any of the technologies that we promulgated. I had
the opportunity to work on the electronic stability control
mandate. There again, in that--context of that rulemaking,
there was lots of discussion about--you are giving someone a
technology that they can drive as fast as they want, and the
vehicle will correct them. How do you think that that is going
to work?
And so far we have not seen it in the data where people are
doing that, because you are in a near cash event, much like
these technologies that we are talking about. Whether they are
enabled by V2V, camera, or radar, these are near crash events.
You do not want to be in these situations at all. My hope is
you never actually even experience the technology, because then
that means that you are being a safe driver. And so the driver
adaptation issue--question is one that we continue to look at.
We actually have a study going on right now looking at it
again, but we haven't seen it in the data.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much. Mr. Lightsey, is V2V
technology capable of ranking safety messages such that the
most immediate safety risks are provided to the driver first?
Mr. Lightsey. Yes. Well, the--that is the--one of the
remarkable things about the V2V technology. It has a very
sophisticated set of algorithms and mathematical computations
that it works on, and it delivers the most imminent threat
alerts to the driver.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Dr. Sweatman, during the safety pilot
cars were retrofitted with DSRC devices, even though the
devices were not a part of the vehicle's original equipment.
Mr. Sweatman. Um-hum.
Mr. Lance. Throughout testing did you observe vehicle make
or model affecting its ability to use V2V technology, based
upon the make or model?
Mr. Sweatman. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. We didn't. We--
so we had about 2 \1/2\ thousand vehicles from volunteers, who
were parents in the Ann Arbor public school system, or working
for the University of Michigan hospital, for example. And--so
we--while there was some consideration to the makes and models
of the vehicles that we accepted into that program, it was
pretty broad, so it covered all the major makes.
And we--so we fitted the aftermarket technology, and we
didn't notice any difference between the makes of vehicles when
it came to the effectiveness. One of the things we were very
interested in was the reliability over time. So we have been
running now--those vehicles for 3 years. A lot of them have
been running for 3 years, so we also feel that the reliability
is pretty good.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, and I yield back the
remainder of my time, and I recognize the Ranking Member, Ms.
Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Recent
investigations by ``60 Minutes''--this is directed to you, Mr.
Beuse--have, and Consumer Reports have demonstrated that the
threat of hacker accessing and controlling a connected car is
real. In these reports, after vehicles have been accessed
remotely, drivers are shown losing control of the horn, the
brakes, steering wheel, windshield wipers, and more. And even
though these videos were filmed in controlled environments,
they highlight the potential dangers that are connected with--
from hackers.
So I wanted to know how real is the threat of vehicle
hacking generally, not just with regard to V2V. Do you expect
the nature of the threat to evolve as technology develops?
Mr. Beuse. We agree that cybersecurity is something that we
all need to pay attention to. We actually have a very
comprehensive program at the agency looking at all--at a layer
of protection for vehicles. Harden the vehicle against attacks
first. If an attack happens, what is the vehicle supposed to
do? You know, store the attack, study it for later. And also to
make sure that people are using the kind of latest and greatest
in terms of protection, and then have a way to feed back into
the system, such that, if an event happens, we understand why
it happens, and we can understand whether the protocols that we
had in place actually were effective or not.
On the V2V side, it actually has its own unique set of
security system, both inside the security management system
that is responsible for giving credentials, but also in terms
of how that communicates with the vehicle.
Ms. Schakowsky. So has NHTSA been evaluating this threat of
vehicle hacking in this V2V space, or more generally regarding
connected cars? I mean, it is one thing to say the driver
should do everything he or she can to protect the--so that they
can protect themselves, but what exactly is NHTSA doing?
Mr. Beuse. We are doing a couple things. The Consumer
Reports piece that you mentioned was actually filmed at our
facility. We have been doing this kind of work before it became
kind of in the news, right? It is on the ways that--we get a
vehicle to do some things when we want to evaluate the upper
limits of performance.
What we are doing right now is kind of a four pronged
approach. One is making sure that there is kind of common
understanding in the industry. One of the ways that we are
doing that is advocating for the formation of an ISAC, an
Information, Security Analysis--if there is an event on a
vehicle that manufacturers can share that information with each
other in nearly real time and help develop solutions. On the
vehicle side, we are looking at countermeasures, what I call
countermeasures, things--how to harden the vehicle.
So, in a simple way, let us say an attacker is trying to
gain access to the vehicle. Well, one of the things we want to
look at is, even if you hard the vehicle initially, the vehicle
has to be smart enough that it is being kind of--trying to get
attacked. And so we are looking algorithms that can detect that
event, and then take some appropriate action. Should the
vehicle go into failsafe, should it take some other action to
make it not seem like the vehicle is going out of control into
a brick wall, which is everybody's fear?
The other thing we are looking at is best practices and
standards. One of the things with cybersecurity is that is an
involving area, and it is one that may have to lend itself to
more of a best practices approach versus more of a regulatory
follow this rule, because the rulemaking process does take
time, but best practices are something you can update pretty
quickly. And when we are looking at that, we are looking at
FDA, FAA, and across Government about how other people are
dealing with cyber security issues, and it seems to be that is
the way that they are going.
Ms. Schakowsky. So--explained that the DSRC technology we
are discussing today does not go over the Internet, it is not
stored in the cloud, so it isn't at risk for hacking or
snooping. However, since most cars contain other electronic
systems, like my new car does, does DSRC talk to those systems,
and thus make DSCR communications vulnerable, in fact?
Mr. Beuse. Thank you for that question, because that is one
of the things I should have clarified in my previous response.
One of the things we are also looking at is separation of
functions. So should the radio talk to the brakes? And one of
the ways we are going to look at that is should there be
absolute separation, or is there a way that you can have them
communicate, but it is through a very controlled gateway? And
so we are very much looking at that. Now that gets integrated
into the vehicle is something we are actively talking with the
manufacturers about. Because right now there is not kind of a
harmonious approach to that.
We recognize that, and so we are doing the research now to
determine is there a best way to do this? And the science is
evolving. I mean, many of the gatekeepers that they have put on
vehicles may or may not be effective, and that is one of the
things we are looking at.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you for that, and I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson. 5 minutes for
questions, please.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chairman for holding this very
important hearing, and welcome to all of our witnesses. A few
comments before my questions. As a former Naval aviator, I know
about a system that is like V2V and V2I in aviation. It is
called TCAS, for Traffic Collision Avoidance System. It tells
aircraft on a collision course--that course, and B, suggests
maneuvers to avoid a collision. It has been online for 21 years
now. Last year, on April 4, it avoided a collision 200 miles
west of Oahu, way out in the Pacific Ocean, out of range of
radars. The system said collision avoidance, the plan pulled
up, missed the collision. They saved lives. V2V and V2I
promises to do the same thing with cars. And no one in the
world wants V2V and V2I to work more than I do, because my life
changed forever because of a car crash.
April 1, 1990, Polashis, Texas, my wife and I were hit head
on by another vehicle. Three people in that vehicle died. My
first wife, Ellen, died as well. We had been married for less
than 3 months. V2V and V2I have the promise to keep people from
going through what I went through in 1990. I want these systems
to work. But I am concerned that there may be some derailments
in the future, particularly with lawyers and lawsuits.
So my first question is for you, Mr. Beuse. Have you
considered liability in a crash? I mean, is it the
manufacturer, the driver, the V2V, the V2I system? Has that
been in your computations going forward here, sir?
Mr. Beuse. In the ANPRM we explored that issue very
thoroughly, and actually asked comment on it. From our
perspective, since this is a warning system, the current
liability that exists now on current vehicles is the same. This
system doesn't add any new liabilities. We are still exploring
the security credentialing management side of the equation, but
there again, we don't think that that is a big issue.
Mr. Olson. And--comment on liability and concerns about
something popping up in the future that may derail this because
you are held liable for the V2V, the V2I system being involved
in an actual crash--any comments? I know--maybe--expertise.
Going once, going twice, OK, let us move on.
Another question, Mr. Beuse. You guys do a great job--every
year you put out these safety standards for our vehicles, the
gold standard, but for safety it is about active safety. You
know, it is all about barriers, poles, impactors. Have you ever
thought about considering passive safety mechanisms, like V2V,
V2I is that--in the future, put that in rating systems? Add
that, make it more safe, so people know what the vehicle can do
to protect them? Instead of just collision, but--hey, guy is
coming at you, veer off here.
Mr. Beuse. Yes. We are actually the first program to put
crash avoidance technologies into a consumer information
program. We did that when we did forward crash warning and lane
departure warning. This year we announced a step to do more
active safety, and announced that we were going to put
automatic emergency braking into the program, and we are close
to making a final decision on that. So we are very much focused
on that. I can tell you the development of test procedures is a
lot more difficult than it used to be because of these systems,
but it is well worth the challenge, given their life saving
potential.
Mr. Olson. And, Mr. Lightsey, would GM, as a manufacturer,
like that on the side of the car? Hey, we have this vehicle--
this device in our car. It is a safe car, protect you from a
collision. Any concerns about that?
Mr. Lightsey. No. I think the more we can inform the
customer, the better off we are going to be. I think--of
course, our customer is our highest--one of our highest
priorities, and we want them to have the best experience that
they possibly can.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, and one further question. And this
one is for you, for GM. What do you think will be the life
cycle costs of V2V and V2I in GM vehicles over time? Will that
be a big cost, a small cost, no cost? Any idea what the costs
will be over time?
Mr. Lightsey. Well, we plan for the V2V to be standard
equipment on the Cadillac CTS model year set 2017, so the
customer won't see that as any cost. We look for the cost of
the hardware to come down. As was indicated by the other
witnesses here, it is not a significant cost, even at the
beginning of the early rollout, but we certainly expect, as
production ramps up, for those costs to come even--to even
lower levels.
Mr. Olson. Thank you--I am out of my time. Yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back. The Chair recognizes Mr. Cardenas from California.
5 minutes for your questions, please.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity for--to be reminded about how
serious and how personal these issues are, so thank you for
sharing your testimony, Mr.--Congressman Olson.
My first question to the panel is how many of you are
engineers or scientists? OK. All right. There are a few of us
in the room. The reason why I ask that question is because I
just saw a movie on the plane where it was the scientist who
was the good guy, and it was the non-scientist who was the bad
guy when it came to, you know, robotics. And in that movie it
had to do with robots becoming police officers and stuff, but
anyway--so I just thought I would throw that out there.
23 million connected vehicles were on the roads worldwide
in 2013. That number is expected to surpass 150 million within
the next 5 years. Today each connected car contains about 100
million lines of code, a number that could triple in the coming
years. Given the scale and complexity of this market, the rapid
expansion of this technology presents a host of new
technological challenges.
Mr. Beuse, a consumer streaming a movie at home may be able
to wait for a video to load, but they can't avoid delays when
two cars are rapidly approaching and attempting to communicate
with each other. So what is NHTSA doing to ensure that the V2V
standard guarantees zero latency, zero delays?
Mr. Beuse. That is a very important issue. The entire body
of research that has been done today assumes that there is no
interference in that spectrum band. Obviously, if that changes,
then we are going to have to re-look at where we are, because
our job is safety, and our job is to make sure that consumers
get that safety that has been promised. And if, for some
reason, the message is delayed, or not even received at all,
and that leads to a crash, then that is not going to be a good
situation for anybody. And so one of the things we are looking
at is how much interference in that band can you tolerate?
Again, the whole body of work, though, today has been done
assuming no interference.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Mr. Beuse, how will NHTSA ensure that
different manufacturers' connected car technologies are
compatible with each other, and can interact automatically, and
without delays?
Mr. Beuse. One of the great things about this program is
that we have been working collaborative with the manufacturers,
with suppliers, and even across the globe. And one of the
things right now is the U.S. is kind of leading the--kind of
the worldwide deployment of DSRC. And what comes with that is
standardized protocols for the communication, so we are working
with voluntary consensus groups to make sure that those
standards are done in a way that, if they--people use them, and
if we codify them in a regulation, that we will have
interoperable communications not only between vehicles here in
the U.S., but vehicles in Europe, and vehicles in Japan.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Then, sir--Mr. Einsig, how has the
Dedicated Short Range Communications technology on the V2V
technology depend--been deployed successfully elsewhere?
Mr. Einsig. So there are a number of test beds going on
around the world. Some that we are aware of are in Austria, as
well as in the Netherlands. Many countries are looking at this
to differentiate themselves from a safety and from a quality of
life perspective.
Mr. Cardenas. Um-hum. And who is overseeing the results or
the validity of those results in those other test cases?
Mr. Einsig. I really couldn't comment too far. It is really
country by country.
Mr. Cardenas. The reason why I ask that question is
because, for example, how many people at the witness people are
working for Government, and how many are working for--
Government, one? Private industry? And university, so you are
kind of neither. OK. The reason why I wanted to point that out
is because I wouldn't want--ever want to see Hollywood play out
in real life, where profits, or those motives, override the
objective of making sure that we are as safe as possible, as
safe as possible.
And I can't pass up the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to
remind the American public who might be viewing this, or
individuals who might be--feel this is an important issue to
pay attention to, is that when we talk about getting rid of
Government, when we talk about Government being bad, this is a
perfect example where, no offense to private industry, we need
to have that balance. We need to have certifications. We need
to have some checks and balance, where we know that when
something comes to market, nothing is ever perfect to the
degree that we would all like it to be, but it is as good as
humanly possible.
And those of us who are scientists, you learn as a freshman
the number one cause of error in any system is the human being.
If systems were 100 percent automated, and human beings didn't
touch it, that is about as perfect as you can get, and I just
want to say thank you for those of you who are involved in
making sure that we welcome those checks and balances, and we
understand that we need to live with them.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The Chair thanks
the gentleman. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Indiana, Mrs. Brooks. 5 minutes for questions, please.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am from--I
represent Indianapolis, Indiana and counties to the north, and
when I tell colleagues in Congress that I am from Indianapolis,
or I represent Indianapolis, everyone thinks of one thing, the
Indianapolis Motor Speedway, and cars, and automobiles, and
trucks. And rightfully so, because automobiles, and the auto
industry, and auto racing, have helped define who Indiana who,
our Hoosier identity, and a good portion of our economy,
actually. And certainly with respect to the greatest spectacle
in racing, the Indianapolis 500, much innovation comes from the
500, and so we have--and Indiana actually enjoys the fourth
highest number of vehicle miles traveled per capita. So we love
our cars and trucks in Indiana.
And so it only makes sense that automobile companies, like
yours, Mr. Lightsey, have either started in Indiana or have
grown recently, and house a large portion of your truck and car
business. And we have become--Indiana actually has become the
second biggest State in terms of automotive GDP, and we are the
crossroads of America, with more than $500 billion of freight
moving through our State on our highway systems.
So I know and believe in our burgeoning technologies, and
it is--important, in fact, the Indiana Department of
Transportation already has plans in the works that will allow
INDOT to utilize vehicle to infrastructure technology to design
better snow routs and decrease congestion. And NHTSA,
obviously, has estimated that it could save 1,100 lives every
year with this vehicle to vehicle technology.
But I am very concerned--having served on Homeland
Security, having been a former United States Attorney, I am
very concerned about security. And actually, as you probably
know, in February ``60 Minutes'' did an episode on hackers with
respect to this technology, and I understand part of that has
been addressed a bit at this hearing, but I want to talk a
little bit more about those vulnerabilities. And, as colleagues
have mentioned, it is our role, and NHTSA's role, to ensure
that the technology is the safest it can possibly be. And so we
need to ensure that it will save lives, rather than, you know,
those who have ulterior motives affecting this technology.
So, Dr. Sweatman, I am curious, did the safety pilot test
the security of the vehicle to--V2V system, and what were the
results, and what were the vulnerabilities that were detected?
Mr. Sweatman. Thank you. So the safety pilot used the
prototype security system that was developed by the U.S.
Department of Transportation. So we implemented that, and that
was a system that--where the vehicles were all loaded with
certificates, and the system played out the way it was supposed
to. So we didn't have any security issues in the 3 years--we
are still operating the test environment in Ann Arbor.
So we have not had any security breaches during that time,
but we--now there is a new security system which is being
developed by USDOT, and so we are about to implement that in
the Ann Arbor test environment. So that will elevate the
protection in the system, but we haven't had any problems with
the system we started with.
Mrs. Brooks. And I know there have been some questions with
respect to hacking, but, Mr. Lightsey, can you talk with
respect--from General Motors' perspective, how vulnerable are
the cars, are automobiles to the hacking or privacy intrusions,
and will that vulnerability, if it exists, increase the
implementation? How will it affect the implementation of this
technology in our vehicles?
Mr. Lightsey. Thank you very much. Yes, well, speaking on
behalf of GM, and on behalf of the industry, we take cyber
security very seriously. It is certainly something that we are
very aware of, and have devoted a lot of resources to that end.
We created, in General Motors, just late last year, an
organization under a chief product--cyber security officer that
is responsible for end to end cyber security of our vehicles,
all the way through the telecommunications networks and to the
back office systems. And they are constantly working to make
our systems better.
As noted earlier, it is a very dynamic area. It changes on
a very rapid basis, but we try to stay abreast of it as best we
can. And we have a lot of resources devoted to that. I will say
that earlier in the week we committed to be a charter member of
the auto industry ISAC that Mr. Beuse referenced earlier. So we
look forward to that. I think that will increase communication
amongst all the participants in the industry and make us all
more aware of what threats are out there, and therefore are
able to deal with them better. Thank you.
Mrs. Brooks. I think as Americans continue to be concerned
about the extensive amount of hacking happening in all systems,
this is yet something else we need to make sure the resource's
intention is given, so thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The
gentlelady yields back. The Chair is going to recognize the
Ranking Member for a brief series of follow up, following which
I will recognize myself for the same. So the gentlelady from
Illinois is recognized.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
first apologize to three of the witnesses. I am sorry that we
have so many things at one time that I didn't hear. This
question is for Mr. Beuse and for Mr. Lightsey, and that is
regarding the timeline for automakers to integrate these kinds
of technologies into the vehicles that are available.
So GM's announcement that its Cadillac CTS will be V2V
enabled starting in model year 2017 is a positive sign for the
technology, but an effective V2V communication system cannot
simply be Cadillacs communicating to Cadillacs. So first, Mr.
Beuse, how many vehicles does NHTSA estimate must be equipped
with V2V communications systems to see really--to see safety
benefits? Is there some sort of critical mass?
Mr. Beuse. Yes, there--vehicles can start to see benefits
day one. I think, in our analysis that we did, rather than give
you a model, you know, a number of vehicles, maybe it is better
to think about it in terms of years. So basically 3 years after
a final rule, in our analysis we showed you start to see
benefits. And the reason why I mentioned you could see benefits
day one is because in certain cities you might have a scenario
where there are more new vehicles there than other places, and
they might start to see some benefits. But on a critical mass,
it is--it happens pretty quickly.
I think the unique thing here is the aftermarket that
will--we are not sure yet what role that will play, but that
also has a potential to dramatically reduce how long we see
benefits starting to occur.
Ms. Schakowsky. The average car on the highway right now is
12 years old, so it just seems to me--well, are there any
considerations for offering incentives for current car owners
to purchase aftermarket DSRC technology?
Mr. Beuse. That is a little bit out of NHTSA's purview.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
Mr. Beuse. There was been, I think, some discussion before
about that in the Congress on a variety of factors about crash
avoidance technologies in general, but right now there is not a
capability for NHTSA to give consumers some sort of money for
crash avoidance technologies.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Mr. Lightsey?
Mr. Lightsey. Yes, thank you, Ranking Member Schakowsky.
Yes, so this is a unique technology in that it is
collaborative. And, as you indicated, our cars have to be able
to talk to other cars to realize the benefits of the
technology, and also to be able to talk to the infrastructure.
As Mr. Beuse indicated, you know, you can start to see
benefits day one, if you are in the right place, and you are
encountering other folks with the technology. But we also know
that the American public has shown a tremendous ability to
adapt--adopt any technology very quickly if it sees a benefit.
And I come from the telecom industry, and I spent 25 years in
that industry during a time of very dynamic change, and I saw a
very incredibly quick shift of the ability of the public to
take up, like, a smartphone technology. I will assure you, I
was AT&T in 2007 when we rolled out the iPhone, and nobody at
AT&T or at Apple I think envisioned how quickly that technology
would spread, and how pervasive it could become.
So we are very encouraged. We know that other automakers
have made plans, and will be rolling out plans to deploy this
technology. We are encouraged by that, as Mr. Beuse indicated.
We also believe that there is a tremendous potential for an
aftermarket for this technology to spread very quickly.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair thanks
the gentlelady. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oklahoma for 5 minutes for your questions, please.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you guys for
being here. It is, you know, technology, sometimes you just
want to reach back and scratch your head and think, where does
it end? And I don't think it does. Personally, I like the feel
of driving the car, and the responsibility that comes with it,
but I understand the technology is moving rapidly, and we need
to embrace it. In any successful industry you have to embrace
the technology. And so thank you for enlightening us. I am not
saying I understand it, I don't, but I really appreciate you
being here. Mr. Beuse, are--do you know if the State DOTs are
playing any role in this?
Mr. Beuse. The State DOTs are playing a huge role, and
there are certain States that are forward leaning more than
others who have been following the development of this
technology, and are anxiously waiting for us to get on with the
business of standardizing the protocols and communications so
they can start making plans to deploy the technology in real
time. Mr. Sweatman mentioned that the State of Michigan, and
Ann Arbor in particular, are already deploying V2I
infrastructure. The GM announcement, part of that was also on
the corridor, on the highway corridor, that they plan to deploy
some vehicle to infrastructure technology. So it is happening.
States kind of do their planning, their looking at it. And also
what has happened is the association--ASHTO has actually
already put out--I wouldn't call it a road map, but how States
can make plans to deploy this technology.
Mr. Mullin. Is there any concern about it being a
distraction to the driver, or becoming where they are more
dependent on it? I mean, I say that because I recently bought
my wife a new vehicle, and it honestly scared me when I got
into it because I got a little too close to the lane, and my
seat vibrated. And I was kind of shocked, but then you start
looking around at all your instrument panels, and you are
trying to figure out what just happened, I realized there is a
button up there I have got to push to keep my seat from
vibrating. Not that it bothered me that much, but there is so
much going on in a car now that--is there concern about people
being very dependent on the technology keeping them safe, where
they are not actually focusing and doing it themselves?
Mr. Beuse. Certainly we want drivers to do the driving
task. The information that is coming in through the V2V, in
terms of the display, it is kind of invisible to the driver.
What the driver will receive, it will be a warning, and it is
not going to be a separate warning from what they receive now,
let us say from a forward crash warning, would just be
integrated into that same warning interface for the driver.
On the distraction side, yes, we are very much concerned
about distraction. Last year we put out some guidelines for the
manufacturers to kind of provide a box of innovation for them
to design these systems a little bit better for the consumer to
kind of reduce that rest.
We have not seen where consumers are becoming totally
dependent on these crash avoidance technologies. The technology
you mentioned is more of a lane departure warning, and yes, it
kind of goes off--you experience it quite a bit. Some of the
ones we are talking----
Mr. Mullin. No, I am a good driver. I don't--I just
happened to----
Mr. Beuse [continuing]. Didn't mean to imply you or your
wife are a bad driver.
Mr. Mullin. Well, she is. No, I am kidding. Babe, I love
you, I am just kidding.
Mr. Beuse. You do experience that technology quite a bit. I
have that same technology as well. But some of these others
ones, like forward crash warning, automatic emergency----
Mr. Mullin. Um-hum.
Mr. Beuse [continuing]. Braking, this intersection movement
stuff, it is--you are in a crash, you don't want to experience
that ever again.
Mr. Mullin. Sure.
Mr. Beuse. And so----
Mr. Mullin. Been there.
Mr. Beuse [continuing]. The reliance, we just haven't seen
it on some of these really advanced crash avoidance systems.
Mr. Mullin. What about the cost to the States? Is--you
mentioned Michigan is deploying some of this. Where is the
money coming from?
Mr. Beuse. Well, we might have to ask the--maybe Mr.
Sweatman, if he knows where they are getting the money from.
Mr. Mullin. Mr. Sweatman, do you want to take that?
Mr. Sweatman. Sure. Let me say first that, you know, in Ann
Arbor, the deployment we did, for equipping--for putting the
infrastructure out throughout the city of Ann Arbor it is about
a million dollars. So if we assume a certain number of equipped
vehicles in the city of Ann Arbor, which is a city of 140,000
people, that works out equivalent of about $90 per vehicle.
Mr. Mullin. Here is my concern with this is--Dr. Sweatman,
we see technology change so fast. I mean, Mr. Lightsey, you
mentioned the iPhone. I mean, I am on my sixth one--or fifth
one, I am losing count. But there--the technology changes all
the time. And you see the stakes, and make this investment,
then the technology changes, is the technology going to be
adoptable as the technology increases? Because obviously, once
we go live, there are going to be all types of improvements
that are going to be needed, and there are going to be ways
that we could make it better.
Mr. Sweatman. So as far as the wireless communication is
concerned, that is standardized, and has been for quite a few
years. So the so-called DSRC is standardized, that is not going
to change. So it is not like bringing out a new iPhone every 6
months----
Mr. Mullin. OK.
Mr. Sweatman [continuing]. Or something. The underlying
principles will remain the same.
Mr. Mullin. OK. Thank you. That does answer my question.
Thank you so much, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair is
going to recognize himself for a brief series of follow-up
questions. And Mr. Olson is no longer here. I do want to thank
him for sharing a very personal story with us. Mr. Mullin, with
his experience with lane departure, reminded me that my son,
when he was 20 years old, and a young airman stationed at
Clovis, New Mexico, and burned the candle at both ends, fell
asleep at the wheel one night way out in west Texas. And I got
that call that, you know, you just always dread as a parent
getting. Dad, I fell asleep, I ran off the road, I don't know
where I am, and the airbag went off and I can't drive the car.
I said, well, stay where you are, I will come get you. But boy,
wouldn't it have been great to have had something that would
have perhaps allowed him to avoid that accident. And it just
really came home to me as I was hearing the discussion today.
Also occurred to me--and Mr. St. Amant and Mr. Einsig, let
me just ask you, because you are probably the ones who would be
closest to this, but--I am a physician by trade. I spent a lot
of time working in emergency rooms when I was a resident,
working big city emergency rooms at Parkland, and boy, we had
telemetry, and we had phones, but when you go out into rural
Texas, you don't have much. And somebody loads up and comes in,
you don't even know they are on the way, let alone any of the
data about their accident. But now it seems to me that the
possibility is there, that there could be the transference of a
great deal of data to a receiving facility after there has been
an automobile accident.
Now, obviously, your goal is to avoid any accidents, but if
one does occur, you know, we were always left with some pretty
rudimentary tools. Did you hit your head? I don't remember. Did
you lose consciousness? I don't remember. And, in fact, it
became a useful historical note to know that an airbag had
deployed. That kind of gave you an idea of how much kinetic
energy had to be absorbed in that accident. So what do you
think, in the years to come is there going to be a way of
transference of that amount of information to a receiving
facility, and what are some of the kind of safeguards we have
to think about surrounding that? So who else--Mr. St. Amant and
Mr. Einsig, I would be interested in your responses.
Mr. St. Amant. Thank you for the question. There has been a
lot of work going on to understand how this technology can
beast be--can best be deployed in rural areas, and there is a
lot of research work. Part of it is being done in Michigan, and
other places as well, where we are testing these and using
cellular as a means to get that done. So we are--we know that
we have to address that rural area. It can't just be in the
more urbanized areas.
Mr. Lightsey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So GM has been
a leader in this area. We have had OnStar on our vehicles,
standard on all of our vehicles, for over 10 years now. And
while that doesn't use DSRC technology, it does use cellular
technology. We do provide emergency services. And, in fact,
very recently we are working with the American College of
Emergency Physicians under a grant to train them because we now
have the capability, if our car is in a crash, to know from the
sensors that are on the vehicle, airbag deployment, as you
mentioned, whether the vehicle rolled over or not in the crash,
and we can relay that information in real time to emergency
responders, if they have the ability to receive it.
So we are working with the American College of Emergency
Physicians to do training so that they will be in the hospital,
they will be ready to receive it. As you know, that first few
minutes are the golden 10 minutes, and if you can make getting
to the accident quicker, it can save lives. And if you can tell
the folks that are on the way in the ambulance that--to expect
serious injuries, that can help with their dispatch and what
equipment they dispatch out there. It can have an incredible
impact.
Mr. Burgess. Very good. Mr. Einsig, did you have something
to add?
Mr. Einsig. I don't think I could have said it any more
elegant. Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. All right. Well, Mr. Lightsey, let me just ask
you one last question. And I am going to ask you to look way
over the horizon, but, you know, we hear these tragic stories
of the child left in a car on a hot day in Texas, and it
happens. And it is terrible when it happens, and frequently
there is a loss of life. So is there anything over the horizon
that would be able to detect human in the car, temperature
reaching a point that is bad? Do you have anything on the
drawing board that would look at that?
Mr. Lightsey. I think we can talk also to Mr. Beuse about
that, but I think the industry is working on several
technologies that could help in those situations.
Mr. Burgess. Very good. Mr. Beuse?
Mr. Beuse. Sure. Hypothermia is a terrible, terrible thing.
If you actually--as you know, how that--how you actually, you
know, die in those events, it is a very, very traumatic event.
And, as we know all too well, many of these cases are children
who are kind of defenseless. We have been working the
communications front on this issue for a few years, trying to
raise awareness, and I am pleased to say I think we are making
progress. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers did a survey
not too long ago showing the difference of opinion. Before,
people would walk by a vehicle and see a kid in the back seat
and not think anything of it, and keep walking. These days, now
people are more apt to call 911, or take some sort of action,
so we are making progress. But there is still more to do.
On the technology front, we are getting ready to release
sometime this year test procedures. One of the things we saw
happening is people having good intentions, developing all
sorts of technologies, but missing the mark on how to make them
safe. And so, given that that is in our name, we felt we could
serve a role there, and--not necessarily prescribing particular
technologies, but just say, hey, if you are going to develop a
technology, these are some things you should look at, in
particular with these devices. You know, things like--should
probably be resistant to water. Why? If you have kids, you know
that seats get wet, things like that. And so we are going to be
producing that report here in the coming months, and we hope
that that will help advance the science a little more on the
technology front.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you. I am encouraged by that. I want to
thank all of our witnesses and our members today, as this has
been a very instructive panel. We finished up right on time.
That signal was the vote being called, so I achieved my goal of
getting us through this before we had to have yet another
interrupt. So, seeing no further members wishing to ask
questions, I again want to thank all of our witnesses for
participating in today's hearing.
Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members they have 10
business days to submit additional questions for the record,
and I ask that the witnesses submit their responses within 10
business days of receipt of the questions. And then, without
objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]