[Senate Hearing 114-416]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-416
HANDS OFF:
THE FUTURE OF SELF-DRIVING CARS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 15, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-428 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
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
vONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
Jason Van Beek, Deputy General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 15, 2016................................... 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 1
Prepared statement of Clyde Terry, Chair, National Council on
Disability................................................. 4
Prepared statement of John Bozzella, President and CEO,
Association of Global Automakers, Inc...................... 5
Letter dated February 11, 2016 to Secretary Anthony R. Foxx
from Mitch Bainwol, President and CEO, Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers; and John Bozzella, President and
CEO, Association of Global Automakers...................... 9
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 3
Statement of Senator Heller...................................... 43
Statement of Senator Booker...................................... 45
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 46
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 49
Statement of Senator Daines...................................... 51
Statement of Senator Gardner..................................... 54
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 56
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 58
Witnesses
Dr. Chris Urmson, Director, Self-Driving Cars, Google X.......... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Michael F. Ableson, Vice President, Strategy and Global Portfolio
Planning, General Motors Company............................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Glen W. De Vos, Vice President, Global Engineering and Services,
Delphi Automotive.............................................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Joseph Okpaku, Vice President, Government Relations, Lyft........ 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Dr. Mary (``Missy'') Louise Cummings, Director, Humans and
Autonomy Laboratory; Director, Duke Robotics; Professor of
Mechanical Engineering and Material Science; Professor of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University........... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Appendix
Letter dated March 22, 2016 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill
Nelson from Paula S. Davis, Vice President, Corporate Affairs
and Communications, HARMAN..................................... 65
Letter dated March 22, 2016 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill
Nelson from Parnell Diggs, Esq., Director of Government
Affairs, National Federation of the Blind...................... 66
Statement from Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE)........... 66
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Chris Urmson by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 68
Hon. Steve Daines............................................ 70
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 71
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 72
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 72
Response to written questions submitted to Michael F. Ableson by:
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 73
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 75
Response to written questions submitted to Glen W. De Vos by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 77
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 79
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 81
Response to written questions submitted to Joseph Okpaku by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 82
Hon. Dean Heller............................................. 83
Hon. Steve Daines............................................ 84
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 84
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 85
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to:
Dr. Mary Cummings............................................ 86
HANDS OFF:
THE FUTURE OF SELF-DRIVING CARS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Wicker, Ayotte,
Heller, Fischer, Gardner, Daines, Nelson, McCaskill, Klobuchar,
Blumenthal, Markey, Booker, Manchin, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to thank
everybody for coming today as we discuss automated vehicles and
the boundless opportunities that these technologies offer.
Americans love their cars. Since the automobile first
rolled off the assembly line in River Rouge, Michigan, cars in
America have offered independence, mobility, and adventure.
Now, profound changes are coming to our roads. Technological
advancements are progressing at a rapid pace and fully self-
driving cars will be here sooner than we think.
We are facing an opportunity to expand the options for
transportation by car while also making it smarter and safer.
Yet, technological challenges remain, and people will need to
become comfortable with the idea of being passengers in their
own cars. We all like that feeling of control when we hold the
steering wheel.
But perhaps the greatest hurdle to the deployment of these
vehicles may be a regulatory environment with a patchwork of
state and Federal laws unable to keep pace with these evolving
technologies. Everything from driver assist functions like lane
departure warnings to completely autonomous vehicles will
transform transportation and mobility, profoundly affecting
safety issues that have confronted society since the invention
of the car.
In 2014, 32,675 Americans lost their lives due to car
accidents. More than 90 percent of these tragedies are linked
to human error, driver choices, intoxication, and distraction.
Automated vehicles have the potential to reduce that number
dramatically. Unlike human drivers, automated vehicles don't
get tired, drunk, or distracted.
Combatting drunk driving has been a particular priority for
me. South Dakota's 24/7 sobriety program, which works to change
behavior though round-the-clock monitoring, is one successful
program. But I'm eager to hear how autonomous vehicles could
further reduce accidents due to drunk driving.
In addition to helping reduce accidents on American roads,
autonomous vehicles promise to improve the quality of life for
older Americans and members of the disabled community. No
longer will a lack of accessible transportation hinder
opportunities for employment or community involvement. As
America's population ages, families may no longer have to
struggle with the difficult decision of when to take the keys
away from mom or dad.
Automated vehicles could also end one of the most
frustrating parts of modern urban life, the traffic jam. This
alone would improve the quality of life for many commuters with
more time for families as commutes shorten. And, if the car
does all the driving, time spent in a car could be productive,
such as reading work e-mails, checking the box score from last
night's game, or catching up on the highlights on Sports
Center. I'm speaking of some of my own pastimes here.
With no more gridlock, traffic will flow more smoothly and
efficiently. Even fuel economy is likely to improve, since
automated vehicles will be more efficient than human drivers.
These advancements also have the potential to reshape
communities. Currently, parking garages and surface lots take
up one-third of the land in cities. Imagine a technology that
will revolutionize parking as we know it, allowing that land to
be reclaimed and repurposed.
To implement this future, we need to challenge ourselves to
overcome the 20th century conception of what a car must have:
side and rearview mirrors, a brake pedal, a steering wheel, and
even the concept of a licensed human driver. Because so much is
possible, we must be careful not to stymie innovation because
of a lack of imagination.
Federal and state governments may need to rethink how they
regulate and license vehicles for the future. We must ensure
that the United States remains the cradle of innovation and
that we continue to lead the way in the development and
deployment of automated vehicles.
In addition, questions regarding liability, insurance,
privacy, security, and infrastructure need answers. These
aren't small things, but none of them is insurmountable. And if
Congress, the Department of Transportation, industry, and
stakeholders work together, we will see all the benefits
promised.
This morning, the Committee had the great opportunity to
see some of this technology in action, when we brought self-
drive to Capitol Hill. Continental, Volkswagen, BMW, and Tesla
provided vehicles that gave us firsthand experience to see what
the future may hold and a preview to the discussions at this
hearing. I want to thank them for making those vehicles
available.
This afternoon we are joined by witnesses representing
Google X, General Motors, Delphi, and Lyft, companies with
direct stakes in automated technology. We are also joined by
Dr. Cummings from Duke University, who is also a distinguished
naval aviator and a returning witness before our committee.
Dr. Cummings, thank you for your service to our country.
We look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses to
learn more about what they're doing in this space and their
vision for the future. But before we hear from our witnesses--
some will also, by the way, play a short video, assuming the
technology works, and I'm not sure, when we got underway, that
it did.
But before we get to that, first up, Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, I'm in the Tesla, and we're coming back across the
Anacostia River and getting up on the bridge to get onto the
ramp for 395. I'm instructed in the driver's seat, ``Engage the
autonomous switch.'' I click it twice. ``Take your hands off
the wheel.'' All of a sudden, the car is speeding up, and they
say, ``It automatically will go with the flow of the vehicles
in front and back.''
But now we are approaching the on-ramp onto 395, and it is
a sharp turn, and the vehicle is still speeding up. They said,
``Trust the vehicle.'' And as we approach the concrete wall, my
instincts could not resist, and I grabbed the wheel, touched
the brake, and took over manual control.
I said, ``What would have happened?'' They said, ``If you'd
left your hands off the wheel, it would have made that sharp
turn and come on around.'' So I'm here to tell you----
The Chairman. I'm glad you're here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson.--that I'm glad I grabbed the wheel. But we
know that if this is working, as it apparently is, then there
are going to be many lives that could be saved by preventing
preventable accidents, because what if you suddenly look down
at your cell phone, and all of a sudden, the car in front of
you stops, or one comes over into your lane?
Things like efficiency and productivity could also increase
considerably. Underserved communities without reliable means of
transportation could finally be integrated into the national
economy. In so many states, this technology could be
particularly beneficial for seniors and those with
disabilities.
But we have to have the technology right so that self-
driving cars can live up to their promise. The Federal
Government has a critical role to make sure that the regulatory
and legal environment, in which American businesses do
business, is able to allow the development and manufacturing of
these vehicles.
It also means that we're going to have to, in our case,
exercise responsible oversight. As we have seen in this
committee on other subjects, such as the Takata airbags and the
GM ignition switch recall, individual components of vehicles
with defects can suddenly snowball into major problems.
With an autonomous car, the stakes are all the more higher.
You can imagine, in this world of cybersecurity and cyber
attacks, what would happen to autonomous vehicles that get
hacked while they're out on the road. One small defect could
end up becoming a massive safety crisis. And if the problem
comes up, manufacturers and regulators are going to have to get
together and quickly find those solutions.
No more cover-ups, no more head-in-the-sand approaches to
safety. If we are going to avoid the tragedies, we've got to be
johnny-on-the-spot.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson. They didn't let me
get behind the wheel.
Senator Nelson. I know.
The Chairman. I suppose they figured if you could navigate
a spaceship, you could probably navigate a driverless vehicle.
Senator Nelson. Well, it was a terrestrial challenge.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I want to ask unanimous consent to submit for
the record statements from the National Council on Disability,
the Global Automakers Association, and a letter from the Global
Automakers and the Auto Alliance to Secretary Foxx at the
Department of Transportation. So those will be included,
without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of Clyde Terry, Chair, National Council on
Disability
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Esteemed Members of the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony for this
timely and important hearing on autonomous vehicle technology. The
National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent Federal agency
charged with providing the Administration, Congress, and other Federal
agencies with advice and recommendations regarding disability policy--
including policy discussions around emerging technologies such as
autonomous vehicle (AV) technology--to improve the lives of people with
disabilities. We applaud the Committee for examining this topic at
today's hearing and we offer ourselves to the Committee as an ongoing
resource as you examine this topic and consider appropriate legislative
responses.
An Exciting Innovation for Everyone, But a New Era for Some
Aside from being one of the most exciting innovations in
transportation since the Model T began rolling off the assembly line in
1913, AV technology holds tremendous promise for many people with
disabilities and seniors who currently lack access to independent
transportation. In our recent report, ``Self-Driving Cars: Mapping
Access to a Technology Revolution,'' the National Council on Disability
examined the challenges and advances associated with this revolution in
transportation technology and proposed directions in research and
development that will most benefit those people with disabilities who
are the most transportation disadvantaged because their disabilities
prevent them from driving even a modified conventional vehicle.
Despite significant advances in accessible public transportation, a
lack of reliable and accessible transportation remains one of the
biggest deterrents to employment and community involvement for people
with disabilities in the United States. Accordingly, autonomous
vehicles have the potential to become an essential component of their
independence, economic development, and well-being. Autonomous vehicles
hold great promise to advance social inclusion by offering people with
disabilities independent mobility to get to school, jobs, and all
places that Americans go each day. They also offer the possibility of
ending the isolation that many people who are aging experience by
keeping them connected with others and to activities that are often
lost when we lose the ability to drive.
An Opportunity We Can't Afford to Miss
These remarkable benefits will not come at once and will not occur
without cooperation among Federal and state governments, research
institutions, and private industry.
Benefits will not emerge if the technology develops without
universal accessibility for people with diverse disabilities, including
intellectual and developmental, sensory, and physical disabilities.
Accessibility must be infused in the research and development of AVs.
Without explicit inclusion of accessibility in the development of AV
technologies, the potential for opportunity wanes. As an example of the
importance of this type of forethought as technology evolves, during
the early days of the Internet, and still today, accessibility for
people with disabilities was not considered by web developers, and many
people with disabilities experienced and even now still do experience
unnecessary obstacles to information (e.g., text that is inaccessible
to screen reader software, lack of captions on audio content, keyboard-
only navigation). Those obstacles diminish the opportunities available
to people with disabilities that the Internet presents for people
without disabilities. This is a lesson for AV researchers and
engineers--the time is now to commit to and include accessibility.
From what we've seen so far, many in the industry understand the
potential autonomous vehicles have to change the lives of people with
disabilities, and that people with disabilities are a primary market
for this technology. It's important to make sure that accessibility
stays at the forefront of this conversation so that people with
disabilities don't get left behind. Decisions that are made by
policymakers, innovators, regulators and marketers will all impact how
this technology is adopted and whether it achieves the potential it has
to change the lives of people with disabilities who are transportation
disadvantaged. We look forward to working with industry, advocates, and
policymakers to shepherd this technology so as to result in a new era
of inclusion for people with disabilities. Accordingly, we encourage
you to include discussions of needs of this population as you convene
future hearings on the topic of AV and to seek out the views and
experiences of people with disabilities in those discussions.
Conclusion
NCD is grateful to the Committee for elevating this important topic
through today's hearing and we encourage Committee members and their
staff to review our report, ``Self-Driving Cars: Mapping Access to a
Technology Revolution'' which is available on our website at: https://
www.ncd.gov/publications/2015/self-driving-cars-mapping-access-
technology-revolution. We look forward to providing further testimony
at future hearings on this topic.
______
Prepared Statement of John Bozzella, President and CEO,
Association of Global Automakers, Inc.
On behalf of the Association of Global Automakers (``Global
Automakers''), I am pleased to provide the following statement for the
record of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
hearing entitled ``Hands Off: The Future of Self-Driving Cars.'' Global
Automakers represents international automobile manufacturers that
design, build, and sell cars and light trucks in the United States.
These companies have invested $52 billion in U.S.-based facilities,
directly employ more than 97,000 Americans, and sell 47 percent of all
new vehicles purchased annually in the country. Combined, our members
operate more than 275 production, design, R&D, sales, finance and other
facilities across the United States. Global Automakers and our member
companies are committed to creating the safest, cleanest and most
technologically advanced vehicles on the road.
The automotive industry is in the midst of an unprecedented wave of
technological innovation that is redefining how we think about
transportation. Advancements in connected and automated vehicle
technology present significant opportunities for enhancing mobility,
saving lives, improving transportation efficiency, and reducing fuel
consumption and associated emissions.
Global Automakers' members have made and continue to make
substantial investments in the research and development of advanced
technologies, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on
these matters. Over the past several decades, our members have made
tremendous strides in safety by improving vehicle crashworthiness: how
well the interior cabin protects occupants in the event of a crash. Our
members have also made initial forays into vehicle automation,
equipping vehicles with the first generation of crash avoidance
technologies that seek to prevent crashes from occurring altogether.
The next step in this evolution is continued research, development, and
deployment of a suite of automated and connected technologies that will
further help us achieve this goal.
Automakers and automotive suppliers are leading the way in the
development of advanced automated vehicle technology, and according to
a recent report by Thompson Reuters, several Global Automakers' members
were listed among the top automated vehicle innovators worldwide.\1\
Through significant investments in research and development,
manufacturers are working hard to provide increasingly automated
features and functionality in their vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``The 2016 State of Self-Driving Automotive Innovation,''
Thompson Reuters (2016)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we think about advanced motor vehicles, it is important to note
that automated vehicle technology is much broader than the concept of a
self-driving or driverless car. In fact, a number of vehicles on the
road today already provide automated functionality through advanced
crash-avoidance and convenience features such as crash imminent
braking, lane keeping assist, and adaptive cruise control. These
systems, which are often considered foundational to the development of
more highly automated systems, are designed to provide support to the
driver only in certain situations, and automated vehicle control is not
typically sustained over an extended period of time. As these systems
become more advanced, a vehicle's capability to operate without active
control of the driver will increase.
As vehicles become not only more automated, but also connected
through Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) technology and
other wireless technologies, consumers are expected to experience
substantial safety and mobility benefits. An estimated 90-95 percent of
crashes are attributable to driver error, whether it be a recognition,
decision, or performance-related error. Advancements in vehicle
sensors, communications technology, and vehicle automation have the
potential to significantly reduce the occurrence or severity of crashes
in the future by helping correct for these errors in human driving.
Crash prevention not only saves lives, but reduces congestion,
resulting in environmental benefits as well. In addition, automated and
connected technologies create significant opportunities for improving
vehicle efficiency and highway throughput by making it possible for
vehicles to operate closer together, optimizing the utilization of
existing infrastructure. Furthermore, automated vehicles provide the
potential for enhanced independent mobility options for those without
access to transit or those with disabilities.
For these and other reasons, automated vehicles have garnered
significant media attention and have captured the imaginations of both
the public and policymakers. However, the concept of increased vehicle
automation is often met with mixed reactions ranging from fear,
uncertainty, and doubt, to excitement and anticipation for the mobility
opportunities that self-driving vehicles could provide. Because we do
not know the full extent of what the future may hold, it is important
that automated vehicle policy be considered in a way that is flexible
and responsive to changes in technology so that the benefits of
connected and automated vehicles can be achieved. It is therefore
necessary to understand not only what policies may be needed to
encourage the safe and widespread development, adoption, and
integration of these advanced systems into the existing fleet, but also
how existing laws may unintentionally act as an impediment to
innovation.
In addressing the many important policy considerations related to
automated vehicles, legislators and regulators at all levels of
government will need to engage in an informed discussion that includes
all of the key stakeholders. Automated vehicle policy questions often
include, but are not limited to, issues such as:
What additional safety requirements might be needed?
How should cybersecurity and privacy concerns be addressed?
What is the role of the driver, and will drivers need a
special license?
What approaches to liability and insurance are appropriate?
Should the policies for driverless cars differ from those
where a driver is present in the vehicle?
How can automated vehicle technology provide greater
mobility and accessibility?
What infrastructure investments may be required to support a
more connected and automated fleet?
How will automated vehicles operate in a mixed fleet
environment alongside non-automated vehicle drivers?
Can we safely share the spectrum that is the backbone of
DSRC connected car technology?
These are complex issues with profound cultural ramifications, and
resolving them will require significant coordination between federal,
state, and local government in collaboration with industry stakeholders
and the public. There are distinct roles that each level of government
will play in addressing specific issues, but the result should be a
national approach that enables the effective and widespread adoption of
technology. We believe that the Federal Government, working closely
with key stakeholders, should adopt a leadership role to help provide
meaningful guidance for the development of a cohesive and complementary
policy that is responsive to current and future technology.
One important policy goal should be avoiding a patchwork of
different Federal and state standards. States such as California,
Nevada, Florida, and Michigan, as well as the District of Columbia,
have already enacted laws related to the testing and operation of
automated vehicles. Each of these states has taken a slightly different
approach to the issue which presents significant challenges for the
auto industry. For instance, what would happen when an automated
vehicle is certified as meeting the design criteria for one state but
not another state? Would the vehicle be banned from crossing the state
line? From a manufacturers' perspective, a single national approach to
the design and production of automated vehicles is of paramount
importance. This approach should be developed at the national level,
led by the Department of Transportation in consultation with other
relevant agencies.
As policymakers develop a legal and regulatory framework for
automated vehicles, it will be important to ensure that regulations do
not get so far ahead of the technology that they stifle innovation. For
instance, many state statutes take a ``one size fits all'' approach to
automated vehicles--either a car is an ``autonomous vehicle'' or it is
not--and they fail to account for various levels of automation. As
previously mentioned, automated vehicle technology is broader than the
concept of the driverless car and clear definitions are important. Some
state statutes create uncertainty regarding advanced driver assistance
systems already in certain vehicles.
Distinguishing between various levels of automation will be
important in addressing when a vehicle become an ``automated'' or
``autonomous'' vehicle, how this may impact the roles and
responsibilities of the driver, and what additional requirements might
be imposed on the vehicle. While we encourage legislative uniformity in
this regard, the debate over the most appropriate definitions for
classifying automated vehicle technology is still ongoing.
To date, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has taken a
measured approach towards automated vehicles regulation, and we commend
the Federal regulators for their initial work to create a more balanced
environment for innovation. By way of example:
On May 30, 2013, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) issued a Preliminary Statement of Policy
Concerning Automated Vehicles as a mechanism to provide
guidance to the states permitting testing of emerging vehicle
technology.\2\ The document was designed to provide recommended
principles that states may wish to consider with respect to
automated vehicles. In addition, the agency also provided an
overview of its automated vehicle research program, and sought
to develop high-level descriptions explaining various levels of
automation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated
Vehicles,'' NHTSA (2013)
On April 1, 2015, NHTSA Administrator, Mark Rosekind, wrote
to the Director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles
to provide an update on NHTSA's research on automation. The
agency indicated that it expects to complete several research
efforts over the next 24 months. In the event that NHTSA were
to conclude there is a need for Federal safety standards
concerning any aspect of these technologies, NHTSA's research
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
will provide important support for those standards.
On January 14, 2016, DOT issued an updated Statement of
Policy which announced a number of initiatives, including the
development of (1) guidance on the safe deployment and
operation of autonomous vehicles, providing a common
understanding of the performance characteristics necessary for
fully autonomous vehicles and the testing and analysis methods
needed to assess them, and (2) model state policy on automated
vehicles that offers a path to consistent national policy. DOT
also announced that NHTSA, upon request, would seek to provide
interpretations for how existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards may apply to advanced technology, and that where
interpretation authority were not sufficient would encourage
manufacturers to submit requests to allow the deployment of
automated vehicle systems. In addition, the Department also
indicated that it plans to develop new tools and seek new
authorities when necessary to ensure the safe deployment of the
technology.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``DOT-NHTSA Policy Statement Concerning Automated Vehicles
(2016 Update),'' DOT-NHTSA (2016)
Despite these steps, we believe DOT, in coordination with NHTSA and
other Federal transportation agencies, must provide greater leadership
on this issue, as we continue to observe a steady increase in the
number of disparate legislative proposals aimed at regulating automated
vehicles at the state level. As of March 1, 2016, over 25 automated
vehicle bills were introduced in various parts of the country. To the
extent possible, we believe the aforementioned NHTSA activities should
be as inclusive as possible throughout all stages of development in an
open and transparent process. Equally as important is ensuring
awareness of this ongoing activity so that interested policymakers can
continue to be informed when making key decisions that could affect the
way in which automated vehicles are integrated as part of society. The
initiatives that DOT has engaged in are an important first step towards
a balanced, data-driven policy that will be national in scope; however,
the Department must assume a more active and engaged role to accomplish
this goal. Providing clear long-term strategic direction and leadership
that extends beyond research is critical.
Federal leadership is also of paramount importance given the
convergence of automated technology and DSRC technology supporting
connected cars. Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure
(V2I) technology can be utilized to enhance and supplement the benefits
of automation. DSRC technology will allow the transmission of messages
between vehicles about vehicle speed, heading, brake status, and other
information with range and ``line-of-sight'' capabilities that exceed
camera or radar-based systems currently supporting automated features.
DSRC is expected to augment on-board sensor information to help improve
the decisions made by automated vehicles regarding safety-critical
situations and also improve the transition to a more automated fleet in
the future through increased situational awareness between both
automated and non-automated vehicles on the road. We expect NHTSA to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking later this year that would
require new motor vehicles to be equipped with DSRC equipment, and
Global Automakers supports NHTSA's plans to mandate the technology.
DSRC is a critical technology to achieve the full benefits of
networked, automated vehicles. For these reasons, we need to ensure
that the 5.9GHz spectrum band is protected for DSRC to operate without
harmful interference. We continue to work on testing in this area and
hope to have a positive conclusion in the near future; however, we
caution policymakers against making hurried decisions concerning
whether unlicensed technologies can share operations in the 5.9 GHz
band. Thorough testing needs to be completed before any consideration
is given to allowing unlicensed technologies to operate in the band.
As vehicles become more connected and automated, automakers also
are proactively taking steps to protect the security and integrity of
automated vehicle systems and consumer data. While privacy and
cybersecurity are complex issues, the enormous benefits of automated
and connected car technologies outweigh the challenges that come with
living in a connected world. As automakers pursue these innovations and
the benefits that they bring, we recognize strong cybersecurity and
privacy protections are essential to building consumer confidence.
In 2015, the auto industry established the Automotive Information
Sharing and Analysis Center (Auto-ISAC) to share intelligence on
immediate threats and vulnerabilities between trusted industry
stakeholders. In addition, the Association of Global Automakers,
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the Auto-ISAC are working
collaboratively to develop cybersecurity best practices which will be
modelled after the Cybersecurity Best Practices Framework the auto
industry published in January of this year.\4\ This Best Practices
Framework, which was inspired by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure
Cybersecurity, and other cybersecurity models, provides a foundation
for the development of industry-led best practices that we believe
provides greater flexibility to respond in a dynamic technology
environment, compared to the traditional regulatory and guidelines
models typically used by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Framework for Automotive Cybersecurity Best Practices''
(2016)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to measures to address cybersecurity, U.S. automakers
proactively took steps in 2014 to protect the privacy of consumers
through the responsible stewardship of information collected from in-
vehicle technologies and services and the meaningful disclosure of
privacy policies and practices.\5\ We engaged with privacy advocates
and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) during the development of these
principles. As of January of this year, all major automakers are
accountable to the FTC for these privacy commitments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Privacy Principles for Vehicle Technologies and Services,''
(2014)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The automobile industry continues to provide innovative
technologies with demonstrable safety, mobility, and environmental
impacts. Our industry is undergoing rapid changes as we work to meet
today's safety and environmental regulations, and as we strive towards
the long-term goals of saving lives, reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
and providing the consumer with exciting vehicles that meet their
needs. These changes take time, commitment and investment to see
through. They require close collaboration and coordination among and
between government, industry, academia, and other stakeholders. Global
Automakers and our member companies believe that automated vehicles
represent the next giant leap towards our shared long-term goal of
safer and cleaner vehicles.
______
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
Association of Global Automakers, Inc.
February 11, 2016
Hon. Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary,
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Foxx:
We are writing to you on behalf of the members of the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (Alliance)\1\ and the Association of
Global Automakers, Inc. (Global Automakers),\2\ to express strong
support for your efforts to identify and address obstacles in the
current regulatory framework to the implementation of safety
innovations. We agree with you that this is an exciting and optimistic
time for the auto industry; indeed, we believe the joint efforts of the
Department and industry will further promote our shared safety, fuel
economy and mobility goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The members of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers are BMW
Group, FCA U.S. LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company, Jaguar
Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche Cars
North America, Toyota, Volkswagen Group of America and Volvo Cars of
North America.
\2\ The members of the Association of Global Automakers are
American Honda Motor Co., Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc.,
Ferrari North America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America, Isuzu Motors
America, Inc., Kia Motors America, Inc., Maserati North America, Inc.,
McLaren Automotive Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc., Subaru of America,
Inc., Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., and Toyota Motor North America,
Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the spirit of your initiative, we highlight four examples where
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) could help
accelerate safety technologies. All four are in the pipeline. We ask
that the Department move expeditiously to address the following
petitions for rulemaking and requests for interpretation in order to
facilitate these technologies that help allow for a safer driving
experience:
Advanced Forward Lighting (Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps):
Petition for Rulemaking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) 108 to permit Adaptive Driving Beam (ADB)
headlamps that are already allowed in Europe. ADB preserves or
enhances forward illumination while protecting against glare
for oncoming drivers.
This petition was submitted by Toyota in March 2013 and is
supported by the Alliance, Global Automakers and the Truck &
Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA).
Expanded Field of View (Camera-based vision systems): Petition
for Rulemaking to amend FMVSS 111 to allow the use of camera-
based rear and side vision systems in lieu of side and rearview
mirrors. Camera-based rear and side view monitoring systems are
enablers to increased fuel economy and driver field of view,
which is particularly helpful for older drivers. European
regulators are moving quickly to allow these systems.
This petition was submitted by the Alliance and Tesla Motors in
March 2014.
Advanced/More Efficient Powertrains (Fuel Cell & Hybrid
Vehicles): Petition for Rulemaking to amend FMVSS 305 to allow
physical barriers and to specify isolation resistance
requirements to provide protection against electric shock.
Amending FMVSS 305 as requested would enable the introduction
of fuel cell and 48-volt hybrid vehicles.
This petition was submitted by the Alliance in November 2014.
Advanced Crash Avoidance Safety Systems (Automatic Emergency
Braking): Request for Interpretation of the requirements of 49
C.F.R. 581 relating to low-speed bumper performance. A
favorable interpretation is needed to help accelerate the
implementation of advanced crash avoidance technologies such as
automatic emergency braking (AEB) technology, the adoption of
which is leading to a statistically significant reduction in
crashes and the corresponding injuries and property damage.
This request was submitted by the Alliance and Global
Automakers in January 2016.
Finally, we write to convey our agreement with you that we have
entered an era in which we are rapidly reinventing personal
transportation with the potential to save lives. Toward that end, we
recommend that the Department consider establishing procedures for
addressing regulatory obstacles to the adoption of innovative
technologies on an expedited basis that are identified by industry in
the future.
Specifically, we recommend that 49 C.F.R. 552 be amended to add a
new subpart--Subpart C--to establish procedures for the submission and
expedited disposition of rulemaking petitions and requests for
interpretations that seek to eliminate roadblocks to the integration of
innovative, transformative automotive technology that can significantly
improve safety, mobility, and sustainability. Such procedures, if
established, would not be unprecedented as similar procedures were
established in 2000 to help facilitate the development of airbag
dynamic automatic suppression systems (DASS) then under consideration.
Of course, with any expedited rulemaking process, it will be important
to make sure that all stakeholders have sufficient input to ensure that
the results are scientific and data-driven.
The Members of the Alliance and Global Automakers are proud of
their role in developing and implementing technologies that are making
personal transportation ever safer, cleaner and more fuel efficient. We
welcome your prompt consideration of these matters. We stand ready to
help in whatever way we are able.
Sincerely,
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Mitch Bainwol
President and CEO
Association of Global Automakers
John Bozzella
President and CEO
cc: The Honorable Mark R. Rosekind, Administrator
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Mr. Blair Anderson, Deputy Administrator
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The Chairman. We have before us today a great panel. I want
to welcome them here. First is Dr. Chris Urmson, who is
Director of Self-driving Cars for Google X; Mr. Mike Ableson,
Vice President, Strategy and Global Portfolio Planning, General
Motors Company; Mr. Glen De Vos, who is the Vice President,
Global Engineering and Services, Electronics and Safety at
Delphi Automotive; Mr. Joseph Okpaku, who is the Vice President
of Government Relations for Lyft; and, as I mentioned earlier,
Dr. Mary (``Missy'') Louise Cummings, Director of Human and
Autonomy Lab and Duke Robotics at Duke University.
So welcome to all of you. Thank you for participating
today. We'll start on my left and your right with Dr. Urmson
and then proceed as each of you complete. And if you could, at
least as close as possible, stay to the 5-minute time allotment
so we will have ample time for Members to ask questions. I
think we'll have good participation today. So thank you all for
being here.
Dr. Urmson?
STATEMENT OF DR. CHRIS URMSON, DIRECTOR,
SELF-DRIVING CARS, GOOGLE X
Dr. Urmson. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member
Nelson, and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me
to testify today about the potential for self-driving cars to
improve the lives of people everywhere.
My name is Chris Urmson, and I've been leading the
technology development of Google's self-driving car program
since 2009. The video we would have shown earlier captures many
of the reasons why we're excited about this technology. NHTSA
estimates that 38,000 people were killed on America's roads
last year, and 94 percent of accidents involve human error.
Self-driving cars can help us change that. Not only could
our roads be a lot safer, but self-driving cars could bring
everyday destinations and new opportunities within reach of
those who might otherwise be excluded by their inability to
drive a car. We believe that to actually realize all those
benefits and many more, we need cars that are fully self-
driving. That is, the car must be designed to do all the work
so that the occupants are not expected to take control of the
vehicle at any time.
We're now testing self-driving prototype vehicles in three
different states. Over the last 7 years, we've driven over 1.4
million miles in autonomous mode. All our testing using real
complex scenarios helps us analyze, evaluate, and improve how
our cars perform.
Today, Congress has a huge opportunity to help ensure that
self-driving cars can be safely deployed at scale. We currently
face a growing patchwork of state laws and regulations on self-
driving cars that has the potential to become unworkable. In
the past 2 years, 23 states have introduced 53 pieces of
legislation that affect autonomous vehicles, all of which
include different approaches and concepts. If every state is
left to go its own way, it would be extremely impractical to
operate an autonomous vehicle across state boundaries. We are
grateful to the Department of Transportation and Secretary Foxx
for their vision and commitment to help in the deployment of
self-driving cars.
NHTSA has issued helpful clarifications of existing safety
standards. But we must remember that current regulations were
written at a time when the idea that a car could drive itself
was science fiction. NHTSA has indicated that new authorities
may be needed to safely deploy these technologies going
forward.
Congressional action is needed to keep pace. We propose
that Congress move swiftly to provide the Secretary of
Transportation with targeted new authority to approve
lifesaving safety innovations. This new authority would allow
the deployment of innovative safety technologies that meet or
exceed the level of safety required by existing Federal
standards while ensuring and prompt and transparent process.
We look forward to working with this committee, DOT, and
NHTSA to ensure that this type of new authority can effectively
achieve the safety and innovation benefits of fully self-driven
cars. We also believe that it will help continue U.S.
leadership on this technology for the years ahead.
The importance of getting self-driving car technology
safely into people's hands is best summed up by those who need
it most. During a recent California DMV workshop to discuss the
technology, regulators heard from Justin Harford, a man who is
legally blind. Justin said, ``What this is really about is who
gets to access transportation and commerce and who doesn't, and
I'm frankly tired of people with disabilities not being able to
access commerce.'' Our team at Google believes that self-
driving cars can ultimately remove these transportation
barriers from our society.
Thank you for your help in creating a path for this
technology and for your time and consideration today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Urmson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Chris Urmson, Director, Self-Driving Cars,
Google [x]
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to testify today about the potential for
autonomous vehicle technology to improve the lives of people
everywhere.
My name is Chris Urmson. Since 2009, I have been leading the
technical development of Google's self-driving car technology. I also
served on the faculty at Carnegie Mellon University and was previously
Director of Technology for the team that won the 2007 DARPA Urban
Challenge.
We are grateful for the opportunity to discuss the promise of this
technology, including the potential for tremendous gains in safety and
productivity. I will share an overview of our work on self-driving
cars, including where we currently stand, and some of the lessons we
have learned along the way. Perhaps most importantly for this
conversation, I will discuss the crucial role that Federal policymakers
have in enabling the development and deployment of this innovative
safety technology for the U.S. public. Today, Congress has a huge
opportunity to further this field by enabling the U.S. Department of
Transportation to pave the way for the deployment of this innovative
safety technology, which will help reduce the more than 6 million
traffic accidents that are reported in the U.S. every year.
Google's development and testing of fully self-driving cars
When Google started working on self-driving vehicles over seven
years ago, our goal was to transform mobility by making it safer,
easier, and more enjoyable to get around. What drives our team is the
potential that this technology has to make our roads safer. NHTSA
estimates that traffic accidents killed over 38,000 Americans in 2015
and the World Health Organization estimates that 1.2 million lives are
lost to traffic accidents globally every year. These are numbers that
could be reduced significantly with fully self-driving cars, especially
since 94 percent of accidents in the U.S. are due to human error.
In addition to improving roadway safety, self-driving cars can
bring everyday destinations and new opportunities within reach of those
who might otherwise be excluded by their inability to drive a car. For
people who are blind, elderly, or living with conditions that would
otherwise make driving difficult or impossible, this technology offers
the promise of mobility and independence that has never before been
available. One woman in Southern California who lost her ability to
drive 15 years ago told us, ``my life has become very expensive,
complicated, and restricted'' since she had to start paying drivers and
enduring long waits for buses and trains.
The technology also has the potential to reduce current Federal
spending pressures for roadways, parking, and public transit--all of
which were key considerations in this Committee's work on the FAST Act.
Over the next three decades, the U.S. Department of Transportation
expects that self-driving cars will play a key role in reducing transit
operating costs, improving highway efficiency, and freeing up existing
parking infrastructure (which currently takes up a total area of 3,000
square miles in the U.S., equivalent to the size of Connecticut).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Beyond Traffic 2045:
Trends and Choices,'' February 2, 2015, .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These benefits are closer to being unlocked now that significant
portions of the automotive industry are investing in self-driving car
technology. In the years immediately following the DARPA Urban
Challenge, both government and private sector investments in this
technology were extremely limited, but now a wide range of companies
across the auto and tech industries--including those testifying on this
panel today--are placing bets on self-driving cars.
Between 2011 and 2013 our development efforts focused on autonomous
driving for highways by modifying existing vehicles like the Toyota
Prius and the Lexus RX450h. Our early tests involved employees driving
manually up to a freeway, engaging the autonomous mode, and then
monitoring the car until the exit. But in 2013, we decided that to
fully realize the safety promise of this technology and serve the most
people--even those without a license--our technology needed to be
capable of doing all the driving, without human intervention necessary.
NHTSA defines this as ``fully autonomous vehicles,'' or ``Level 4'' on
a NHTSA scale for automation established in 2013. Developing a car that
can shoulder the entire burden of driving is crucial to safety: we saw
in our own testing that the human drivers can't always be trusted to
dip in and out of the task of driving when the car is encouraging them
to sit back and relax.\2\ The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
has measured this phenomenon extensively and found that human operators
of partially self-driving cars in a NHTSA-sponsored study took up to 17
seconds to respond to alerts and take control of the vehicle.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Google SelfDriving Car Project, Monthly Report, October 2015.
\3\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``Human Factors
Evaluation of Level 2 and Level 3 Automated Driving Concepts,'' August
2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why in 2014, we announced that we were developing a new
self-driving vehicle prototype from the ground up--one designed to
require no human intervention to get from point A to point B. Exploring
what such a vehicle could look like meant making big changes to the
features of a car and building in some unique capabilities. For
example, we were able to:
Change the shape of the vehicle so our radar, laser, and
camera sensors can be placed for an optimal 360 degree field of
view and see as far out as two football fields;
Build in backup self-driving systems for braking, steering,
computing, and more in the event that one of the main systems
fails;
Build in new protections for pedestrians. The front of our
prototype vehicles is padded with a special foam-like material
that absorbs the energy of an impact, their windshields are
made from a flexible material, and their side mirrors are
magnetic and easily break away;
Take out the steering wheel and pedals, as the software is
responsible for the driving;
Bake in defensive driving behavior to avoid having the car
get into tricky situations. Our car doesn't get tired,
distracted, or angry. They're designed to stay out of other
drivers' blind spots, nudge away from lane-splitting
motorcycles, and pause for 1.5 seconds after traffic lights
turn green to avoid red light runners.
Today, our fleet includes 33 of these prototype vehicles and 23
modified Lexus SUVs. For now, test drivers are aboard all of our
vehicles to monitor how the cars drive, and to provide feedback to our
engineering team. All our prototype vehicles are equipped with
removable steering wheels, accelerator pedals, and brake pedals that
allow our test drivers to take over driving if needed while testing.
We have been testing our vehicles on California's public roads for
over 7 years, and we recently expanded testing to parts of Austin,
Texas, and Kirkland, Washington. So far, we've driven over 1.4 million
miles in autonomous mode--that's the equivalent of 108 years on the
road, based on a typical American adult driving about 13,000 miles per
year.
In our 7 years of testing, we've been involved in 17 minor crashes
while driving autonomously. We publish details about the circumstances
of every crash on our website, regardless of its severity. While the
vast majority of these incidents have been a result of distracted or
inattentive driving by other human drivers on the road, we investigate
each event and determine whether any improvements to our software and
hardware are needed. Using our simulator, we replay and analyze each
incident and test our software against hundreds of variations on the
same event (for example, we simulate different speeds and positions of
other vehicles). We take anything we learn and roll these changes out
to our entire fleet.
Testing on public roads allows our cars to experience real, complex
scenarios that help us improve our systems. We're also constantly
testing, analyzing and evaluating how our software performs in multiple
other ways, including on the test track and in our simulator (in which
our software drives more than 3 million miles a day).
We look forward to learning how different communities perceive and
interact with our vehicles.
We publish monthly reports with summaries of how far we've
traveled, new capabilities we're adding, and any accident
encountered.\4\ Getting people's reactions and feedback is an important
part of the learning process. We want to see how people might think
differently about a vehicle when it ultimately requires them to do
nothing but get in, buckle up, and ride. Educating people about the
technology is an important step in building consumer confidence in this
lifesaving innovation. So far we've found that people find it very
mentally freeing and relaxing to just get in and not have to do
anything more than press a button.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Google SelfDriving Car Project, Monthly Reports,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal leadership is needed to enable fully self-driving cars
The Federal Government plays a pivotal role in setting safety
standards for motor vehicles with the powers that Congress vested in
NHTSA more than half a century ago. We're encouraged that the
Department of Transportation (DOT) has recognized the safety,
environmental, and accessibility benefits of self-driving cars.
Secretary Foxx has pledged to work quickly with Federal and state
policy makers to ensure the right policies and guidance are in place to
encourage innovation in this field. We welcomed his commitments in
January to develop tools, including possible new authorities for NHTSA
and DOT, to ensure that self-driving cars can be safely deployed at
scale.
The leadership of the Federal Government is critically important
given the growing patchwork of State laws and regulations on self-
driving cars. Last December, we were disappointed that California
released draft regulations for operation of autonomous vehicles that
specifically excluded fully self-driving cars, despite strong public
support for this technology, particularly from the disability
community. Further, in the past two years, 23 states have introduced 53
pieces of legislation that affect self-driving cars--all of which
include different approaches and concepts. Five states have passed such
legislation, and--although all were intended to assist the development
of the technology in the state--none of those laws feature common
definitions, licensing structures or sets of expectations for what
manufacturers should be doing. If every state is left to go its own way
without a unified approach, operating self-driving cars across state
boundaries would be an unworkable situation and one that will
significantly hinder safety innovation, interstate commerce, national
competitiveness, and the eventual deployment of autonomous vehicles.
As we work toward building a fully self-driving car, having clarity
on how existing laws and regulations apply is critical for Google and
others working on this technology. In November, Google wrote to NHTSA
asking for an interpretation of the existing Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS) and how they may pertain to self-driving cars.
NHTSA replied to our request for interpretations in early February of
this year. Importantly, they agreed that for the purposes of the safety
standards, a ``driver'' in a fully self-driving car can be the self-
driving system itself.
While this clarification from NHTSA was a very positive step
forward, it does not change the fact that current regulations--
including most of the FMVSS--were written at a time when a self-driving
car was nothing more than an idea. In certain instances, these current
standards are overly prescriptive in ways that could make a fully self-
driving car less safe. In situations where the car is safely making 100
percent of the driving decisions, having controls that allow a
passenger to change its trajectory or operate turn signals or
headlamps--for which manual controls are currently mandated in the
Federal standards--may make the operation of the car less safe. As
described above, various studies have documented the hazards of having
human drivers ``switch back'' to the task of driving when they are not
expecting it. There are also many Federal standards that simply are not
needed when a human is not operating the vehicle, such as requirements
to include a rear view mirror.
NHTSA's reply to our request for interpretation and its 2017
Congressional budget request both highlighted that ``[n]ew authorities
may be needed when they are necessary to ensure that fully autonomous
vehicles, including those designed without a human driver in mind, are
deployable in large numbers when demonstrated to provide an equivalent
or higher level of safety than is now available.''
We strongly support NHTSA's goals and believe that Congressional
action is needed to keep pace with safety technologies being developed
by vehicle manufacturers and technology innovators, including fully
self-driving cars.
To achieve this goal, we propose that Congress move swiftly to
provide the Secretary of Transportation with new authority to approve
lifesaving safety innovations. This new authority would permit the
deployment of innovative safety technologies that meet or exceed the
level of safety required by existing Federal standards, while ensuring
a prompt and transparent process.
We look forward to working with this Committee, DOT, and NHTSA to
ensure that this type of new authority can effectively achieve the
safety and innovation benefits of fully self-driving cars. We also
believe that these policysetting opportunities will help continue U.S.
leadership on this technology for the years ahead.
Conclusion
In the coming years, we'd like to explore driving in other cities
that can teach us about different types of challenging weather and
terrain. We'd also like to run pilot programs to learn what people
would like to do with fully self-driving vehicles. If the technology
develops as we hope, we'll work with partners to bring this technology
into the world safely.
The importance of getting self-driving car technology safely into
people's hands is best summed up by those who most need it. During a
recent California DMV workshop to discuss the technology, regulators
heard from Justin Harford, a man who is legally blind. Justin said:
``what this is really about is who gets to access transportation and
commerce and who doesn't and I'm frankly tired of people with
disabilities not being able to access commerce.''
Our team at Google believes that self-driving cars can ultimately
remove these transportation barriers from our society. Thank you for
your help in creating a path for this technology and for your time and
consideration today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Urmson.
Mr. Ableson?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. ABLESON, VICE PRESIDENT, STRATEGY AND
GLOBAL PORTFOLIO PLANNING, GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY
Mr. Ableson. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Thune,
Ranking Member Nelson, and Committee members, for the
opportunity to speak to you on autonomous vehicles and the way
they could improve the safety, convenience, and effectiveness
of our 21st century transportation system.
My position inside General Motors is Vice President of
Portfolio Planning and Strategy, and in that position, I spend
a lot of time thinking about what will happen to our industry
over time and what opportunities there are and how to position
General Motors to take advantage of those opportunities. As you
may know, General Motors has been very active in the autonomous
space with several recent announcements. All of these are aimed
at our goal of earning customers for life by redefining the
nature of personal mobility and extending our relationship with
our customers beyond the car.
There are four principal areas to this initiative:
autonomous driving, connectivity, electrification, and ride
sharing. All of these are built on the same bedrock principle:
Our top priority must be safety. I'd like to focus my few
minutes today on autonomy.
GM has a long history with autonomous vehicle research and,
as our recent announcements have shown, is striving to lead in
automated driving technologies. From our partnership with
Carnegie Mellon University, which in 2007 won the DARPA Urban
Challenge by autonomously covering 60 miles at an average speed
of 14 miles per hour, to our acquisition last week of Cruise
Automation, GM is rapidly redefining personal mobility.
Many of today's active safety technologies, such as full-
speed range adaptive cruise control and lanekeeping assist, are
steps toward autonomous driving. We are deploying these
technologies across more of our portfolio and are also bringing
additional safety enhancing technologies like forward collision
warning to vehicles at all price points, including inexpensive
models such as the Chevrolet Spark.
GM expects to be the first automaker to bring Dedicated
Short Range Communications, a vehicle to vehicle safety
technology, to market late this year in the 2017 Cadillac CTS.
This technology will enable vehicles to communicate important
safety and mobility information to one another.
Super Cruise, a feature that allows hands-free and feet-
free driving on the highway, will also debut in the 2017
Cadillac CT6. It incorporates many of the camera, GPS, mapping,
and radar technologies that will be crucial to increasing
automation in the future.
Additionally, our recent investment in the ride-sharing
company Lyft complements GM's expertise in autonomous vehicles
by providing a ride-sharing platform to support potential
deployment programs. Our acquisition last week of Cruise
Automation is another important milestone in our work to deploy
autonomous vehicles.
Founded in 2013, Cruise has moved quickly to develop and
test autonomous vehicle technology in San Francisco's very
challenging city environment. Cruise's deep software talent and
rapid development capability, when combined with GM's resources
and expertise, will further accelerate our development of
autonomous vehicle technology.
These efforts inside the company are being spearheaded by a
recently formed, Vice President-led engineering team focused on
accelerating the deployment of autonomous vehicles. But make no
mistake. Our focus will be on doing this safely.
We believe that the next logical step toward public
availability of the autonomous vehicles will be controlled
ride-sharing projects, such as those we are planning with Lyft.
These projects will allow the public to safely experience
autonomous vehicles without making a significant financial
investment. This could speed public acceptance of autonomous
vehicles while, at the same time, protect public safety through
the ownership and control of the vehicle fleet by the vehicle
manufacturer. This style of deployment also encourages
partnership with local and state governments, which will help
ensure full public benefit of the technology.
In closing, GM enthusiastically supports policy initiatives
to accelerate the development and adoption of safe, high-level
automation through real-world projects. We look forward to
working with Congress and NHTSA to spur development of these
technologies as safely and rapidly as possible.
I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ableson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael F. Ableson, Vice President, Strategy and
Global Portfolio Planning, General Motors Company
Good afternoon.
Thank you Chairman Thune, Senator Nelson and Committee members for
the opportunity to speak to you today on autonomous vehicles and the
way they could improve the safety, convenience and effectiveness of our
21st Century transportation system.
As you may know, General Motors has been very active in the
autonomous space with several recent announcements. All of these are
aimed at our goal of earning customers for life by redefining the
nature of personal mobility and extending our relationship with our
customers beyond the car. There are four principal areas to this
initiative: autonomous driving; connectivity; electrification and ride
sharing.
All of these are built on the same bedrock principle: Our top
priority must be safety.
I'd like to focus my few minutes today on autonomy. GM has a long
history with autonomous vehicle research and, as our recent
announcements have shown, is striving to lead in automated driving
technologies. From our partnership with Carnegie Mellon University,
which in 2007 won the ``DARPA Urban Challenge'' by autonomously
covering 60 miles of territory at an average speed of 14 miles per
hour, to our acquisition last week of Cruise Automation, GM is rapidly
redefining personal mobility.
Many of today's active safety technologies, such as full-speed
range adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping assist, are building
block technologies toward driving automation and autonomous driving. We
are deploying these technologies across more of our portfolio and are
also bringing additional safety-enhancing technologies like forward
collision warning to vehicles at all price points, including
inexpensive models such as the Chevrolet Spark.
The sensors, cameras, radars, LIDARs and computer controls required
for fully autonomous vehicles are all improving quickly, but will need
significant technological advancements before they are ready for
universal public deployment.
That said, there are many opportunities to take advantage of much
sooner and GM is at the forefront of those developments.
GM expects to be the first automaker to bring Dedicated Short Range
Communications, or DSRC, Vehicle to Vehicle safety technology to market
late this year in the 2017 Cadillac CTS. This technology will enable
vehicles to communicate important safety and mobility information to
one another.
Super Cruise, a driving automation feature that allows hands-free
and feet-free driving on the highway, will also debut in 2017 on the
Cadillac CT6. It incorporates many of the camera, GPS, mapping and
radar technologies that will be crucial to increasing automation in the
future.
Additionally, our recent investment in the ride-sharing company
Lyft complements GM's expertise in autonomous vehicles by providing a
ride-sharing platform to support potential deployment programs.
Our acquisition last week of Cruise Automation is another important
milestone in our work to deploy autonomous vehicles. Founded in 2013,
Cruise has moved quickly to develop and test autonomous vehicle
technology in San Francisco's challenging city environment. Cruise's
deep software talent and rapid development capability, combined with
GM's resources and expertise, will further accelerate our development
of autonomous vehicle technology.
These efforts are being spearheaded by a recently formed, vice
president-led engineering team focused on accelerating the deployment
of autonomous vehicles. One of those executives will oversee autonomous
fleets in controlled environments that can provide the deep learning
and experience to get us closer to fully autonomous driving.
But make no mistake, our focus will be on doing this safely.
We believe that the next logical step toward public availability of
high-level automated vehicles will be controlled ride-sharing projects,
such as what we are planning with Lyft.
The lessons from these projects and how these vehicles function in
multiple real-world environments will also allow the public to safely
experience autonomous vehicles without making a significant financial
investment. This could speed public acceptance of autonomous vehicles,
while, at the same time, protect public safety through the ownership
and control of the vehicle fleet by the manufacturer of the automated
driving system. This style of deployment also encourages partnership
with local and state governments, which will help ensure full public
benefit from the technology.
In closing, GM enthusiastically supports policy initiatives to
accelerate the development and adoption of safe, high-level vehicle
automation through real-world projects.
I look forward to answering any questions you have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ableson.
Mr. De Vos?
STATEMENT OF GLEN W. De Vos, VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL ENGINEERING
AND SERVICES, DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE
Mr. De Vos. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman Thune,
Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, for giving me the
opportunity to testify on behalf of Delphi Automotive. My name
is Glen De Vos. I'm the Vice President of Engineering and
Services at Delphi. We're a high-tech company that integrates
safer, greener, and more connected solutions for the automotive
sector.
We spend more than $1.7 billion annually in engineering
development activities and operate major manufacturing and
technology centers across the United States. Delphi's portfolio
places us at the center of vehicle evolution and innovation,
making products smarter and safer as well as more powerful and
efficient.
I would like to start by thanking the Committee for
incorporating the Safety Through Informed Consumers, or STICRS,
Act into the FAST Act, which was signed into law last year. In
particular, I'd like to thank the bill sponsors, Senators
Heller and Markey, as well as Chairman Thune and Ranking Member
Nelson, for their successful effort to get STICRS enacted.
With the incorporation of STICRS, the FAST Act will speed
the adoption of active safety technology, also known as
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, or ADAS, through increased
consumer demand. The adoption of ADAS systems is a critical
step on the road to automated vehicles since those same systems
that will enable automated driving are part of today's active
safety systems.
As noted in our video, which we were, unfortunately, not
able to show, last year, we made a historic fifteen state,
3,400-mile journey from San Francisco to New York City with a
car that, for 99 percent of that driving time, was driven
without human input. The drive took place during daylight hours
and included an engineer behind the wheel with the ability to
assume control if the car encountered a situation where the
vehicle could not clearly navigate on its own.
The vehicle performed flawlessly. It was able to make
complex decisions necessary to drive safely across the country
while, unlike human drivers, remaining alert the entire time.
One of the primary takeaways from the cross-country drive
is that we have technology available today in the consumer
marketplace that can dramatically reduce deaths and injuries on
our roads. These technologies are not just lifesavers but, as
demonstrated by that drive, the building blocks for automated
cars of the future. This is true both from a technology
development as well as from a consumer adoption standpoint. As
a recent AAA survey confirmed, ADAS technology will help drive
consumer acceptance of vehicle autonomy.
The Committee's inclusion of STICRS in the FAST Act was a
major step forward in driving consumer adoption of ADAS. NHTSA
has responded and has announced its intention to modernize the
New Car Assessment Program to require passenger vehicles to
have ADAS systems in order to achieve a five-star rating. This
is great progress and should dramatically increase the
availability of active safety systems on vehicles at every
price point.
It is critical that we capture these safety improvements
quickly. STICRS requires NHTSA to promulgate the new NCAP rule
within a year of enactment, and it is important that this
timeline does not slip.
In an automated future, we need to be able to communicate
with not just the driver or the owner, but also the surrounding
environment. Knowing when traffic signals are going to change
and where vehicle traffic is heaviest not only adds to the
safety of the vehicle but allows the cars to be driven or to
drive themselves more efficiently. Keeping the necessary
spectrum both available and free from harmful interference is
critical as V2V and the Dedicated Short Range Communication, or
DSRC, systems that make it possible are rolled out.
It is also important to consider the manner in which
existing vehicles can be retrofitted to accommodate DSRC
requirements. There are approximately 262 million passenger
vehicles registered on the U.S. roadways with an average
vehicle age of eleven and a half years. Unless retrofitting is
built into the planning process, the rollout of DSRC may take
decades.
In addition to supporting technologies that are needed to
enable automated vehicles, Congress and the administration and
state governments will need to provide the flexibility and the
regulatory framework necessary to enable driverless car
development and deployment.
Senator Nelson. That's the hazard of not numbering the
pages.
[Laughter.]
Mr. De Vos. Or the hazard of not having my reading glasses.
Finally, as we talk about cybersecurity, Delphi is keenly
aware of the cyber threats associated with today's connected
vehicles and is taking measures that will enable a safe and
secure driving experience. We are participating in the Auto-
ISAC activities to further improve cybersecurity threats
through awareness and coordination across the country.
Delphi's dedicated engineering information and technology
resources are focused on cybersecurity matters, and we are
working with the NIST, SAE, as well as the OEM community to
ensure that we meet their requirements and leverage open source
and industry accepted information security protocols.
Thank you again for your time and the opportunity to
testify before the Committee today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. De Vos follows:]
Prepared Statement of Glen W. De Vos, Vice President, Global
Engineering and Services, Delphi Automotive
Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of
the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, for giving me
the opportunity to testify today on behalf of Delphi.
My name is Glen De Vos, and I am Vice President of Engineering and
Services for Delphi Automotive. Delphi is a high-technology company
that integrates safer, greener and more connected solutions for the
automotive sector. We invest more than $1.7 billion annually into
engineering development initiatives. In the U.S., Delphi operates major
manufacturing facilities, technical centers, and/or administrative
facilities in California, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, New York,
Mississippi and Texas that employ approximately 5,000 people. Delphi's
technology portfolio places it at the center of vehicle evolution and
innovation, making products smarter and safer as well as more powerful
and efficient.
Given our proven expertise with market-leading original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) around the world and our broad automotive systems
capabilities, we welcome the invitation to testify.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee for
incorporating the Safety Through Informed Consumers (STICRS) Act into
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act which was signed
into law last year. In particular, I would like to thank the bill's
sponsors, Senators Heller and Markey, as well as Chairman Thune and
Ranking Member Nelson for their successful efforts to get STICRS signed
into law.
With the addition of STICRS, the FAST Act will speed the adoption
of active safety technology, also known as Advanced Driver Assistance
Systems (ADAS), by increasing consumer demand. The adoption of ADAS
systems is a critical step on the road to automated vehicles since the
same systems that will enable automated driving are part of today's
active safety systems. I will talk more about the importance of these
technologies later in my testimony.
Delphi is particularly pleased to testify today about the future of
automated driving because the elements of the automated future all fit
within Delphi's core strategy of producing products that make cars
Safe, Green and Connected. To this end, in April of 2015, Delphi
completed the first automated vehicle cross-country drive.
I believe many of the lessons learned from that drive will be
instructive as Congress and the administration move aggressively
forward to make the needed infrastructure and legal changes necessary
to make autonomous vehicles a commercial success in the future.
Accordingly, I will provide an overview of the cross-country drive, the
existing technology that made it possible, and discuss some of the
lessons learned from the trip.
Description of cross-country drive
Delphi made history by completing a 15-state, 3,400-mile journey
from San Francisco to New York City with a car that, 99 percent of the
time, was driving without human input. The drive took place during
daylight hours and included an engineer behind the wheel with the
ability to assume control of the vehicle if the car encountered a
situation the vehicle could not clearly navigate on its own.
Description of onboard technologies associated with drive
Delphi installed a broad suite of our active safety technologies on
a 2014 Audi SQ5. The vehicle was equipped with the following
technologies:
Radar systems: Our vehicle uses a combination of short-and
long-range radars--Electronically Scanning Radars (ESR) and
Short Range Radars (SRR) in a 360+ configuration. The ESRs
specialize in long-range sensing functions, such as adaptive
cruise control and cross traffic detection.
Vision systems: The vehicle is equipped with three cameras
for vision-based perception: an ADAS camera, a high-resolution
color camera, and an infrared camera. The ADAS camera is used
for pedestrian, lane, and vehicle detection. The high-
definition color camera is used for traffic light detection and
the infrared camera provides redundancy for pedestrian and
vehicle detection.
Lidar: As opposed to the externally high-mounted, spinning
lidars used in many other autonomous platforms, our vehicles
use a fused system of lidars which are integrated around the
periphery of the vehicle. This approach enables 360 degree
coverage, while preserving the aesthetics of the vehicle. The
lidars generate a high-resolution point cloud that is helpful
for general object detection; particularly in densely packed
urban environments. Each lidar is paired with one of our ESRs,
which allows us to effectively fuse radar and lidar data.
Sensor fusion: The perception system on Delphi's automated
vehicles leverages our experience with multiple sensors through
highly complex fusion. Radar, vision and lidar-based sensors
each have unique strengths and weaknesses; fusing these sensors
allows them to compensate for one another and provide an
accurate picture of the driving environment with robust
detection of vehicles, pedestrians, and general objects.
V2X: Delphi's automated platforms make use of dedicated
short-range communication (DSRC) for collaborative
communication with infrastructure, such as traffic lights
(V2I), other vehicles (V2V) and pedestrians (V2P). V2X
communications provide redundancy that is especially useful in
urban environments with numerous traffic signals, vehicles, and
pedestrians.
Localization System: Delphi uses precision GPS information
for safely traveling through the driving environment; even when
the infrastructure is marginal (e.g., poor lane markings). In
situations with poor GPS reception, such as tunnels and urban
canyons, our vehicles make use of a highly accurate IMU
(inertial measurement system) for dead reckoning. Additionally,
the environmental sensors on the vehicle can pick out key
features of the environment for map-matching.
Drive-by-wire system: The drive-by-wire system featured in
Delphi's automated driving platforms is implemented in a manner
that preserves the function of the production vehicle's
steering and drivetrain. When manually operated, the vehicle
drives exactly as a production vehicle would. When auto mode is
engaged, the automated system uses the same vehicle input
interfaces as a human driver, which allows passengers to
directly see and feel how the vehicle is behaving. The
automated driving system is completely separable from the stock
system, which allows the driver to instantaneously assume full
control of the vehicle at any time.
Driver State Monitoring: Understanding the state of the
driver is a vital aspect of automated driving. Delphi's
automated driving platforms are equipped with state-of-the-art
driver state sensing systems, which allow the vehicle to
monitor the availability of the driver in situations where a
takeover may be necessary. If the driver is found to be
unavailable, the vehicle is capable of coming to a stop until
it is safe to proceed.
Multi-domain controller: As these active safety systems
become more complex and computing technologies consume greater
levels of processing power, Delphi's multi-domain controller
brings together multiple electronic sub-systems, or domains,
within a vehicle into a single, powerful control center. This
technology makes it possible for vehicles to quickly and
efficiently manage the massive flow of complex data through the
vehicle, which is required for automated features to work well.
Some of these same technologies are available on cars today in
consumer options such as Forward Collision Warning with Collision
Imminent Braking, Lane Departure Warning, and Blind Spot Detection.
A key component of ensuring the vehicle could function was the
integration of software and hardware. Vehicle technology is
increasingly software based and dependent. If you don't get the
software right, the car will not function.
Our vehicle performed flawlessly. It was able to make complex
decisions necessary to drive safely across the country while, unlike
human drivers, remaining alert the entire time.
Delphi engineers gathered more than two terabytes of data during
the trip, including computer data and video footage of everything
``seen'' by the car. A few observations from our trip:
Our vehicle was particularly cautious when approaching semi-
trucks in adjacent lanes. In situations where our vehicle
passed such large trucks, it remained in the center of its lane
rather than veering slightly to the far side of the lane.
Engineers were able to adjust the programming to address this
scenario.
Artificial intelligence gaps remain that require our
attention--such as ``which vehicle has the right of way'' upon
approaching a four-way stop when one vehicle nudges forward to
alert the other driver of its intention.
We noted that HOV lanes are perfect for automated driving
since lane markers are very clear. The idea of a dedicated lane
may prove useful as automated cars become more mainstream.
Even with the use of radar, cameras, and other sensors, aggressive
or speeding drivers can quickly appear during a lane-change,
compromising the effectiveness of these technologies.
Lessons learned from the drive provide a foundation for understanding
where we need to go from here.
Active safety ready and needed
One of the primary take-a-ways from the success of the cross-
country drive is that we have available today in the consumer
marketplace technology that, if more broadly adopted, will dramatically
reduce deaths and injuries on our roads. Specifically, today's active
safety technologies, or ADAS, operate well enough to drive a car on its
own--99 percent of the time. These technologies, when paired with a
driver, can address one of the greatest causes of premature deaths--
traffic crashes.
Every 30 seconds, there is a vehicular fatality somewhere in the
world. That equates to 1.2 million people who die worldwide each year.
It's a tragedy, and can be prevented. According to the World Health
Organization, less than 20 years from now traffic injuries are
projected to be the fifth leading cause of death worldwide--surpassing
HIV/AIDS, cancer, violence, and diabetes. The impact is not just on
lives lost, but on our global economy. Here in the United States,
vehicle fatalities have declined with the use and widespread adoption
of passive safety technologies such as seatbelts and airbags. However,
progress toward further fatality and injury reduction has stalled,
allowing over 33,000 fatalities annually in the US, and more than
200,000 serious injuries each year on our roadways. Additionally,
vehicular crashes continue to be the number one cause of fatalities for
people ages 4 to 34, with over 90 percent of crashes caused by driver
error. The financial impact is also staggering, with one study
estimating the total annual cost of road crashes in the United States
alone to be over $231 billion.
Active safety technologies are the key to reducing crashes,
injuries, and fatalities on our roadways. Government and industry
groups have studied the benefit potential for these technologies for
well over a decade. In particular, a recent study by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) states a 31 percent reduction in
fatalities is possible with full deployment of active safety systems
across the vehicle fleet, namely, Forward Collision Warning with
Collision Imminent Braking, Lane Departure Warning, and Blind Spot
Detection. This reduction amounts to a potential savings of over 11,000
U.S. lives per year.
These technologies are not just life savers, but, as demonstrated
by our cross-country drive, the building blocks for the automated cars
of the future. A key element of broader penetration of active safety
technologies in the U.S. fleet is consumer awareness and demand.
How the government can help--Modernize NCAP
This Committee's inclusion of STICRS in the FAST Act was a major
step forward in driving consumer adoption of ADAS. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has responded and has announced
its intentions to modernize the New Car Assessment Program, or NCAP--
which includes the 5-star rating system that appears on all new vehicle
window stickers--to require passenger vehicles to have ADAS systems in
order to achieve a 5-star rating.
This is great progress and should dramatically increase the
availability of active safety systems on vehicles at every price-point.
It is critical that we capture these safety improvements quickly.
STICRS requires NHTSA to promulgate its new NCAP rule within a year of
enactment of the FAST Act. NHTSA has indicated its intention to meet
this deadline, but it is important that the timeline does not slip.
Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Infrastructure (V2X)_a critical element
In an automated future, cars will need to be able to communicate
not just with their owner but also the surrounding environment, other
vehicles and infrastructure. Knowing when traffic signals are going to
change and where traffic is heaviest not only adds to the safety of the
vehicle but allows cars to be driven, or drive themselves, more
efficiently.
The roll-out of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure
(together V2X) including in-vehicle Dedicated Short Range
Communications (DSRC) systems that allow for V2X communication will be
critical.
How can the government help? By protecting the needed spectrum and
requiring V2X receivers be built into cars in the future
The Commerce Committee has already been active and helpful in
negotiating an agreement that will allow the spectrum necessary for V2X
to be protected from harmful interference without barring compatible
uses. Obviously with any life-saving technology, any disruption in the
communication signal from interference cannot be allowed. Keeping the
necessary spectrum both available and free from harmful interference is
critical as V2X communication systems are rolled-out in vehicles and
infrastructure.
The STICRS rulemaking is not the only important policy issue
requiring the release of a NHTSA rule. In August of 2014, the
Department of Transportation announced it would issue a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) creating a requirement for adding V2V
communications capacity to the U.S. light vehicle fleet and minimum
performance requirements for V2V devices and messages.
V2X can deliver important safety benefits in the mid-term and is a
necessity for wide-spread autonomous vehicles adoption in the long-
term. The release of the NPRM will be an important step forward.
In addition, it is important to not only consider DSRC in new
vehicles, but also the manner in which existing vehicles can be
retrofitted to accommodate DSRC requirements. There are approximately
262 million registered passenger vehicles on U.S. roadways with the
average vehicle age being 11.5 years. Unless retrofitting is built into
the planning process, the roll-out of DSRC will take decades.
Rules of the road_need to permit driverless cars
In addition to supporting the technologies that are needed to
enable automated vehicles, Congress, the Administration, and state
governments will need to provide the flexibility necessary to enable
driverless cars.
Uniform rules that allow for the safe operation of driverless
vehicles in all 50 states will be critical. As production vehicles move
from drive assist technology to full automation, varying requirements
ranging from state mandates that licensed drivers must be in vehicles
at all times, to Federal requirements dictating the positioning of
dashboard controls that presume a driver, will need to be assessed and
addressed.
Another example would be the need to address the variation in lane
markings across states and communities. During Delphi's cross-country
drive, the automated vehicle encountered some roadways with wide white
stripes, while others had narrow yellow markings. Some lane markings
were new, others were faded, and some were marked with raised bumps.
Delphi will have to further train its cameras to detect all kinds of
lane markings, since that's one way autonomous cars keep themselves
centered in a lane.
Consumer adoption_public's trust can be earned
A March 1, 2016 AAA survey of American drivers found that only one
in five would trust a self-driving car. The same survey, however, found
that over sixty percent of drivers would like active safety--or ADAS--
technologies on their vehicles. Active safety is clearly going to be
critical to the transition to automated driving, not just because the
underlying technologies are building blocks for autonomous vehicle but
also because consumer acceptance of self-driving cars will develop as
driver-assist technologies proliferate.
The bottom line is that the road to driverless vehicles is paved
with life-saving drive-assist technologies that will make cars safer
now, and into the immediate future, while setting the stage for fully
autonomous vehicles.
Cyber security_a key element moving forward
Delphi is keenly aware of the cyber threats associated with today's
connected vehicles, and is taking measures that will enable a safe and
secure driving experience. Accordingly, Delphi has committed to
participate in the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center
(Auto-ISAC) to further improve cyber security threat awareness and
coordination across the industry. The Auto-ISAC provides a forum for
information exchange among entities in the automotive industry for the
purpose of sharing trusted and timely cyber threat information about
existing or potential cyber-related threats and vulnerabilities in
light duty on-road passenger vehicle electronics and associated
networks.
Delphi considers all aspects of a connected vehicle and associated
embedded technology--to include software, hardware, and architectural
elements that connect the vehicle. While building products and systems
according to OE customer specifications, our technical experts work to
better understand vulnerabilities such that we can alert OEs and
consumers to potential cyber threats--followed by working towards
providing a solution.
Delphi has dedicated engineering and information technology
resources focused on cybersecurity matters. To provide further
leadership in this area, Delphi is working with several experienced
organizations to ensure a coordinated approach to the safety and
security of connected vehicles. These efforts are realized through
various channels, including (1) active leadership and participation in
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) and others; as well as working with Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to ensure that the products we engineer
meet OEM specifications, and leverage open source and industry accepted
information security protocols.
In addition, Delphi strategically engineers safety into technology.
For example:
Engine Control Units or ECUs--These devices are developed
with a secure boot and programming functionality, so only valid
and trusted programs and software are executed.
Encryption--The wireless connectivity is protected using
industry standards to protect the vehicle network and user's
privacy. This includes security to authenticate and gain access
(WiFi Protected Access 2 or WPA2), as well as transmission
security across the wireless connection (using TLS or Transport
Layer Security) across the broader network and internet.
Device Connection--Leveraging Bluetooth to connect a user's
personal devices, but ensuring that connection is via Secure
Simple Pairing (or SSP) which allows for encryption of data
between linked devices, thus providing additional security.
Delphi is also working with a number of organizations to ensure a
coordinated approach to the safety and security of interconnected
vehicles. These include:
International Organizations: Adoption of ISO guidelines
(including ISO 26262) to ensure a standardized approach to
enabling a safe driving experience. Active leadership and
participation in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and
others.
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs): Delphi ensures that
products engineered by the Company meet the OEM specifications,
and leverage open source and industry accepted information
security protocols.
Internal Structure and Governance: Delphi has a dedicated
team of engineers, technology professionals, and legal
professionals to provide the necessary oversight in the space
of cybersecurity and interconnected vehicles. A steering
committee meets regularly and provides appropriate guidance
with respect to policies, procedures, and standards. Delphi
considers this a very real threat that must be managed.
Pilots_can make a difference
The FAST Act set a great foundation to build towards the roll-out
of widely-available automated vehicles. The Obama Administration's
announcement of a ten-year, $4 billion effort to ``accelerate the
development and adoption of safe vehicle automation through real-world
pilot projects'' through the programs authorized by the FAST Act
demonstrates the broad support for moving the U.S. to an automated
future. Clearly a coordinated multi-year effort is warranted and we
look forward to working with this Committee, Congress and the
Administration to make the effort a success.
Federal R&D_is important
Finally, Delphi supports Federal R&D efforts in this area. The ITS
program plays an important role in enhancing the government's ability
to assess new technologies and lay the foundation for their roll-out.
ITS has focused its efforts recently on V2V and V2I roll-out--both
important objectives. ITS should place equal importance on needed
analysis and research into active safety such as collision avoidance
and mitigation technologies that are key building blocks for autonomous
vehicles. Both V2V enabled and non-V2V enabled collision avoidance and
mitigation technologies will be critical to the success of the
driverless car. On-board active safety also has the added benefit of
saving lives even before V2V communications technologies reach critical
mass in the U.S. fleet. Furthermore, non-V2V systems continue to
operate in situations where the vehicle encounters communications
interference. On-board active safety should be a priority for the ITS
program.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before your
Committee today. Delphi looks forward to playing an important role on
the road to automated vehicles. As we look to a driverless future, we
should work to democratize the availability of today's proven
technology. Broad scale adoption of active safety will not only lay the
foundation for the driverless cars of the future, but will save lives
now. Delphi stands ready to assist this Committee as you forge the road
ahead in advanced transportation technology, and I'll be happy to
answer your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. De Vos.
Mr. Okpaku?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH OKPAKU, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, LYFT
Mr. Okpaku. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and
members of the Committee, good afternoon. My name is Joseph
Okpaku, and I am the Vice President of Government Relations for
Lyft. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this
very exciting and important topic.
My fellow panelists represent all the components required
for the successful deployment of autonomous vehicles. You have
the auto manufacturers with the expertise in designing and
building autonomous vehicles. You have the parts manufacturers
whose products will be vital to making these cars run. You have
the best engineering minds in the world, who have made it
possible for these cars to be safer than human drivers. And you
have Lyft, a company perfectly suited to bring this technology
to cities and consumers all across the country.
There are at least two other equally important components
that will determine the future of autonomous vehicles. The
first is the interaction of everyday people with these new
vehicles, and the second is the much more unpredictable
interface of the Government with this entirely new
transportation resource. Lyft has unique experience in these
two areas, and this is where I'll focus my testimony.
Lyft launched 4 years ago as the first digital platform
that uses a smart phone to allow people to give other people a
ride in their personal vehicle. Lyft's goal was to encourage
people to give up their own vehicles and instead use the empty
seats in a neighbor's car. In order to accomplish this, we knew
that certain critical factors needed to be addressed.
First, it had to be safe. Extensive background checks for
drivers were a must, followed by unprecedented transparency and
accountability for everybody involved in the ride. Innovations
that include real-time consumer feedback and automatically e-
mailed digital receipts with the ride route, driver name, and
driver picture are a key part of the reason for the rapid
adoption of Lyft. It's also why 30 percent of our drivers and
the majority of riders are women.
Second, the service had to be efficient for drivers to
participate. It is easy for a driver to apply to drive on the
platform--they can initiate the process from their smart
phone--but difficult for them to qualify. Third, for consumers,
we knew that a vehicle had to arrive within minutes of pressing
a button for it to feel like a good alternative to grabbing
your own keys and driving your own car.
In a few short years, these key principles have enabled an
entirely new transportation industry to evolve out of
preexisting and largely idle resources. By any measure, it is
remarkable, and it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't safe,
affordable, and convenient.
This rapid evolution of the transportation industry has
clearly demonstrated that consumers are increasingly willing to
give up the steering wheel and instead have a vehicle arrive at
the push of a button. One recent statistic from the University
of Michigan clearly underscores this shift in consumer
priorities. In 1983, 46 percent of 16-year-olds obtained a
driver's license. In 2014, that figure dropped to 24 percent.
That's a 50 percent change in something that I was 100 percent
certain that I wanted more than anything else when I was 16
years old.
Something very real and fundamental is shifting here. We
are on the doorstep of another evolutionary leap in
transportation and technology, where concepts that could once
only be imagined in science fiction are on the verge of
becoming a reality.
The partnership between Lyft and General Motors is based
upon the knowledge that autonomous vehicles can bring enormous
benefits in road safety, congestion, and public spending on
parking infrastructure, just to name a few. This partnership is
also founded on the shared understanding that the fastest way
to bring these benefits of autonomous vehicles to consumers is
via a ride-sharing network like Lyft's.
To be sure, there are very serious challenges to be faced
in bringing the full value of autonomous vehicles to market for
mass consumption. And the greatest potential obstacle is
constrictive legislation and regulations. The worst possible
scenario for the growth of autonomous vehicles is an
inconsistent and conflicting patchwork of local, municipal, and
county laws that will hamper efforts to bring autonomous
vehicle technology to market.
Regulations are necessary, but regulatory restraint and
consistency is equally as important if we are going to allow
this industry to reach its full potential. This is an area
where Lyft has vast experience and has learned very valuable
lessons. Three years ago, only one state had issued a
regulatory framework for the ride-sharing industry. Today, 30
states have enacted legislation for this industry, with another
bill currently sitting on a Governor's desk awaiting signature.
This is the experience that Lyft brings to the table as we
embark upon a mission of providing autonomous vehicles to the
public. With the help of this body, a dedicated effort to
tackle hard questions, and a commitment to ensure that
regulation doesn't inhibit innovation, we can succeed. We look
forward to working with this committee to ensure that
autonomous vehicles can arrive safely and efficiently on
America's roads.
I thank the Committee for holding this hearing and for
working toward this common goal, and I'm happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Okpaku follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph Okpaku, Vice President,
Government Relations, Lyft
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and members of the Committee.
My name is Joseph Okpaku and I am the Vice President of Government
Relations for Lyft. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
this very exciting and important topic.
The development of autonomous vehicles is at a pivotal moment.
Autonomous vehicle technology has the potential to bring immense
benefits to consumers, commuters, city planners, and governments. Lyft
is excited to take our extensive experience bringing radical innovation
to transportation by way of ridesharing and applying this experience to
the world of autonomous vehicles. We are also eager to be a resource
for this committee, and others like it that are tasked with developing
policy that fosters the growth of the autonomous vehicle industry.
My fellow panelists represent all the components required for the
successful deployment of autonomous vehicles: you have the auto
manufacturers with the expertise in designing and building autonomous
vehicles. You have parts manufacturers whose products will be vital for
making these cars run. You have the best engineering minds in the world
who have made it possible for these cars to be safer than human
drivers. And you have Lyft, a company perfectly suited to bring this
technology to cities and consumers all across the country.
There are at least two other, equally important components that
will determine the future of autonomous vehicles. The first is the
interaction of everyday people with these new vehicles, and the second
is the much more unpredictable interface of the government with this
entirely new transportation resource.
Lyft has unique experience in these two areas and this is where
I'll focus my testimony.
Lyft launched four years ago as the first digital platform that
uses a smartphone to allow people to give other people a ride in their
personal vehicle.
Lyft's goal was to encourage people to give up their own vehicles
and instead use the empty seats in a neighbor's car. In order to
accomplish this, we knew that certain critical factors needed to be
addressed.
First, it had to be safe. Extensive background checks for drivers
were a must, followed by unprecedented transparency and accountability
for everyone involved in the ride.
Innovations that include real time consumer feedback and
automatically e-mailed digital receipts with the ride route, driver
name and driver picture are a key part the reason for the rapid
adoption of Lyft. It's also why 30 percent of our drivers and the
majority of riders are women.
Second, the service had to be efficient for drivers to participate.
It is easy for a driver to apply to drive on the platform--they can
initiate the process from their phone--but difficult for them to
qualify.
Third, for consumers, we knew that a vehicle had to arrive within
minutes of pressing a button for it to feel like a good alternative to
grabbing your own keys and driving your own car.
In a few short years, these key principles have enabled an entirely
new transportation industry to evolve out of pre-existing and largely
idle resources. By any measure it is remarkable and it wouldn't have
happened if it wasn't safe, affordable, and convenient.
This rapid evolution of the transportation industry has clearly
demonstrated that consumers are increasingly willing to give up the
steering wheel and instead have a vehicle arrive at the push of a
button.
One recent statistic from the University of Michigan clearly
underscores this shift in consumer priorities. In 1983, 46 percent of
sixteen year olds obtained a driver's license. In 2014, that figure has
dropped to twenty four percent.
That's a fifty percent change in something that I was a hundred
percent certain I wanted more than anything else when I was sixteen.
Something very real and fundamental is shifting here.
We are on the doorstep of another evolutionary leap in
transportation and technology, where concepts that once could only be
imagined in science fiction are on the verge of becoming a reality. The
partnership between Lyft and General Motors is based upon the knowledge
that autonomous vehicles can bring enormous benefits in road safety,
congestion, and public spending on parking infrastructure, just to name
a few. This partnership is also founded on the shared understanding
that the fastest way to bring the benefits of autonomous vehicles to
consumers is via a ridesharing network like Lyft's.
To be sure, there are very serious challenges to be faced in
bringing the full value of autonomous vehicles to market for mass
consumption, and the greatest potential obstacle is constrictive
legislation and regulations. The worst possible scenario for the growth
of autonomous vehicles is an inconsistent and conflicting patchwork of
local, municipal and county laws that will hamper efforts to bring AV
technology to market. Regulations are necessary, but regulatory
restraint and consistency is equally as important if we are going to
allow this industry to reach its full potential.
This is an area where Lyft has vast experience and has learned very
valuable lessons. Three years ago, only one state had issued a
regulatory framework for the ridesharing industry. Today, 30 states
have enacted legislation for this industry, with another bill currently
sitting on a Governor's desk awaiting signature.
Over this period, we have spent thousands of hours meeting with
lawmakers, regulators, and law enforcement in order to help craft
innovative and appropriate legislation. We've met with the foremost
academic minds and industry experts. We've given testimony at hundreds
of proceedings. This is the experience that Lyft brings to the table as
we embark on the mission of providing autonomous vehicles to the
public.
With the help of this body, a dedicated effort to tackle hard
questions, and a commitment to ensure that regulation doesn't inhibit
innovation, we can succeed.
We look forward to working with this committee to ensure that
autonomous vehicles can arrive safely and efficiently on America's
roads.
I thank the Committee for holding this hearing and working towards
this common goal. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Okpaku.
Dr. Cummings?
STATEMENT OF DR. MARY (``MISSY'') LOUISE CUMMINGS,
DIRECTOR, HUMANS AND AUTONOMY LABORATORY;
DIRECTOR, DUKE ROBOTICS; PROFESSOR OF
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND MATERIAL SCIENCE;
PROFESSOR OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, DUKE
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Cummings. Thank you. Thank you for having me back. Good
afternoon, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and
distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss issues about the
future of self-driving cars.
I am the Director of the Duke Robotics Program and Duke
University's Humans and Autonomy Laboratory, which focuses on
the multifaceted interactions of humans and autonomous systems
and complex socio-technical systems. I have conducted driving
research and provided future technology recommendations to
automotive manufacturers for more than a dozen years, including
Ford, Nissan, Toyota, Google X--thanks, Chris.
I was the Program Manager for a $100 million Navy robotics
helicopter that carries the very same sets of sensors that
you'll see on many autonomous cars today. I am also currently
conducting research for the National Science Foundation on the
interaction of self-driving cars and pedestrians.
While I enthusiastically support the research and
development of self-driving cars, I'm less optimistic about
what I perceive to be a rush to field systems that are really
not ready for widespread deployment. Here are a few scenarios
that highlight the limitations of current self-driving cars.
The first is operation in bad weather, including standing
water on roadways, drizzling rain, sudden downpours, and snow.
Coupling these limitations with the inability of self-driving
cars to follow a traffic policeman's gestures, especially on a
rainy day in a poncho, means that self-driving cars should not
really be operating near elementary schools at this time.
Another major problem with self-driving cars is our
vulnerability to malevolent or even prankster intent. For
example, it is relatively easy to spoof the GPS of self-driving
vehicles, which involves hacking into their systems and guiding
them off course. Without proper security systems in place, it
is feasible that people could commandeer self-driving vehicles
to do their bidding, which could be malicious or simply just
for the thrill of it.
And while such hacking represents a worst case scenario,
there are many other potentially disruptive problems to be
considered. It is not uncommon in many parts of the country for
people to drive with GPS jammers in the backs of their trunks
to make sure no one knows where they are, which could be very
disruptive to the system.
Additionally, recent research has shown that a $60 laser
device can trick self-driving cars into sensing objects that
are not there. Moreover, we know that people will attempt to
game and spoof self-driving cars, in effect, trying to elicit
or prevent various behaviors in attempts to get ahead of the
cars or simply to have fun.
Last, privacy and control of personal data is also going to
be a major point of contention. These cars carry cameras that
look both in and outside the car and will transmit these images
and telemetry data in real time, including where you are going
and your driving habits. Who has access to this data, whether
it is secure, and whether it can be used for other commercial
or government purposes has yet to be addressed.
So given that these and other issues need to be addressed
before widespread deployment of these cars takes place, but
understanding very much that there are clear potential economic
and safety advantages, how can we get there with minimal risk
exposure? In my opinion, the self-driving car community is
deficient in its testing programs with no leadership that
should be provided by NHTSA.
Google X, Chris just told you, has advertised that its cars
have driven 1.4 million miles, and I applaud this achievement.
But New York taxicabs drive 1.4 million miles in just a little
over a day. This assertion is indicative of a larger problem in
robotics in self-driving cars and in drones, which we've
discussed before, where demonstrations are substituted for
principle testing. Rand says that to verify self-driving cars
are as safe as human drivers, 275 million miles must be driven
fatality free.
So that means we need a significantly accelerated self-
driving testing program, but it is not simply good enough to
let these cars operate in California or southern Texas to
accrue miles. NHTSA needs to provide leadership for a testing
program that ensures that self-driving cars are rigorously
tested for what engineers call the corner cases, which are
extreme conditions in which these cars will operate.
We know that many of the sensors on self-driving cars are
not reliable in bad weather, in urban canyons, or places where
map data bases are out of date. We know gesture recognition is
a problem. We know humans will get in the back seat while they
think their cars are on autopilot. We know people will try to
hack into these systems.
Given self-driving cars' heavy dependence on probabilistic
reasoning and the sheer complexity of the driving domain, there
are many unknowns that these systems will encounter. But there
are also many known knowns in self-driving cars that we are
aware of that are not being openly tested in a principled and
rigorous manner that would be expected in similar
transportation settings.
For example, the FAA has clear certification processes for
aircraft software, and we would never let commercial aircraft
execute automatic landings without verifiable test evidence
approved by the FAA. However, any certification of self-driving
cars will not be possible until manufacturers provide greater
transparency and disclose how they are testing their cars.
Moreover, they should make such data publicly available for
expert validation.
Let me reiterate that as a professor in the field of
robotics and human interaction, I am wholeheartedly in support
of the research and development of self-driving cars. But these
systems will not be ready for fielding until we move away from
demonstrations to transparency and evidence-based testing,
including human-autonomous system interaction and sensor and
system vulnerabilities in all environmental extremes. To this
end, in collaboration with private industry, NHTSA needs to
provide much stronger leadership and guidance in this space.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cummings follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary Cummings, Ph.D., Director, Humans and
Autonomy Laboratory Director, Duke Robotics, Professor of Mechanical
Engineering and Materials Science, Professor of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Duke University
Good afternoon Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and
distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you to discuss issues related to the future of self-
driving cars in the United States.
I am the Director of Duke Robotics and the Duke University Humans
and Autonomy Laboratory, which focuses on the multifaceted interactions
of humans and autonomous systems in complex sociotechnical settings. I
have conducted driving research and provided future technology
recommendations to automotive manufacturers for more than a dozen years
including Ford, Nissan, Toyota, and Google X.\1\ I was the program
manager for a $100 million Navy robotics helicopter that carries
sensors very similar to those on self-driving cars. I am also currently
conducting research for the National Science Foundation on the
interaction of self-driving cars and pedestrians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the attached paper, Cummings, M.L., & J. C Ryan, ``Who Is
in Charge? Promises and Pitfalls of Driverless Cars.'' TR News, (May-
June 2014) 292, p. 25-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I enthusiastically support the research, development, and
testing of self-driving cars, as human limitations and the propensity
for distraction are real threats on the road, I am decidedly less
optimistic about what I perceive to be a rush to field systems that are
absolutely not ready for widespread deployment, and certainly not ready
for humans to be completely taken out of the driver's seat.
The development of self-driving car technologies has led to
important advances in automotive safety including lane departure
prevention and crash avoidance systems. While such advances are
necessary stepping stones towards fully capable self-driving cars,
going from automated lane changing or automated parking to a car that
can autonomously execute safe control under all possible driving
conditions is a huge leap that companies are not ready to make.
Here are a few scenarios that highlight limitations of current
self-driving car technologies: The first is operation in bad weather
including standing water on roadways, drizzling rain, sudden downpours,
and snow. These limitations will be especially problematic when coupled
with the inability of self-driving cars to follow a traffic policeman's
gestures.
Another major problem with self-driving cars is their vulnerability
to malevolent or even prankster intent. Self-driving car cyberphysical
security issues are real, and will have to be addressed before any
widespread deployment of this technology occurs. For example, it is
relatively easy to spoof the GPS (Global Positioning System) of self-
driving vehicles, which involves hacking into their systems and guiding
them off course. Without proper security systems in place, it is
feasible that people could commandeer self-driving vehicles (both in
the air and on the ground) to do their bidding, which could be
malicious or simply just for the thrill and sport of it.
And while such hacking represents a worst-case scenario, there are
many other potentially disruptive problems to be considered. It is not
uncommon in many parts of the country for people to drive with GPS
jammers in their trunks to make sure no one knows where they are, which
is very disruptive to other nearby cars relying on GPS. Additionally,
recent research has shown that a $60 laser device can trick self-
driving cars into seeing objects that aren't there. Moreover, we know
that people, including bicyclists, pedestrians and others drivers,
could and will attempt to game self-driving cars, in effect trying to
elicit or prevent various behaviors in attempts to get ahead of the
cars or simply to have fun.
Lastly, privacy and control of personal data is also going to be a
major point of contention. These cars carry cameras that look both in
and outside the car, and will transmit these images and telemetry data
in real time, including where you are going and your driving habits.
Who has access to this data, whether it is secure, and whether it can
be used for other commercial or government purposes has yet to be
addressed.
So given that these and other issues need to be addressed before
widespread deployment of these cars, but understanding that there are
clear potential economic and safety advantages, how can we get there
with minimal risk exposure for the American public? In my opinion, the
self-driving car community is woefully deficient in its testing and
evaluation programs (or at least in the dissemination of their test
plans and data), with no leadership that notionally should be provided
by NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). Google X has
advertised that its cars have driven 2 million miles accident free, and
while I applaud this achievement, New York taxi cabs drive two million
miles in a day and a half. This 2 million mile assertion is indicative
of a larger problem in robotics, especially in self-driving cars and
drones, where demonstrations are substituted for rigorous testing.
RAND Corporation says that to verify self-driving cars are as safe
as human drivers, 275 million miles must be driven fatality free. So
that means we need a significantly accelerated self-driving testing
program, but it is not simply good enough to let self-driving cars
operate in California or southern Texas to accrue miles. NHTSA needs to
provide leadership for a testing program that ensures that self-driving
cars are rigorously tested for what engineers call the ``corner
cases'', which are the extreme conditions in which cars will operate.
We know that many of the sensors on self-driving cars are not reliable
in good weather, in urban canyons, or places where the map databases
are out of date. We know gesture recognition is a serious problem,
especially in real world settings. We know humans will get in the back
seat while they think their cars are on ``autopilot''. We know people
will try to hack into these systems.
Given self-driving cars' heavy dependence on probabilistic
reasoning and the sheer complexity of the driving domain, to paraphrase
Donald Rumsfeld, there are many unknown unknowns that we will encounter
with these systems. But there are many known knowns in self-driving
cars that we are absolutely aware of that are not being addressed or
tested (or test results published) in a principled and rigorous manner
that would be expected in similar transportation settings. For example,
the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) has clear certification
processes for aircraft software, and we would never let commercial
aircraft execute automatic landings without verifiable test evidence,
approved by the FAA. To this end, any certification of self-driving
cars should not be possible until manufacturers provide greater
transparency and disclose how they are testing their cars. Moreover,
they should make such data publicly available for expert validation.
Because of the lack of safety evidence, I agree with California's
recent ruling that requires a human in the driver's seat. However,
while I generally support individual state governance on these issues,
the complexity of the operation and testing of robotic self-driving
cars necessitates strong leadership by NHTSA, which has generally been
absent. But as I testified in front of this committee two years ago,\2\
the U.S. Government cannot and has not maintained sufficient staffing
in the number of people it needs who can understand, much less manage,
complex systems such as self-driving cars. So it is not clear whether
NHTSA or any other government agency can provide the leadership needed
to ensure safety on American roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``The Future of Unmanned Aviation in the U.S. Economy: Safety
and Privacy Considerations'', January 15th, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me reiterate that as a professor in the field of robotics and
human interaction, I am wholeheartedly in support of the research and
development of self-driving cars. But these systems will not be ready
for fielding until we move away from superficial demonstrations to
principled, evidenced--based tests and evaluations, including testing
human/autonomous system interactions and sensor and system
vulnerabilities in environmental extremes. To this end, in
collaboration with private industry, NHSTA should be providing strong
leadership and guidance in this space.
Attachment
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Cummings.
I think we do have--we can try this. If you want to turn to
the monitor there, this is something I think from Delphi and
Google.
[Video presentation.]
The Chairman. Great. Well, thank you again, all of you, for
being here and for sharing your thoughts on this subject. We'll
get into some rounds of questions now. I wanted to start by
just asking kind of a general one, because I think we're
talking about something that often was thought of as very
futuristic, and there are manufacturers who expect that these
cars are going to be on the market in just a few years.
All of you have different roles in this area. But when do
you think these types of cars will be ready and available in
the marketplace? I'll just open that up to the panel if anybody
would like to respond to that. What's the time frame we're
talking about?
Mr. Ableson. From GM's perspective, the way we envision
introducing this technology into use in the public is through
the idea of a ride-sharing fleet. We think this gives access to
a wide part of the public, including underserved communities.
We would introduce it originally as vehicles with drivers,
because we do agree we need to collect data and make sure that
the systems are operating as we expect them to before we
actually start deploying the vehicles without drivers. We think
this offers a framework that we can develop and deploy this
technology in a very safe way.
To your question on timing, we would expect the vehicles
with drivers to appear within the next couple of years, and
then when they actually start working without drivers will
depend on how the technology develops and what the criteria
agreed with the regulators are.
The Chairman. Mr. Okpaku, how will Lyft's partnership with
GM on autonomous vehicles more rapidly advance the future of
mobility? How does that bear on the timing question?
Mr. Okpaku. Sure. Chairman Thune, thank you for the
question. I think the starting point for the answer is our
experience in the explosion of the ride-sharing industry. A few
short years ago, as I mentioned in my testimony, the idea of
getting into a stranger's car was pretty much unheard of. It
was something that your mother warned you against. And yet
through the safety innovations that Lyft implemented, we got
people very comfortable with the idea of riding in a stranger's
car, and we did so at a scalable rate that allowed us to expand
to nearly 200 different cities in less than 4 years.
So it's this ability not only to use innovation to enhance
the customer experience and to ensure safety, but to reach a
mass audience that we think we will be using to ensure the
quick deployment of autonomous vehicles to the community at
large. We have the ability to reach a nationwide audience very
quickly with our technology.
And, frankly, given the cost that will most likely be
involved with the first generations of autonomous vehicles,
this will be the most cost effective way of getting it to the
public as well. So this is the role that Lyft envisions for
itself as part of this process.
The Chairman. If I could get some of you to react to some
of the concerns that were raised by Dr. Cummings. She mentioned
weather, hacking, privacy, obviously, the transparency of the
test and that sort of thing. When you talk about them not
performing as well under those types of circumstances, to those
of you who are involved in the development and testing of these
things, how do you respond to some of those concerns?
Mr. De Vos. I think the first thing to know is when we talk
about automated driving cars, we're talking about multiple
types of sensors, radar, lidar, vision, as well as V2V and V-
to-X. So each of those technologies has strengths and
weaknesses. In some cases, vision or lidar may be compromised
by weather, but radar is very strong in weather and, similarly,
with other conditions.
So the key is by having a multi-modal or a multi-sensor
approach, you expand your range of coverage and your
performance envelope. So it's absolutely true that sensors have
strengths and weaknesses, but by combining those sensors, you
end up with a much, much more capable package, certainly
greater perception capability than an individual driver relying
on vision alone.
The Chairman. Dr. Urmson, in response to a Google inquiry,
NHTSA has said that some Federal motor vehicle safety standards
will require additional rulemaking in order to allow for
Google's self-driving car features. Are you concerned that
Google's ability to continue to develop and deploy these
technologies will be impeded by NHTSA's need to update its
rules through what could be a very lengthy rulemaking process?
Dr. Urmson. Chairman Thune, that's really, I think, an
important question, because many of the companies at the table
here have been involved in developing this technology, and
America is currently very much in a leadership position in this
space. With that said, we look at what's happening in Europe,
we look at what's happening in China and Japan, and they're hot
on our heels. And, in fact, not a day goes by where a company,
particularly from China, is not trying to recruit engineers
from our team and poach talent.
From our perspective, this technology is advancing at an
incredible rate, and we need to see the safety benefits, we
need to see the mobility and access benefits, and we need to
see the economic benefits in America first. And by finding a
way to give NHTSA an approval process that would allow them to
expedite in a very safe way innovative technologies in
transportation, that will allow us to continue this technology
here in the United States.
The Chairman. And this question could be to the companies
that want to respond to this. But NHTSA recently determined
that Google's self-driving system could be interpreted as the
driver for purposes of NHTSA rules. Conversely, the California
DMV has proposed requiring a licensed operator to be present in
an autonomous vehicle.
So how will the concept of driver change with deployment of
self-driving cars, and how should we resolve potential
conflicts such as the one I just mentioned?
Mr. Ableson. I think to the point of the technology without
the driver, at some point, you need to designate the vehicle
can operate without a driver. So I think the NHTSA
interpretation, in order to encourage the rollout of this
technology, is entirely appropriate. As far as working with the
states, we at General Motors will continues to work with the
various states to try and craft legislation, understanding the
complementary roles that the Federal Government and the states
play in this area.
The Chairman. Do you see the Federal role in all of this,
in terms of the way the government plays--or, I should say,
having a role when it comes to ensuring that there's a
nationwide market? Does the Federal Government have a role in
this?
Mr. Ableson. So what obviously would be an issue for any of
us working in this area is if we end up with the states--with a
widely varied patchwork of regulation that's inconsistent from
state to state. Obviously, we all, when we develop these
vehicles, would envision them crossing state lines. So we
absolutely need and support NHTSA's initiative to give guidance
to the states on legislation in this area and look forward to
that initiative and that helping us in working with the states.
The Chairman. My time is up.
Senator Nelson?
Senator Nelson. We do a lot of neat things to protect the
national security--cyber attacks, worms, GPS jamming, et
cetera.
Dr. Cummings, what are we going to do to protect this
technology?
Dr. Cummings. I think that this problem of cyber physical
security is not just unique to drones. It's certainly present
in all transportation industries. So I think that there are
many lessons to be learned. Certainly, the military is working
on some technologies that are helping. There are a lot of
companies that are getting into the anti-drone community that
are bringing new technologies to bear.
So I think it's a maturity of the industry that we're going
to have to see, and it's going to be a multidimensional
solution. It's not going to be easy. But I'm hoping that my
peers who are at the table--and I'm sure that they will--we're
just going to have to start having dedicated focus in these
areas instead of just leaving it up to the military, for
example, to develop.
Senator Nelson. Well, it's interesting that you mention
drones, because tomorrow, in this committee, we're going to
mark up the FAA bill. And one of the things that we're
concerned about is putting the drone in the flight path of
either an inbound or an outbound airliner. If the drone gets
sucked into the jet engine, that's a catastrophic failure.
There are technologies available, which have already been
demonstrated to the Chairman and me, that take over that drone.
And sooner or later, we're probably going to have to employ
such technologies in the vicinity of airports.
So what are the needed protections for autonomous vehicles?
You saw the 60 Minutes program where researchers completely
take over the car. What's the answer? Anybody?
Mr. Ableson. So from GM's standpoint, we think
cybersecurity is, obviously, an important issue in this area,
and it's something that we've spent time thinking about. We
have more 4GLTE data connected vehicles on the road by far than
any other OEM.
We started an in-house cybersecurity organization. It's the
first one and the only one as far as we know in the industry.
Inside of that cybersecurity organization, we use a technique
learned from other industries, employing a red team that goes
in and actively tries to identify vulnerabilities in our
systems.
The senior executive in charge of this cybersecurity
organization reports on a regular basis to both the CEO and the
board on these matters. Jeff Massimilla, that senior executive,
also happens to be the Vice Chairman of the Auto-ISAC Committee
that was set up to share information among OEMs in the industry
on vulnerabilities, and that committee, we believe, has been
very effective.
Senator Nelson. So you think that there will be the
capability of protecting against cyber threats, even without it
being extremely expensive. Let me flip now. What about
privacy?--Mr. Okpaku?
Mr. Okpaku. Yes, Senator Nelson. Thank you very much. Lyft,
as I mentioned in my testimony, has to be a safe platform for
it to work, and part of that safety is ensuring the privacy of
its users and its drivers. It's something that we have been 100
percent committed to since we launched. It's something that we
devote an enormous amount of resources to, because we know that
our platform involves a lot of people across the country.
We have an internal team that is constantly reviewing our
privacy policies. Approximately one-fifth of our overall team
constitutes engineers and a similar number of people who are
dedicated to trust and safety. So this demonstrates how many
resources we dedicate to ensuring the safety and in this
respect the privacy of our users.
Senator Nelson. So what you're saying is that technology
will allow you to protect people's privacy, even in an
autonomous vehicle with all the gadgets in it?
Mr. Okpaku. Senator Nelson, I think technology is the means
that we'll use. But I think it first starts with a commitment
and a dedication to ensuring it, and I think that's the point
that I'm trying to make here. It's part of the reason that we
wanted to partner with a company like General Motors, because
we knew of their commitment to ensuring that the deployment of
autonomous vehicles had to be done in a way that was safe and
protected not only the safety but the privacy of the people
relying on these services.
This is something that we've had a lot of experience in
over the last three to 4 years, going from a company that
serviced just one state back in 2012 to a company that services
nearly 200 cities now.
Senator Nelson. Maybe you ought to confer with Apple, since
Apple seems to be pretty good on privacy, in terms of being
able to get into the iPhone of a terrorist.
Anybody, is the Federal Government's agency, NHTSA,
prepared to deal with all this?
Mr. De Vos. I don't think it's just the responsibility of
NHTSA or any one particular part. It really will take a
collaborative effort between industry, the technology
developers, as well as the regulatory agencies. So it really is
important that as we talk about Auto-ISACs and those
initiatives, we're working together to promote standardization
and a uniform approach, but also to do so in an effective
regulatory framework. So I think the key message for us is it
has to be a collaborative activity in order for it to be truly
effective.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
I have Senator Heller up next.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Heller. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thanks for
your leadership on this issue. I'm disappointed that I didn't
get a chance to see one of the cars earlier this morning. I
really would have enjoyed that.
But the Chairman--and, by the way, thank you for being here
and for your expertise in this particular area. The Chairman
asked the question that everybody was asking, and that's when
are these things going to--when will this be available? I guess
the next question is: Is it integrated into the current car
that you own, or do you have to actually buy an autonomous
vehicle in order to use one of these things?
Mr. Ableson. So we believe very strongly that for some of
the cybersecurity reasons that were cited, we need to design a
vehicle with this in mind and look at its entire electrical and
information system to make sure that we can get the highest
level of protection into the vehicle. We believe that going
forward, you're going to buy vehicles that may look similar to
vehicles on the road, but inside we'll have designed in the
cyber protection and the redundancy that autonomous vehicles
need to operate safely.
Senator Heller. So it would be a new car?
Mr. Ableson. Yes, it would be a new car. And I think that
one of the great advantages in applying this ride-sharing model
is that we can let members of the public experience the
technology without having to go out and buy a new car. So some
of the questions about adoption and how people will react to
this technology I think we can see with real human beings in
real settings, again, without them having to spend money on
buying a vehicle.
Senator Heller. What would you anticipate the price range
being?
Mr. Ableson. I think like any technology, the autonomous
technologies are going to be very expensive when you start,
because, as was referenced earlier, you need an array of
different sensing technologies as well as some pretty
sophisticated computing power on board to make it work. It's
hard for me to predict what they're going to cost because, as
with any new technology, much depends on how quickly we can
build to scale and deploy in volume. Again, as Mr. Okpaku
explained in his testimony, we think this ride-sharing model
lets us move forward in volume, even at a relatively high
initial cost of the vehicles.
Senator Heller. You anticipate to use this with electric
engines or combustion engines?
Mr. Ableson. We think it's very interesting to use this
with electric vehicles because of some of the environmental
benefits. Obviously, in the ride-sharing model, we'd be
operating in urban environments where I think everybody is
interested in reducing pollution and the environmental impacts
of the automobile.
Senator Heller. Thank you.
Mr. Urmson, I think Nevada was the first in the U.S. to
issue a license for testing of the vehicles for Google. In
fact, I noticed on the screen there that most of those shots
were on the Las Vegas strip or somewhere near to it.
Dr. Urmson. The Delphi vehicle----
Senator Heller. Yes, very good. It's my understanding, Mr.
Urmson, that you were also very involved with the testing--is
this accurate--working directly with the Department of Motor
Vehicles in Nevada?
Dr. Urmson. Yes, Senator. That's correct.
Senator Heller. What was the extent of your exercise in
testing?
Dr. Urmson. The state of Nevada wanted to be a leader in
this space and passed legislation instructing their Department
of Motor Vehicles to create language that would be a first in
the Nation kind of rule set for self-driving vehicles.
Senator Heller. How important was that?
Dr. Urmson. I think it definitely placed a line in the
sand, I guess, around how important this technology was and
kind of brought it to national attention. At the same time, I
think that it kicked off something that I think many of us are
worried about with this potential patchwork of state by state
regulations that would, you know, potentially lead to a
challenge in delivering the technology broadly.
Senator Heller. Mr. De Vos, also based on what Dr. Cummings
said a little bit, you had a vehicle at CES, if I'm not
mistaken, and I understand you had an unexpected obstruction
there. Can you explain to us what that unexpected obstruction
was?
Mr. De Vos. Sure. One of the reasons we really enjoyed
testing in Las Vegas is because it does provide a lot of
diversity of use cases in a really challenging environment,
including some of the pedestrians that are there in that
environment, who may either be intoxicated or maybe a little
bit unpredictable in terms of where they're going on the
roadways.
So as we were driving around downtown Vegas, on a fairly
regular basis, we had pedestrians coming out into the path of
the vehicle and the vehicle, of course, seeing them accurately
and taking the precautionary measures of slowing down. You
know, there's a lot of pedestrian traffic in Vegas, so there
were all different points of the vehicle. And it really
highlighted to us the fact that the sensors looked all the way
around, 360 around that car at all times.
So the car sees much, much better than we as a human driver
would actually see. So it never failed to find the person and
avoid them.
Senator Heller. I understand one did step out in front of
you and it did avoid that individual.
Mr. De Vos. It did, yes.
Senator Heller. Very good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. That's your home state, and that city would
be a good test case for a lot of things.
Mr. De Vos. It certainly was.
The Chairman. I have Senator Booker up next.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
One of the big concerns I've had since coming to Washington
is that our global economy is being fueled more and more by
innovation, and America is by far the global exporter of
innovation ingenuity. We have been for generations in this
country.
The problem I'm seeing more and more in Washington is we're
not creating a regulatory regime here, an environment that
really cultivates and spurs innovation and keeps us
competitive. I've seen this with the FDA on inhibiting
companies like 23andMe. I've seen this with the FAA and what
they're doing with drone technology that now is being
investigated and innovated upon more outside of our country
than inside of the country. So this is definitely one of those
areas where I feel the same significant amount of concern.
My goal, principally, is safety. But in this time of great
research, innovation, and development, it's difficult for me to
hear companies like Audi say--they describe this current
patchwork of rules as an impediment to testing their cars in
the U.S. and prefer to continue the testing in Europe. I just
don't like to see us falling behind with creating an
environment for testing, especially because if we had
regulatory regimes like this--I always say if this was around
during the time of the Wright brothers, we would have never
gotten off the ground in exploring air travel.
So we were the first to introduce legislation trying to
permit the testing of autonomous vehicles. But other countries
now are clearly leap-frogging over us by offering more
flexibility to companies to test this technology. The UK, for
example, is rapidly moving forward. Those wishing to conduct
tests in the UK are free to drive all over the country. Japan
has allowed Nissan and Toyota to test their vehicles there
since 2013.
So my question really is: In your experience, are we
falling behind because other countries are creating a better
regulatory environment for testing? What is the regulatory
environment like in terms of dealing with the development of
this technology? And what can we, as legislators, do to ensure
that our regulations in this space keep up with the pace of
innovation? And I don't mean just keep up with the pace of it,
but ensure that America leads. I'll open that to anybody.
Mr. De Vos. I think one of the key things has really
already been done, and that's passage of the STICRS Act and the
FAST Act, because that really sets the stage for adoption of
ADAS technologies, which are foundational for automated
driving. So the faster we can deploy that, get the NCAP
standards increased, and get that out there, both from a
technology and development as well as a consumer acceptance
standpoint, that's good for the U.S., and it's good for these
technologies, and it builds on success as you do that.
I think the other piece that is important is, you know, in
terms of how do you support really standing up or evaluating
real-life use cases or proof of concepts or pilots, if you
will. And that's what we're seeing other countries doing, is
helping support and actually get these systems up and running
to learn from them as quickly as possible. That takes
infrastructure support. That takes things that, really, the
Government is best equipped to help execute and manage. I think
that's another big area where we would really welcome the
support of these agencies.
Senator Booker. So when you're talking about
infrastructure, we're planning smart cities. We're investing in
the infrastructure. We need to be thinking five years ahead, 10
years ahead----
Mr. De Vos. Correct.
Senator Booker [continuing]. In terms of the ability for us
to have smart devices, smart signs and the like.
Mr. De Vos. Exactly. The vehicle-to-infrastructure piece of
it, the markings on the roadways, basically equipping the
infrastructure to be ready for these technologies.
Senator Booker. So if we're talking about large investments
in infrastructure coming from the Federal Government, we as
legislators should be looking into that.
Mr. De Vos. Federal and state. I think the MCity in Ann
Arbor is a good example, where the MDOT and U of M and a number
of companies have come together to create a test bed both in
Ann Arbor and the surrounding areas, as well as a dedicated
test track there on the campus grounds.
Senator Booker. Mr. Ableson, you were about to chime in?
Mr. Ableson. I was only going to say we've been very
encouraged by the way that Secretary Foxx has approached this
and recognizing that it's important to allow us to work
together to develop the technology safely and to find ways to
deploy it. So we certainly don't know at this stage of the
technology development all the answers, and I think we've seen
flexibility to learn as we go and respond to what we learn.
Senator Booker. So instead of promulgating rules, trying to
imagine what the future is going to look like, shouldn't we
just be really focusing on testing right now and rules with a
focus on creating a good environment for testing?
Dr. Urmson. Senator, actually, we so far have found that we
don't actually have particular challenges with testing, and the
technology is advancing very rapidly. Where we're most
concerned is about bringing this to market and regulations that
would limit the opportunity to use the technology. That's where
we think that the Congress and the Federal Government can help
pave the way.
Senator Booker. Thank you. And I wanted to just give a
public thank you to GM for being such a good partner on the
spectrum issues. You all leaned in, really, and worked with us
in a cooperative manner. That meant a lot to me as a Senator.
Mr. Ableson. We very much appreciate your support of that
issue as well.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Booker.
Senator Peters is up next.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have to say as a Senator from Michigan and
representing the Motor City that I'm very excited about these
incredible developments in our auto industry and to see auto
manufacturers coming together with suppliers, with technology
companies, all cooperating together to create some partnerships
that will ultimately create an awful lot of new jobs and are
going to just lead to some extraordinary breakthroughs in terms
of vehicle safety as well as performance and, as we've heard
from your testimony and others, to deal with some of our
mobility challenges, generally, for various individuals.
So I want to thank the witnesses for being here today to
discuss this frontier, particularly connected and automated
technologies and their lifesaving benefits. Now, we know there
are still some significant challenges that we're going to be
facing as policymakers in order to actually see this realized.
I think it's clear that what we are on the cusp of is
disruptive technology in the auto sector probably unlike
anything we've seen for I can't imagine how many decades. But
it's many, many decades since we've seen this sort of
disruptive technology.
As we've heard today--but I think it's really important to
repeat--is that we know that over 38,000 people died on our
highways last year, and your companies are developing
technologies that could very well dramatically reduce that
number, savings tens of thousands of lives. That's why I
believe that, as members of Congress and my colleagues here,
that we have to do everything we can to make sure that your
efforts are not delayed or unnecessarily deterred.
That means that Congress has to ensure that the FCC, the
DOT, and the NTIA are thoroughly testing any proposal for
spectrum sharing in the 5.9 Gigahertz band between the DSR
safety critical signals and unlicensed Wi-Fi devices. Connected
vehicle technologies should not be compromised by someone
connected to a toaster or a light switch.
The technologies of today and tomorrow must be safe from
cyber threats and protect users' privacy as well. We must avoid
a patchwork of State regulations that will only stunt the
development and deployment of these technologies and instead
work to implement a consistent national policy. And we must
think carefully about the insurance implications as well of
connected and automated cars and the possibility of liability
shifting to the manufacturers as human control of the vehicles
dissipates.
And, finally, we must increase our investment in connected
and automated vehicle research and development. I support the
administration's 10-year, $3.9 billion proposal for this
purpose and, particularly, the $200 million in the DOT Fiscal
Year 2017 budget request for funding a large-scale pilot
program that will accelerate these technologies.
I think it's particularly essential that a portion of this
money go toward funding a designated national facility where
academia, industry, and government can all come together to
conduct connected and automated vehicle research, testing,
product development, and certification. As we've heard,
countries like Sweden, Korea, China, and Japan have already
established these test sites. We need to do it as well.
I certainly appreciate the comment about MCity associated
with the University of Michigan, which is involved in some
detailed testing on a track which brings all the manufacturers
together. And perhaps I'll just get some comments from some of
you as to how important it is to have a national testing
facility that can bring all the manufacturers together,
suppliers together, to make sure that all of these technologies
actually work together.
It doesn't do any good to have a great product if it's not
working in conjunction with the Toyotas and the Hondas and the
GMs and Fords and everybody else out on the road and, as was
mentioned, in all weather conditions as well. Snow and ice is
important to test. But perhaps some of your comments as to how
important it is for us as government officials to be focusing
on creating a national center where we can do this sort of
testing.
Dr. Cummings. Can I address that, Senator? I think that
would be great. My one concern would be that the test data was
made available to a more academic, slash, expert base community
for that validation that these tests are meeting the standards
that we think they should.
Senator Peters. So that should be led by an academic
center?
Dr. Cummings. An independent group, not necessarily
academic. But, sure, I'd be happy to.
[Laughter.]
Senator Peters. I take that as you're volunteering. Thank
you.
Folks from industry?
Mr. Ableson. I think to your point, Senator Peters, it's
very important that we do find a way to thoroughly test these
technologies. As you indicate, it will take a lot of work
amongst various companies and suppliers and regulators. So I do
think that having a way that we can approach this in a
coordinated fashion would be very important to us going
forward.
Senator Peters. Anyone else?
Dr. Urmson. We very much value the opportunity to test in
all kinds of weather conditions. That's part of the reason why
we've done as much testing as we have in different locations,
and we'd certainly love to learn more.
Senator Peters. Well, I also wanted to pick up from a
report that the Department of Transportation just released last
week posed to automated vehicles under the current motor
vehicle safety standards. The report concluded that many of the
standards assume the presence, as you know, of a human driver
and for cars that deviate further from this conventional
vehicle design, vehicle certification becomes a lot more
difficult, dependent on some new standards and how we interpret
those standards.
So I would certainly encourage your companies to continue
to submit questions for interpretation to NHTSA so that,
working together, the automotive industry and government can
determine how to address potential regulatory advances, which
all of you have expressed we need to have in order to move this
technology forward. I also encourage you to share testing data
with NHTSA as well to assist them in developing these new
national standards for automated vehicle functions.
So perhaps some comments from you as to how you're working
now with NHTSA, sharing information. There was a discussion
about some new targeted authority for NHTSA as well. If you
could elaborate on some of those ideas, I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Ableson. We continue to work very closely with NHTSA as
our regulatory agency. Obviously, being an OEM, we have a very
long relationship with NHTSA. We have worked together
collaboratively with them around this topic of autonomous
vehicles.
We look forward to learning more on both sides and
continuing to work with NHTSA on appropriate regulatory
authority, because, as I think we've emphasized many times, we
want to develop and deploy this technology safely, and safety
is our primary concern, and making sure that we can do it
safely is very important to the company before we actually
introduce these to the public.
Dr. Urmson. Senator, I couldn't agree more. Safety has to
be front and foremost in this, and for the last six years,
we've been engaged with NHTSA, sharing our lessons from the
road and taking their feedback and incorporating that into our
program. We're actually very excited about Secretary Foxx's
initiative in building guidelines over the next 6 months and
look forward to taking part in the public workshops that will
be happening which will, I think, bring a degree of
transparency to the process that is important to build
confidence in it.
Senator Peters. Right. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Peters.
Senator Klobuchar, then Senator Daines.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In 2014, 3,179 people were killed in distracted driving
crashes, and another 431,000 were injured. But right now, too
few states are receiving Federal funding. Senator Hoeven and I
worked on this. It got included in the FAST Act to make sure
states besides Connecticut were able to receive some of the
funding for educational efforts on distracted driving. We know
these incentive grants are helpful.
Could you talk about what advances in automated vehicles
would we need for reducing the incidents of distracted driving?
We know it's just a major issue. It's expanding. It's not just
kids. It's adults, too.
We just had today in our newspaper on the front page two
people hurt--a man killed, getting--he was a school bus driver,
79 years old, and he went out--he lived in a rural area. He was
just going out like he did every day to get his newspaper at
the mailbox, and it turned out the woman who hit him was doing
a text, and, of course, she's been charged with a crime. That
just was today, and every single day, there's something like
that.
So could you talk about how the automated vehicles--whoever
can take it would be helpful.
Mr. De Vos. I think what that unfortunate and tragic
example highlights is the role that ADAS systems can play
immediately, basically. With systems like lane departure
warning, collision, and braking, and other driver alerts, and
then, ultimately, the car taking evasive action, as it gets
more and more automated--those are direct countermeasures to
the effects of distraction where the driver is not really
paying attention to what the car is doing.
That's that immediate safety benefit that ADAS systems that
are commercially available now can bring, which is why we're so
excited about the implementation of the STICRS Act and getting
that out there into the consumer base. But as you continue down
that path, automated driving and the sensors that go with it
are what really enable the car to avoid those situations
regardless of what the driver is doing. That's the ultimate
safety benefit, not just for distracted driving, but all forms
of driver-related accidents.
Mr. Ableson. I think the distracted driving incidents are
tragic. But to the point, autonomous vehicles can also address
the very large percentage of our accidents that are due to
drunken driving or over-speed-related accidents. So there's a
very large percentage, over 90 percent, of accidents that are
attributable to some sort of driver error, and autonomous
systems and automated vehicles should be able to address that
in a very substantial way.
Dr. Urmson. Senator, this is really at the heart of why
we're engaged in this work. When we look at the 35,000 people
that NHTSA estimates were killed last year on America's roads,
it's really an unacceptable status quo, and there's so much
opportunity to do good here. Now, the technology will never be
perfect, but the opportunity to reduce those accidents and
those tragedies is incredible.
Senator Klobuchar. Go ahead.
Mr. Okpaku. Senator, this is one of the key things that we
think Lyft brings to the equation. Looking at the issue of
drunk driving, specifically, it has now been determined by more
than one research project that the advent of ride sharing has
significantly reduced the incidents of drunk driving across the
country.
The ability to deploy AV technology to the consumers on a
mass level is where Lyft really can contribute to this
discussion. So by enabling a ride-sharing platform like Lyft,
we can bring these safer options to the public at a mass scale
and get it ready for mass consumer adoption much quicker than
other models could.
Senator Klobuchar. Dr. Cummings?
Dr. Cummings. Sure, but if I can just weigh in here, all of
these things are absolutely true. My specialty is human error,
so this is definitely something that's going to help address
these problems.
I think the real trouble that we're up against is the
hybrid time. We're in a very strange time where you're going to
see more and more autonomy start to be introduced into cars,
and that's actually going to increase people's distraction.
Recently, Tesla suffered from one of their drivers getting in
the back seat of their car while the car was on autopilot when,
in fact, Tesla made it quite clear that you were supposed to be
in the seat.
So this is the funny thing about human behavior. If humans
just think the car is pretty good, then their behavior is going
to be even worse. The best thing that we could do is for
everyone to get out of their cars today and have them all be
driverless with no steering wheels tomorrow. That would be the
safest thing that we could do. But until then, where we have
Gremlins on the same road as the Teslas, on the same road as
the no-steering-wheel Google car, we're really going to have to
be careful about how we set up that human autonomy interaction.
Dr. Urmson. If I may, we've seen this--you know, completely
agree with the research. A few years ago, we were at the point
where we had technology that could drive well on the freeway.
Imagine a product where you get in the car, drive it, put it on
the freeway, press a button, and then it drives for you. We had
140 employees test that capability, and they loved the product.
They thought it was fantastic.
I think Larry Burns, a former Vice President to General
Motors, has said that for their customers, driving is the
distraction, and we saw that live. It really comes down to the
fact that at some point, automation technologies are just so
good that people over-trust them, even when they're told they
shouldn't and have to be there, so, again, why we're taking
that leap toward fully self-driven vehicles.
Mr. Ableson. I would have to add the technologies exist to
make sure that if people are going to climb into the back seat
or aren't paying attention to the road that the system can warn
them and get their attention back on the road.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. And I'll put on the record just
another question, because I'm out of time here, about
autonomous vehicles and increased mobility for senior citizens,
as we're seeing. But I no longer call it a silver tsunami
because that's too negative, Mr. Chairman. I've been told by my
senior groups to call it a silver surge of more seniors.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. So I'll ask some questions on the record
later about how there can be some hope for some seniors as
well.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Those are good questions, and we're going to
be there soon. Actually, this is my neighbor from Minnesota.
Thank you, Senator Klobuchar, by the way, for those
questions. This will have great application for people who need
an autonomous car to keep them awake until they get to South
Dakota as they're driving across Minnesota.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. You mean when they're driving through
South Dakota to get to Wall Drug.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Daines from Montana.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's the perfect
segway here talking about the big, wide open country we have
out West.
Thank you for testifying today. I can tell you, as a guy
who was in the technology business for many, many years, it's
refreshing to hear about the innovation and the job creation
that's actually occurring outside Washington, DC, lo and
behold. So kudos.
My home, Montana, is the fourth largest state. We have the
second highest rate of vehicle ownership. We've got 75,000
miles of public roads. Ninety-five percent of those are rural.
On our interstate highways--generally, you can go 80 miles an
hour. That is the speed limit. So I see these autonomous
vehicles as having the potential for significant safety
improvement. I want to talk through some safety issues and get
your comments. They've been addressed a little bit here
already.
First of all, driver fatigue. My wife and I were heading
out for dinner this weekend, and we saw where the highway
patrol was investigating--there clearly had been a rollover,
most likely driver fatigue, and it claimed the life of a man
from my hometown. Billions of dollars in losses every year--
billions of dollars. Thousands of lives lost because of driver
fatigue.
How will autonomous vehicles help reduce driver fatigue
injuries and fatalities?
Dr. Urmson. Senator, if I may. Well, in our model, they're
not driving anymore, and so the issue is mediated. Even in the
case of the study that I talked about earlier, where we had 140
people use the vehicles, one of the most touching stories was a
woman who lives about an hour and a half from work and commutes
every day. She told us that coming in that she wanted to cook
for her family and exercise and that she didn't have the time
anymore.
She used our car for a week, and she said every day that
week, she got home, and she was able to go for a run and cook
for her family, because she was not exhausted from fighting
traffic. So I think these, what I'll call, maybe the softer
elements, the social benefits of this technology, are going to
be innumerable and hard to quantify up front.
Mr. De Vos. We're also developing systems that--you know,
for advanced ADAS or for highway pilot or some of these semi-
autonomous vehicles, where we look at the driver. We have
cameras that look at the driver to sense where the driver is
looking. Are their eyes on the road? Are they blinking? Are
they shut?
So we can now determine the state of the driver and whether
fatigue is a factor, and then take the appropriate
countermeasures to either stimulate or re-engage the driver. So
those technologies will roll out here toward the end of this
year along with that broader suite of autonomous driving
capability.
Senator Daines. And it's probably more the semi-autonomous
where we're at here.
Mr. De Vos. Yes.
Senator Daines. I appreciate that. That's helpful.
I want to pivot over now and talk about drunk driving, just
touch on it a little bit. How will this reduce drunk driving?
Let's talk about maybe the semi-autonomous mode here as well.
How do we reduce drunk driving injuries and fatalities?
Mr. Ableson. As you indicated, in the fully autonomous
mode, it's a very obvious answer.
Senator Daines. Yes. How about semi-autonomous?
Mr. Ableson. Semi-autonomous--there are technologies under
development to try and interpret whether a driver is capable of
responsibly driving. To be honest, I think at the pace that
autonomous technologies are moving, I would hope that we can
get to these autonomous vehicles relatively quickly, and they
will be a solution for several of these issues around driving.
Senator Daines. And this is related to drunk driving, too.
We had a horrible wrong-way crash on Interstate 94 in eastern
Montana that killed three people 2 weeks ago. Thinking about
the way that Google is working--maybe this is for you, Dr.
Urmson--is there some way it could detect if you are in the
eastbound lane of westbound--to detect a wrong-way situation
and prevent it? How would that work? Is that possible?
Dr. Urmson. Yes, I'm quite sure that that's a technology
that could be developed. Obviously, we're building vehicles
that wouldn't make that mistake. But geo-fencing, geo-modeling
kind of technologies, I'm sure, could be in place to help
address that.
Senator Daines. And animal-vehicle collisions. That's
another big issue out--actually around the country. Deer
populations are up, and out in Montana, it's not just deer.
It's also elk and moose as well. It's a little different
collision. Again, billions of dollars, hundreds and thousands
of deaths, potentially. How can this help reduce animal-vehicle
collisions?
Mr. Ableson. I think, importantly--and reference was made
to it earlier--these autonomous vehicles use an array of
sensors, not just cameras. And between radar, lidar, and
cameras, I think the potential exists that the vehicles could
be even more perceptive of when animals are approaching the
roadway than human beings are. In Michigan, we have a
significant issue with deer on the highway, and I think these
sorts of technologies offer a real opportunity.
Senator Daines. And oftentimes at night, right, when it
happens, when they're coming up?
Mr. Ableson. Absolutely.
Senator Daines. And as I've taught my kids, you're better
off if you don't swerve. It's the swerving that oftentimes
results in the significant injuries.
Last, privacy was talked about a little bit here. For Mr.
Ableson, we've all heard the stories of current vehicles'
operating systems being hacked. There was a famous one from
last summer. As the Internet of things continues to grow, this
threat becomes ever more real. What is GM doing to ensure
consumers' current vehicles are secure?
Mr. Ableson. As far as cybersecurity, in particular, we
have a dedicated organization that spends time on these issues.
It is managed by a senior executive in the company. We have
learned from other industries on how to approach cybersecurity
issues. We employ red teams that are not involved in designing
our systems, but only spend time trying to find
vulnerabilities.
I would tell you just a week ago, I spent time with one of
these engineers who brought in a module and demonstrated to me
all the things he did to try and get in and compromise this
module. It's really very impressive.
As we said, we also now have an industry group, Auto-ISAC,
that shares best practices as well as threat reports and
vulnerabilities across the industry. We're very proud that Jeff
Massimilla is the Vice Chairman of that group. So we take
cybersecurity very, very seriously, and we think going forward
the car needs to be designed from the ground up with
cybersecurity in mind, and that is our intent.
Senator Daines. All right. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
Senator Gardner?
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses for your time and testimony today. I think there
has been a lot of great questions today and obviously a lot of
interest and intrigue in how this will move forward and what
technologies will emerge as a result. The questions, I think,
are just the tip of the iceberg here as we all try to figure
out and understand how this is going to affect our culture, our
society, our innovation, our safety, and our economy.
A couple of things. I think it was around 2005 when auto-
steer tractors really became the latest rage in agriculture, a
useful economic tool for productivity. Today, based on that
over-a-decade-long experience, I think if you want to get down
to, say, a 12-inch accuracy in the field, whether you're
planting corn or drilling wheat, it probably costs around
$7,000 to retrofit an old piece of equipment, a tractor that's
10 or 15 years old or so. To have it down to a 1-inch accuracy,
it's probably around $28,000 to retrofit an old tractor that
didn't come off the factory assembly line with auto-steer
capabilities on it.
If you're dealing with a car that's going down the
interstate, though, the question of accuracy is not something
that you--well, we had the accident because we had 24-inch
accuracy. This is satellite guidance versus radar, lidar,
cameras on the vehicle itself. We're not talking satellite in
any of these vehicles, correct?
Mr. Ableson. The vehicles will use GPS, but they also use
an array of other sensors and some very high-definition maps to
understand exactly where the vehicle is in the world and
position itself very accurately.
Senator Gardner. So as you're rolling vehicles off the
assembly line that could have autonomous technologies or
capabilities off the factory line, and we retrofit older
vehicles to it, how are we going to make sure that--what is the
responsible body from a regulatory landscape to make sure that
that used car that's 10 or 15 years old that has an aftermarket
autonomous system placed on it is up to the same sort of
calibration or specifics as a factory line car?
Mr. Ableson. In our view, for some of the reasons that
we've discussed earlier, cybersecurity and safety, we don't see
this technology necessarily being applicable as far as
retrofitting to vehicles. To do an autonomous vehicle
successfully and safely, you need to touch a number of the
fundamental systems in the car, you need to design them--
redundancy is not here today. So the idea of trying to take
that system and somehow retrofit it on an existing car we don't
think is practical.
Senator Gardner. But somebody's going to develop that,
don't you think? Just like they did for a piece of farm
equipment, somebody's going to figure out how to retrofit an
old car, and who is going to be responsible for that?
Mr. Ableson. As I said, we don't see a path to be able to
do that.
Senator Gardner. OK. The other question I have--is there a
state--I mean, a lot of this is the question between Federal
and state. Is there a state that's getting it better than some
states in terms of allowing this innovation to flourish? And,
if so, who is that, and what are they doing that's so good
about it?
Dr. Urmson. Senator, I think that is an important question.
I think we've seen many states that have expressed enthusiasm
about this technology and looking for ways to kind of ensure
that the technology will come to their state. What we've found,
actually, is in most places, the best action is to take no
action, and that, in general, the technology can be safely
tested today on roads in many states, and that what we really
are looking for is the leadership that Secretary Foxx has
announced around--you know, at a Federal level bringing some
guidelines for innovation.
Senator Gardner. I guess the other question would be: Who
is doing the best job of not doing anything?
[Laughter.]
Dr. Urmson. I'm sure I don't have a good answer for that.
Senator Gardner. The other question I have, just out of
curiosity more than anything, is the example of the deer. If
you're driving down an interstate in Colorado, and you have an
animal on the side or perhaps even a child that runs out after
a soccer ball or something onto a road--how are we going to
address issues of sort of the moral choice that a computer is
going to have to make, that a car is going to have to make,
whether it veers left, if there's a car next to it, if it veers
right into the ditch? Maybe the car itself is carrying
passengers, obviously carrying passengers.
How do we address that? How do we research that? How do we
study that? How do we make that happen?
Dr. Urmson. Senator, I think this is a very important
point. This is a question that humanity has struggled with for
hundreds and hundreds of years, and there isn't a right, kind
of philosophical answer. So the approach we're taking is to try
and reduce this to practice in a way that we can actually
implement something and see the broader safety, economic, and
mobility values.
So the way we think about this is let's try hardest to
avoid vulnerable road users, pedestrians, cyclists, and then
beyond that, try hardest to avoid other vehicles, and then
beyond that, avoid the things that don't move in the world, and
be transparent and say that if you're in this vehicle, this is
the way it'll behave, and then you can make the decision--am I
OK with that or not? And others may have different judgments
about the right way to do that.
Mr. Ableson. I would only add that I think the intent, as
we talked about with the various sensing technologies, is to do
absolutely the best we can to make sure these vehicles never
get put into those situations in the first place. So, again,
with the emphasis on developing these with safety preeminent in
our minds, I think there are real opportunities here.
Senator Gardner. Obviously, in Colorado, we added about
100,000 new residents to the state in 2014-2015. We're the
second fastest--depending on what numbers you look at--growing
state in the country, 80 percent of that population growth
occurring on the front range between Pueblo, Colorado, and Fort
Collins, Colorado. This technology, I think, is one of the keys
to allowing a thriving ski resort industry up in the mountains
where you're limited to the amount of tunnels you can put
through a mountain, both from a cost perspective and from a
physical--a sort of physics perspective as well.
So I think this is an incredibly fascinating opportunity,
and I just look forward to learning more from you as we
progress. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. There are lots of reasons people are moving
to Colorado.
[Laughter.]
Senator Gardner. And automation is probably a good thing
for that.
The Chairman. We may need more autonomous cars in Colorado
for that reason. But, thank you, Senator Gardner.
Senator Markey?
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
You know, these new vehicles are computers on wheels. It's
absolutely amazing what is happening. I just went out onto the
highway, crossed the 14th Street Bridge to 395 in a Tesla
vehicle, and I looked right, I looked left, and it was like,
``Look, Ma, no hands.''
So I'm just driving along down the highway at 11:30 this
morning in one of these demonstration vehicles, and it was just
absolutely amazing, very impressive. Clearly, we're still at
the dawn of the era. But the promise is there, and we can see
it, and I'm very glad I took the demonstration this morning.
Back in 2013 and again last year, I asked 20 automakers
what they are doing to protect our computers on wheels, and
what I found is that they're not doing enough. After reviewing
the original responses from the automakers, I released a
report, and the report is entitled ``Tracking and Hacking
Security and Privacy Gaps Put American Drivers at Risk.''
Here's what we learned from the study, that thieves no
longer need a crowbar to break into a car. They just need an
iPhone. Today's connected cars are also collecting tremendous
amounts of personal driving information. Cars know where you
are, where you've been, how fast or slow you drive, and even
the mileage since your last oil change. Some of that is good.
Some of it is important to have gathered. But if all the
vehicles out there were fully autonomous, and we were all
relying upon computers and not a human driver from the start to
get to where you are, to get to where you want to go, those
vulnerabilities will become more pronounced in our society.
So I just have a couple of questions for the panel. Number
one, we need enforceable rules of the road to protect driver
privacy and security. I introduced with Senator Blumenthal, the
Security and Privacy in Your Car Act, or the SPY Car Act, that
directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and
the Federal Trade Commission to establish Federal standards to
secure our cars and protect our drivers' privacy.
So for each of the panelists, if you would, I would like
you to answer this question on mandatory cybersecurity
standards, including hacking protection--that means all access
points in the car should be equipped with reasonable measures
to protect against hacking attacks--data security measures--
that means that all collected information should be secure to
prevent unwanted access--and hacking mitigation so that
vehicles are equipped with technology that can detect and
report and stop hacking attempts in real time.
So, Dr. Cummings, what do you think? Do we need rules of
the road that are formally----
Dr. Cummings. I'm in general agreement with all of those
issues. But I will tell you as a university professor on the
cutting edge of this technology the concerns that I have and
that I testified 2 years ago in front of this same committee is
that it's happening so quickly that the government institutions
cannot keep pace. The government cannot hire the same people
that Chris is hiring at Google X. He's got----
Senator Markey. No, this would just be to say to the
companies, ``Build in the hacking protections.''
Dr. Cummings. I agree, but I also think that you need a
regulatory framework that can ensure this is happening.
Senator Markey. And that's what I'm asking. Should we say
to NHTSA and to the Federal agencies----
Dr. Cummings. I say yes, but I'm saying I don't think
NHTSA, at least today, has the people on the staff that they
would need to do that.
Senator Markey. Right, and, again, that's the problem with
the Securities and Exchange Commission. They had a bunch of
lawyers and no economists----
Dr. Cummings. Absolutely.
Senator Markey.--to deal with the meltdown that occurred
because it had been computerized. They moved to a different
trading model. So, obviously, the agencies have to get the
technical expertise they need. But it would be important,
though, to have the rules if they had the personnel to do it.
Dr. Cummings. I agree, but I think that's a real challenge.
Senator Markey. I understand. We have to meet the
challenges of the future.
Mr. Okpaku?
Mr. Okpaku. Thank you for the question, Senator Markey. We
at Lyft are not only fully committed to ensuring that we
prevent any instances of cyber hacking or violations of our
user privacy, but, yes, we are in support of well thought out
principles that would codify our previously existing attempts
to ensure that.
I think it's important, though--and I know this has been
discussed before--that these principles be very well thought
out, that there be a consistency of what these principles look
like. We're dealing with a technology that is going to be
deployed across the country, and in order to do so, we need to
make sure that whatever principles are put in place to ensure
the privacy and safety of our users--that it's consistent
across the country.
Senator Markey. I think the Chairman is going to catch up
to me. Yes or no? Do we need mandatory standards or not?
Mr. De Vos?
Mr. De Vos. I think we really haven't determined whether we
think we need mandatory standards or not. But what we have
determined is that it does help to standardize, standardize in
the testing, standardize in the approaching. So the question
for us is how do we get there?
Senator Markey. Mr. Ableson?
Mr. Ableson. We support the Auto-ISAC as a way to trade
information across the OEMs and suppliers. I think the point of
regulation trying to stay ahead of this very fast-changing
area--we think a more flexible approach is preferable.
Senator Markey. Dr. Urmson?
Dr. Urmson. Google is attacked on a regular basis. We have
hundreds of people dedicated to cybersecurity, and what we've
learned through that is that it's a very dynamic space, and
that it's important to be able to adapt the principles with
which you defend over time.
Senator Markey. OK. I understand what you're saying. But
witnesses sat here 30 years ago and said the same thing about
airbags and seatbelts and how they should just leave it to the
individual companies, that it was hard to mandate a specific
airbag, and it would be very expensive. So I understand the
consistency over the decades. But at the same time, people
expect airbags to protect their children, and they're going to
expect certain standards that are going to be mandated across
the board that are going to protect people.
I was hit by a car when I was five, running across the
street, and I was chasing two 9-year-olds. I was only five, and
I could see how difficult it was for the driver, in retrospect,
to know I was going to do it.
But as we're moving forward, we just want to make sure that
we don't have unnecessary accidents, you know, and, clearly,
hackers are going to have the ability to be able to break into
these vehicles. There's going to be a whole bunch of very smart
young people who are going to start playing games with this
technology going forward.
So the kinds of protections you build in can be voluntary,
but if 10 companies do it and 10 don't, then those 10 are going
to be identified by the hackers as the ones they're going to be
playing games with out on the highways. I just think we need
minimal standards that every company is going to meet. I just
think the sooner we start the discussion and accept that as a
responsibility, the better off we'll be.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Blumenthal?
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
all for being here. May I respectfully suggest that the answer
to the question--should there be mandatory safety and privacy
standards--is yes. And I didn't hear that from all of the
witnesses.
I heard answers that basically implied, ``maybe there
should be.'' But with the clear need, it seems to me, and for
the sake of this technology, the answer should be yes, because
that's the credibility and faith that you want to establish--
that your technology is meeting mandatory standards.
Let me ask Ms. Cummings: Is NHTSA equipped right now to
establish those standards, in your view?
Dr. Cummings. No, they are not, in my opinion.
Senator Blumenthal. And in your opinion, should this
technology be implemented widely until there are such
standards?
Dr. Cummings. No. I think that we need to address these
issues before there is wide dissemination of the technology.
Senator Blumenthal. Do any of the other witnesses disagree?
Mr. Ableson. I would say yes. I want to speak a little bit
about privacy, because we talked somewhat about cybersecurity,
but from a privacy standpoint, GM is very clear. Privacy is
very important. We operate only with an opt-in principle. We
operate only where customers know what the data is being used
for, and we only retain that data as long as we need to.
Senator Blumenthal. So you agree there should be mandatory
standards?
Mr. Ableson. No. I think that we are operating with privacy
as a very important part of how we implement this. I think that
we'll continue to work with regulators on what is appropriate.
Senator Blumenthal. You know, I have to say--and I'm not a
technology person. I'm just a country lawyer from Connecticut.
But if I ask somebody, ``Do you think that a red light means
stop?'' and they came back and said, ``Well, you know, let me
put it this way, and under these circumstances, maybe, and we
have great respect for stop lights, and et cetera,'' I would
say the answer is ``yes,'' because, again, the credibility that
this technology has may become exceedingly fragile if people
can't trust standards that are uniform and mandatory, not
necessarily for you, but for all of the other actors that may
come into this space at some point.
So I don't want to belabor this point, but it's one of the
reasons why Senator Markey and I have introduced this
legislation. And for everyone who says, you know, the private
sector companies can do it voluntarily, I would have more trust
in that argument if the answer to this question was yes--that
we will respect mandatory standards that are applicable
uniformly throughout the industry.
I went for a ride today in one of the vehicles that uses
the current technology, and it's impressive. It occurred to me,
when I heard the comparison between the open spaces of the
Dakotas and Minnesota and Montana that I was also driving
yesterday in downtown New York, Manhattan, in the midst of a
rain storm. I was not driving myself. I was riding, thankfully.
And I just don't know how this technology will fare in terms of
safety in that kind of environment.
So I would just close by suggesting that there really is a
need to develop rules of the road here--standards--and
distinctions in spaces to assure the driving public that safety
and privacy will be respected.
Thank you very much for being here today, and I look
forward to working with you. Thank you.
And I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
Senator Markey. I thank the gentleman.
So can we go down on the privacy issue as well? We dealt
with the question of safety. But what about privacy? Do you
think there should be a mandatory minimum for privacy
protection which is put on the books so that owners have to be
made explicitly aware of collection, transmission, retention,
and use of driving data, providing owners the right to say no
to data collection without losing access to key navigation or
other features and ensuring that personal driving information
not be used for advertising or marketing purposes without the
owner clearly opting in?
Dr. Cummings?
Dr. Cummings. Yes, Senator Markey. I think these are issues
that we're facing across a number of industries and a number of
technologies. And the fact of the matter is that these cars are
going to be one big data-gathering machine--visual images,
telemetry data, all of your personal data. So I see it in a way
that once this happens--and, right now, the cars really do need
to talk to each other, and they need to talk back to the
manufacturers to let them know what's going on.
So for the near term, they need to talk. But they are going
to be gathering a lot of data, and it's not clear who is going
to be doing what with that data. I, personally, would feel
better to know that there was some set of standards in place
that were protecting my personal data or at least, like you
said, allowed me to know what's happening.
Senator Markey. So you think there should be rules that the
information can't be used for marketing purposes, being
gathered about your driving and using some of that information.
Dr. Cummings. Absolutely.
Senator Markey. Do you agree with that, Mr. Okpaku?
Mr. Okpaku. Senator Markey, thank you for the question.
Similar to what Mr. Ableson said, Lyft has very strict policies
in place where personal data cannot be used for any other
purpose without strict opt-in by its users.
Senator Markey. But should it be mandatory?
Mr. Okpaku. Well, the way I would address that, sir, is
that there should definitely be standards. How the standards
are developed is really the question. And if I can draw this
back to the ride-sharing industry, which is where my area of
experience is, what we've examined there is that when we first
launched, we put upon ourselves a lot of high standards with
respect to safety, with respect to privacy, with respect to
insurance.
As an example, we developed a whole new type of insurance
that provided a million dollars of coverage for all of our
passengers. This had not been required by any law----
Senator Markey. Let's just take me as a passenger and
another 100 people who live in the Boston area, and somebody
just wants access to the names of all the people and where they
went, using your service. Do you think there should be a
privacy protection for that that you're bound by, that you
can't sell that information even though people would want to
know who was coming into that area? Don't you think there
should be an absolute prohibition on your selling the
information as to where people are going inside of your cabs?
Mr. Okpaku. There should definitely be privacy protections.
I guess the only point I'm trying to raise is that there are
very unique situations that can't always be foreseen in the
development of new technology that we need to be mindful of in
developing standards for this type of thing, and that's what
we've----
Senator Markey. Assuming you're already doing the right
thing, which is what you're saying, then why would you have a
problem with kind of just working to create a standard, then,
that could be used across the industry?
Mr. Okpaku. Well, if you will, sir, that was the point I
was going to make, that in Lyft developing these policies
internally, we've now seen policies that Lyft and other ride-
sharing companies have enacted of their own volition become
kind of the standard for the industry. But I think that it is
important to make sure of the involvement of the industry to
ensure what the appropriate standards were.
Senator Markey. And, again, my time is going to run out.
So you've already heard the options here, Mr. De Vos. Yes
or no? Mandatory?
Mr. De Vos. We haven't really taken a position on
mandatory. But what I would say is we would like to be part of
that discussion to formulate how do you approach it.
Senator Markey. But you should first just decide yes or no,
though. That would be helpful.
Mr. Ableson?
Mr. Ableson. We'll continue to work with the regulatory
agencies on what we think is required.
Senator Markey. So you don't have a yes or no on it, then,
in terms of mandatory minimal privacy standards.
Mr. Ableson. I believe we fulfill----
Senator Markey. I know you do, but all the bad companies
out there that aren't as good as your company. That's what I'm
saying. You know, we don't pass murder statutes for our
mothers. They're not going to murder anybody. Can we do it for
the people who we think might murder people? So you need kind
of a minimal standard.
So assuming your company never does anything wrong, you
still need a statute for people who might do things wrong. So
you don't think we need that statute?
Mr. Ableson. Senator, we'll continue to work with----
Senator Markey. OK. Good. I appreciate that.
Dr. Urmson?
Dr. Urmson. Google has a variety of policies that we use
around privacy. It's foundational to our business, and we're
very public in trying to----
Senator Markey. What do you think about making that
foundation a standard, though, that would have to be met
statutorily?
Dr. Urmson. I would have to submit an answer for the record
on that. I'm not in a position to comment on that for Google.
Senator Markey. Again, I think, ultimately, yes is the
right answer so that there's a minimal standard, and,
hopefully, we'll reach that day.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
And there is no requirement for the panelists to agree with
him.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. So you can answer the question any way you
want.
I just have a couple of questions to sort of close things
out. One has to do with this whole issue of consumer
acceptance, because this is a very new technology, and any time
a new technology comes onto the market, you have consumers who
may welcome that technology because it's new and exciting and
it affords a lot of, in this case, mobility benefits that I
think people would find very valuable and certainly not met by
traditional cars.
But then you've got other consumers who prefer the look and
feel of traditional driving and may resist autonomous vehicles
because they have reservations about giving up control of the
car. So I guess I would just say from the consumer standpoint,
what are the biggest challenges that you see in terms of
spurring demand, if you will, for autonomous vehicles?
Mr. Ableson. I think what's important is to get the
technology exposed to a large part of the population, including
some of the underserved communities we talked about earlier. We
think that deploying this technology in this ride-sharing model
allows us to do that in a very effective way, where, again,
we'll do it in a very safe way, but people don't need to
purchase an autonomous vehicle to get their first experience
with the technology. I think, like with all new technologies,
as people gain experience with it, they'll get more comfortable
with it.
Mr. De Vos. I would add the AAA report that was on--you
know, are people ready for automated, where it showed that the
minority were. It also showed, though, that ADAS systems are
really helping prepare and lay that groundwork and gain
consumer acceptance of those technologies. That's why we think
it's really important that we have a broad application of ADAS
technologies for the safety benefit, but also for the consumer
acceptance piece of it.
Dr. Urmson. Senator, our experience is that when someone
first hears about the idea of a self-driving car, it comes
across maybe alien and very, you know, far out there. And,
without fail, when someone comes in thinking that this is all
smoke and mirrors or that this is never going to happen, within
about 5 minutes of riding in one of our vehicles, they're in
the back, on the cell phone, as if this was any other day.
I think part of it is that people are so used to riding in
vehicles that have been driven by someone else, whether it's
their parents or their loved ones. So I think having people
have the chance to experience it will increase adoption very
quickly.
The Chairman. And just as a follow up to that, during your
tests, what have been the reactions of people, consumers, who
have ridden in self-driving cars? Do they feel safe? I mean,
you indicated that you feel like they have an experience that--
it seems like it would be initially a little bit hard because
of the instinct that you want to control things.
Dr. Urmson. We've done some studies of this, and what we
find is the first 5 minutes is a little tense. You know, this
car is driving itself. And then in 10 to 15 minutes, it feels
like it drives pretty well, and 15 minutes on, you know, it
drives better than me is their impression. So we're fairly
confident that once people try it out, they're going to enjoy
it and really appreciate the value.
The Chairman. Mr. De Vos?
Mr. De Vos. One of the other comments we get frequently is
people say it's kind of boring. They basically say it's not
that exciting. The cars don't accelerate harshly or slam on the
brakes. They obey the traffic laws, and very quickly the ride
becomes--you know, the driving is no longer the activity that
you're focused on. You're focused on whatever it is you're
doing.
That's exactly what we want the technology to bring. It's
not about the drive. That just fades away into the background,
and it's about doing whatever it is you really need to do or
want to do during that time.
Mr. Okpaku. From our perspective, sir, in order to make
sure that this is readily available for the consumers at large,
it has to be safe, it has to be convenient, and it has to be
cost effective, and this is where Lyft really thinks it can
help in making sure that all of those three factors are met in
deploying this technology to the people at large. This is
essentially the same challenges that Lyft faced a few years ago
when launching a purely peer-to-peer platform, and that idea
was considered fairly out there at the time that we brought
that product to market. And as I mentioned before, a few years
later, it's already become probably one of the most popular
modes of transportation today.
So in order to really ensure that consumers are ready to
adopt this, we need to convince them that it's safe, which I
think everyone here is committed to doing. And in order to make
sure that it is cost efficient, I believe that a ride-sharing
platform like Lyft must be involved.
Dr. Cummings. Senator Thune, I'd like to add just one
thing, and this is really a critical point. Timing is
everything. There is no question that someone is going to die
in this technology. The question is when, and what can we do to
minimize that.
I think I speak for many people in the robotics community
to say we are strong advocates of this technology, but if a
death, a fatality, were to occur soon, at the wrong time, it
could really set back the integration of this technology, which
I fully think will help prevent those deaths on the road. So
that's why I think we're very--we, being many academics in this
community, are very concerned that we do want the safety
testing data out there so that an accident that could have been
prevented did not happen.
The Chairman. Well, thank you all very much. This has been
very helpful. In just looking at the technology, it seems like
there's enormous potential there on so many levels, and first
and foremost, of course, is safety. If we could reduce by any
amount the number of fatalities we have on America's roadways
in a given year, that would be a remarkable accomplishment.
But I think in terms of the economic and the gains in
productivity, quality of life, environmental, congestion, all
these things that we talk about in our society today, it seems
to me at least that we could have enormous benefits, but
always, of course, with an eye toward the safety and making
sure that we're doing things in the right ways.
One of the questions that's been raised a lot today, as
many of you responded to, is the issue of cyber attacks, hacks,
and that sort of thing, and cybersecurity, and measures being
taken, and I think that's something that people will inevitably
raise a lot of concerns about, given just the overall cyber
threats that we face in the world today. So, certainly, with
autonomous vehicles, there's going to be no exception.
And I'm interested in some of the responses that you all
gave to that question, because I think it's--and, particularly,
some of it, too, with redundancy that's built into the
vehicles, any types of gaps that occur if there were some sort
of disruption in the connectivity--I mean, it sounds like
you've given a lot of thought to this, and there has been a lot
of testing and a lot of research already done.
So we encourage that and want to continue it and want to
make sure that we do our job to ensure that it's done in the
safest manner possible, but not in a way that inhibits or
imposes any kind of a barrier or impediment to what we think is
something that has tremendous upside and tremendous potential
for the American economy and for the safety of our Nation.
So thank you all for making your time available to us today
and for your thoughts and insights. We look forward to
continuing the conversation about this, and the sky seems to be
the limit, so to speak, in terms of where we can go with this.
So thank you all very much.
I would just conclude that the hearing record remains open
for 2 weeks, during which time Senators are asked to submit any
questions for the record, and upon receipt, the witnesses are
requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as
soon as possible.
Thank you all very much. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
HARMAN
Stamford, CT, March 22, 2016
Hon. John Thune,
Chairman,
United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
Ranking Member,
United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson,
HARMAN was very pleased to see the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation participate in the important dialogue
between government and industry about a future with connected and
autonomous vehicles. HARMAN is an industry leader in connected car
technology, working every day at the industry's cutting edge to create
the technology that ensures a safe and enjoyable driving experience.
Autonomous and connected vehicle technologies are at the forefront
of innovation and pose many benefits in the public interest. Like many
of those who testified, HARMAN is eager to work with the government as
it develops a regulatory framework that fosters innovation and growth.
As autonomous vehicles inch closer to market, we agree that safety
and privacy are things that should be taken very seriously by everyone
involved. This commitment to cybersecurity and customer privacy is
evidenced by our recent acquisition of TowerSec, the leading automotive
cybersecurity firm. We have also implemented a robust multilayered
automotive cybersecurity architecture that outlines the best practices
in designing security features across the critical points of
vulnerability in the connected and autonomous cars. HARMAN's leadership
in these areas have received numerous industry accolades including the
Business Intelligence BIG Innovation Award for automotive sector and
the industry analyst firm Frost and Sullivan award for product
innovation in cybersecurity.
In addition to software security, a safe driving experience on the
road naturally dominated this Senate hearing. We understand that safety
is the foremost concern for lawmakers in an autonomous car future.
However, HARMAN has developed numerous technologies that improve driver
safety, not in the near future, but today. HARMAN's camera-based vision
technologies, advanced navigation capabilities, pedestrian detection
solutions, and head-up display products are all designed to help enrich
the safety experience in the car while minimizing driver distraction.
In addition, our company develops software that allows for vehicle-to-
vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2X) communication.
HARMAN's secure communications technology serves as the vehicles
central nervous system, broadcasting and collecting surrounding
information to ensure increased road safety. This technology has a more
immediate impact on road safety and the standards currently being
crafted for this technology should foster further innovation and
product deployment.
HARMAN is very excited to play a role in the innovative work being
done in this field. It's a pleasure to see that the Senate and those in
government have an interest in working with the industry to allow for
meaningful and safe innovation.
Sincerely,
Paula Davis,
Vice President, Corporate Affairs
and Communications.
______
National Federation of the Blind
Baltimore, MD, March 22, 2016
Hon. John Thune,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson:
I write on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB),
the Nation's oldest and largest organization of the blind, to thank you
for conducting last week's hearing on autonomous vehicles. It was my
great privilege to attend the hearing last Tuesday afternoon and listen
to the five witnesses as well as the insightful questions posed by
members of the Committee.
As a blind husband and father, the prospect of being able to drive
using an autonomous vehicle excites me. I am not inclined to ask my
wife and son to cart me around wherever I need to go. My blind
colleagues in the NFB feel the same way. You should know that I am not
writing to express a mere pipe dream.
At Daytona International Speedway, on January 29, 2011, just before
the start of the 2011 Rolex 24 at Daytona, the National Federation of
the Blind conducted the Blind Driver Challenge. Mark Riccobono, who is
now President of the NFB, became the first blind person to
independently drive a car on the racetrack. We were pleased that
Congressman John Mica of Florida was able to participate in the
festivities of that historic day, and we believe that his position on
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will be
helpful in our continuing dialogue with Congress on this topic. Last
week's hearing was a positive step. However, we expect that in the
midst of all of the excitement about expanding opportunities for people
with disabilities through the proliferation of autonomous vehicles,
Congress and the private sector will engage the disability community.
We anxiously anticipate the day that all blind people will have the
opportunity to drive independently, and we believe that autonomous
vehicles will make this day possible. This is why the National
Federation of the Blind has done more work related to including blind
people in the class of drivers than anybody in the disability space. As
blind people, we know that we can live the life we want, and that with
effort and American ingenuity we can transform dreams into reality. We
know that blind people have the capacity to act with the controls under
our hands including when those controls are installed in autonomous
vehicles.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions you have
about our experience and expertise in this area. We look forward to
working with Congress in the near future, as we endeavor to expand
opportunities for blind people with regard to an activity that most
believe impossible for the blind. Thank you again for your attention in
this important matter.
With kind regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Parnell Diggs, Esq.
Director of Government Affairs,
National Federation of the Blind.
______
Statement from Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE)
About Securing America's Future Energy
Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) has been leading efforts to
improve U.S. energy security for economic and national security reasons
for over a decade, led by retired four-star military officials and
leading business CEOs on its Energy Security Leadership Council. SAFE's
policies include increasing domestic production of oil and gas while
breaking oil's monopoly over the transportation sector, which accounts
for over 70 percent of all oil consumption in America. Last year, SAFE
formed an Autonomous Vehicle Task Force--comprised of business,
technology and policy leaders--to advise it on the transformation
currently underway in the transportation sector and had actively
started working in this space. SAFE recently testified at the
California DMV hearings and is also completing a National Strategy with
specific recommendations on autonomy for our CEOs and military leaders
to be issued on May 19.
Autonomous transportation could bring about the most dramatic
transformation in society in the last 100 years. This shift could
deliver unprecedented benefits by unleashing trillions of previously
non-productive hours, addressing the dramatic underutilization inherent
to the current vehicle ownership model, significantly curbing the more
than one million traffic fatalities annually worldwide \1\, providing
mobility and freedom to the disabled and elderly, and securing dramatic
reductions in oil demand through efficiency and fuel diversification.
It is the goal of SAFE to make sure that we are cognizant of the
national interest as opposed of the interest of one company or industry
over another, and to not allow incumbents to slow the advancement of
critical technology down through regulatory mechanisms in the guise of
safety or for other reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/
traffic_deaths_number/en/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits of technology
Key benefits of autonomous vehicles will include:
Energy Security: Studies, including our own internal modeling,
demonstrate the potential for autonomous vehicles to reduce
petroleum dependency. Autonomous vehicles will allow more
efficient operation, reduce congestion, and will encourage the
economic and technological case for Advanced Fuel Vehicles.
Morgan Stanley estimated that U.S. fuel savings would be $150
billion annually before even taking into consideration fuel
economy improvements.
Safety: Preliminary data shows that even as effective advanced
safety technologies become more prevalent and reliable, motor
vehicle related accidents rose over 8 percent in 2015. The
total social and economic cost of vehicle crashes is estimated
to be over $800 billion per year. Autonomous vehicles have the
potential to avoid or mitigate many, if not most, of the 93
percent of crashes which are caused by human error.
Mobility Access: By 2050, the number of Americans older than 65
will approach 90 million, more than double today's number.
Studies show that as Americans enter their 70s and 80s, their
travel is sharply reduced in large part due to age-related
infirmities. Autonomous vehicles can provide mobility,
independence and dignity, to older Americans, and better
integrate them into the economy.
Similarly, the disabilities community could be transformed through
better access to mobility. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the
labor force participation rate for individuals with an ambulatory
disability is only 25 percent, compared to 75 percent for the broader
population.
Harvard economists have found that access to efficient, quick, and
reliable transportation significantly improves the odds of individuals
lifting themselves out of poverty.
Current technology status
While it has long been possible to automate some of a vehicle's
function (e.g., cruise control), the last few years have seen an
increasing focus on the potential to deploy highly automated vehicles
to the public. New entrants to this space who are outside the auto
industry have been particularly influential. Google began to work in
this space in 2009 and of January 2016, the company has tested more
than 1.4 million autonomous miles.
Traditional automotive companies sense a competitive threat have
not ignored this important trend. By now, most have now announced
autonomous vehicle development activities, although they differ in
whether they are aiming for ``full automation'' where the driver is
rendered unnecessary, or using autonomous vehicles as a ``backup
driver'' to improve safety. Some automakers are experimenting with new
business models such as carsharing and other mobility on-demand
services, while others believe that personal vehicle ownership will
remain the near-exclusive paradigm for most Americans for decades to
come.
SAFE Activities in this space
Regulatory Process: SAFE's Autonomous Vehicle Initiative advocates
for policy framework which does not impede with the deployment of
autonomous vehicles and that the regulatory process is reformed so that
it can respond quickly to an increasingly changing technology
environment.
SAFE and several representatives of the Autonomous Vehicle Task
Force participated in a workshop with the California DMV on regulations
for the deployment of autonomous vehicles. SAFE, in conjunction with
its Task Force and a network of external experts, is engaging
California and offering resources for the creation of deployment
regulations.
Communications: SAFE has been educating the public and activating a
broad range of constituents through a coordinated media campaign on
autonomous vehicles. Articles written by or quoting SAFE affiliated
experts include
SAFE Announcement: ``SAFE Launches Autonomous Vehicle Task
Force to Advance U.S. Economic and National Security''
Detroit News: ``Self-driving cars put the `auto' in
automobile'' (opinion by Mike Granoff, SAFE Autonomous Vehicle
Task Force member)
USA Today: ``Toyota, new task force could boost non-gas
options'' (news), also appeared in Detroit Free Press here
Detroit News: ``Group launches task force to speed
driverless cars'' (news)
Green Car Congress: ``SAFE launches Autonomous Vehicle Task
Force'' (news)
The Hill: ``Regulators: Don't Slam the Brakes on Driverless
Cars'' (opinion by Robbie Diamond)
SAFE Reaction: ``Autonomous Vehicle Task Force: Latest
California Regulation for Driverless Cars Will Stalemate
Progress, Send Innovation Elsewhere''
SAFE Reaction: ``SAFE CEO: DOT Regulations for Autonomous
Vehicles Should Leave a Wide Berth for Innovation, Improvements
in Efficiency and Safety''
Cleantechnica: ``Do Driverless Cars Need Drivers?'' (opinion
by Rutt Bridges, SAFE Autonomous Vehicle Task Force member)
Coalition Building: SAFE is organizing both industry players and
broader stakeholders to create consensus positions around autonomous
vehicles. SAFE is organizing stakeholder groups and business interests
who are potentially impacted by autonomous vehicle deployment.
SAFE Positions
Don't Let Regulations Stifle the Technology: SAFE is actively
promoting this message in response to California proposed autonomous
vehicle regulations, which is an example of steps governments should
not take. Government should allow the deployment of fully autonomous
cars so long as they are demonstrably safe and the private sector is
willing to deploy them.
Government Role: The government's role is important but should be
limited to ensure that policies advance, not impede innovation and
progress of these technologies. Policies will be important to ensure
that adoption is carried out smoothly and safely.
There is a need for some government spending to create a regulatory
framework and speed adoption, but not a major, multi-billion dollar
spend. The private sector is capable of investing in development of the
technology and there are strong incentives for it to do so.
Energy Security and other social benefits: Market-based mechanisms
should encourage the use of autonomous vehicles to achieve social
benefits such as increased mobility for older Americans, Americans with
disabilities, and lower-income Americans. Primarily among those
benefits is the energy security benefits of autonomous vehicles.
Autonomy has the potential expedite the end of oil dependence.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Dr. Chris Urmson
Question 1. At the hearing, we discussed a number of potential
benefits and opportunities offered by autonomous vehicles, including
increased safety, mobility, and efficiency. How do you think
transportation and mobility will change in the future? Will the design,
operation, and ownership of cars change? How will the regulatory and
legal environment need to adapt to those changes?
Answer. We would like to transform mobility for everyone. From the
very earliest days of the self-driving car project, we've wanted to
realize the full potential of this technology to help as many people as
we can--such as helping senior citizens get to doctor's appointments,
or helping people who have health conditions that make driving
difficult. We think fully self-driving cars could open up opportunities
for new and interesting models in which people have access to a vehicle
rather than owning a vehicle, but it's still too early to know how that
would work or make any firm decisions. However, the regulatory
environment will need to evolve to accommodate the safety innovations
necessary to safely operate fully self-driving cars in the U.S. Current
regulatory authority is insufficient to keep pace with safety
technologies being developed by vehicle manufacturers and technology
innovators. Among those technologies are adaptive beam headlights, side
mirror-replacing sensors, and new automated systems necessary for fully
self-driving cars. New and amended automotive safety standards take
years to finalize through NHTSA rulemaking. Existing authority
concerning ``general exemptions'' (49 USC 30113) provides some leeway
for development and field evaluation of innovative features but its
limitations on duration (two years) and vehicle numbers (2,500 in any
12-month period) do not provide for full deployment. 49 USC 30114
(``special exemptions'') is limited to research, investigations,
demonstrations, training, competitive racing events, show, or display.
The recently enacted section 49 USC 30112(b)(10) permits introduction
of vehicles into commerce that do not comply with the FMVSS ``solely
for the purposes of testing or evaluation.'' As we discussed during the
hearing, we would propose giving the Secretary of Transportation new
authority to permit implementation of innovative safety technologies in
motor vehicles. The Secretary (likely acting through NHTSA by
delegation) could grant such approval only after public notice and
comment and only upon a determination that the terms of the approval
and any accompanying conditions would ensure safety at least as well as
relevant Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The result
would supplement existing NHTSA authorities, to expedite the safe
introduction of life-saving vehicle technologies.
Question 2. Self-driving cars are likely to increase mobility,
especially for those that are currently unable to drive. In developing
such technologies, how does your company work to increase accessibility
and incorporate the needs of people with disabilities, so that the
technology and interfaces can be used independently?
Answer. During our development, we have found it very important to
include the feedback and experiences of people with disabilities--such
as Steve Mahan, who works for the Santa Clara Valley Blind Center, and
has tested every generation of our technology--from our Prius vehicles
to our latest prototypes. We believe there is more work to be done in
collaboration with the disability community to ensure that certain
needs can be designed into the technology and interfaces as it becomes
ready for broader testing and deployment.
Question 3. In response to my question at the hearing about timing
for the availability of autonomous vehicles in the marketplace, GM's
witness expressed that GM expects to deploy vehicles in the next couple
of years, depending on how the technology develops and the criteria
established by regulators. When do you think these cars will be ready
and available in the marketplace?
Answer. We're currently testing our vehicles in four cities:
Mountain View, Austin, Kirkland, and Phoenix; we have a few on the
streets of Mountain View and Austin now. In this current phase of the
project, we're studying how these communities perceive and interact
with us, and we're continuing to smooth out the vehicles' behavior to
make them feel more natural to people inside and around them. We also
want to uncover challenges that are unique to a fully self-driving
vehicle--e.g., where it should stop if it can't stop at its exact
destination due to construction or congestion. The next step for us
will be running pilot programs with our prototypes to learn more about
what people would like to do with vehicles like this, though we don't
have any specific timelines to share right now. As I described during
the hearing, my oldest son is currently twelve years old, and my team's
goal is to ensure that he won't have to obtain his driver's license
several years from now.
Question 4. While self-driving cars have the potential to save many
lives, advanced computing and electronics may also create new concerns.
Can you elaborate on what steps your company is taking to make sure it
stays ahead of cyber vulnerabilities and other safety issues with these
new technologies and connectivity?
Answer. Google has a world-class team dedicated to making our
technology secure, which includes measures to protect the cars from
being hacked. All our communication to and from the car is over an
encrypted and authenticated channel. Data that is stored in the car
itself is encrypted such that even if the vehicles are compromised,
there would be no readable data aboard them. The hard drive that stores
the information is regularly removed from the car and wiped clean so
that the car never has large volumes of data in it. We're also
constantly testing and scrutinizing the security of Google's systems--
including our self-driving cars. Within Google, we have a team of
engineers whose job is to try and break into our products, so we're
able to continuously improve and evolve the security of our systems.
Question 5. There are clearly benefits of driver assistance
technologies, many of which are available today. Do you think driver
assistance technologies can evolve to fully autonomous cars? Or will we
see a mix of vehicles on the road?
Answer. Many people assume that, over time, incremental
improvements in driver assist technologies--things like automated
parking, or automatic braking in stop-and-go traffic--are going to
ultimately lead to fully self-driving cars. That isn't going to happen.
It's impossible to keep adding assistive technology around the driver
and someday end up in a place where a driver isn't necessary. It's not
a continuum--it's a chasm--and that chasm is the difference between
incremental benefits for society and a society that can shake itself
free of many of the environmental, lifestyle, and safety burdens that
our dependence on the automobile has unwittingly imposed on us. Getting
to fully self-driving has important implications for how you design
both the hardware and the software. If you think about how a typical
automobile works, it's entirely built around having a human present and
able to operate it safely. If you're going to have a vehicle that
doesn't rely on having a fully alert and responsive human, you'll need
to build extra systems in, like steering and braking. You may end up
disrupting the normal way all the vehicle's systems function. Despite
this, we recognize that the industry is continuing to develop and
deploy driver assistance technologies in the market today, and expect
that such vehicles would share the road with both standard human-
operated cars and fully self-driving cars.
Question 6. How supportive has NHTSA been of your efforts to
develop and get autonomous vehicles on the road? How can a public-
private partnership be helpful in developing and deploying these
technologies?
Answer. NHTSA's has rightly recognized the need to take quick
action to help ensure that the United States is able to stay in the
forefront of the development, testing, and safe deployment of this
technology. The Department of Transportation has also recognized the
safety, environmental and accessibility benefits of self-driving cars.
Secretary Foxx has committed to quickly working with the states to
remove regulatory roadblocks that would prevent self-driving cars on
U.S. roads, when the technology is ready. This is why we support
NHTSA's goal of working ``with the ITS-JPO to lead multiple pilot
deployments of Level 4 automated light duty and heavy duty vehicles
researching different approaches to automation in different places''
and ``developing new public-private partnership models for deployment''
to ``generate data and experience about how to effectively encourage,
regulate and legislate around this technology.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FY 2017 Budget Estimates--NHTSA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Dr. Chris Urmson
Question 1. Dr. Urmson, first thing on Google's self-driving
website states: ``Navigating city streets. We've taught our cars to
navigate through many complicated scenarios on city streets.'' In
Montana, we have gravel roads, wildlife, towns without stop lights,
roads that aren't mapped. What effort has Google taken to ensure
functionality in rural environments?
Answer. We recognize that rural communities have a significant
demand for new mobility options. For example, 79 percent of seniors age
65 and older in the U.S. live in car dependent suburbs or rural
communities. This is why it is is so important that learn how different
communities perceive and interact with self-driving cars--we want to
get more experience testing our cars in new locations with different
driving environments, traffic patterns, and road conditions. Since the
Senate Commerce Committee hearing, we've added Phoenix to our mix of
diverse communities including Mountain View, Austin, and Kirkland. The
greater Phoenix area also offers the opportunity to test our cars and
sensors in desert conditions, with extreme temperatures and dust in the
air.
Question 2. A portion of the 5 GHz frequency band is dedicated
solely to automotive short-range communications. In 1999 the FCC said
allocating this spectrum would foster innovation. Over the last 17
years this spectrum has been left inaccessible by consumers. Since its
inception, Google has innovated in many sectors and utilized a variety
of frequencies. Considering usable spectrum is finite, what efforts are
Google taking to share with other industries?
Answer. Google has long advocated more intensive, dynamic spectrum
sharing as a way to meet the growing data demands of 21st century
broadband users. For example, Google was an early supporter of allowing
opportunistic wireless use of the television broadcast bands, and in
support of that efforts, it operates a television white spaces database
to enable wireless devices to make non-interfering use broadcast
spectrum. Google has also advocated more intensive sharing between
governmental and civilian users, and is developing a Spectrum Access
System to facilitate sharing between military radar, satellite users,
fixed wireless broadband providers, and new fixed and mobile wireless
users in the 3.5 GHz band.
Question 3. In order for autonomous vehicles to become an everyday
reality, an unprecedented amount of data will be necessary. Individual
cars will collect much of this data. What data will Google be
accumulating? Will Google be selling or sharing this data with 3rd
parties?
Answer. The cars process data in real time to be able to make sense
of the surroundings and to help them drive safely. Radar is used to
detect and avoid large moving objects such as other vehicles, lasers
are used to detect and avoid pedestrians. Driving cameras are used to
detect and recognize traffic lights, stop signs and emergency vehicles.
While we're proving this technology out, we save this information to
run simulations to complement the driving the cars do in the real
world. The data collected by our vehicles is for testing and learning
purposes.
Question 4. Consumers are justifiably concerned about the privacy
of their data. In the FAST Act, the Committee included the Driver
Privacy Act, establishing privacy protections for vehicle data
recorders. Will Google make it clear personal data is owned by the
individual?
Answer. Google's prototype vehicles do not include traditional
vehicle event data recorders, since they were not designed to store
accident crash data linked to human operation of a vehicle, for which
the privacy protections under the FAST Act were designed. We also agree
with the findings of the Senate Commerce Committee in S. Rept. 114-
147--DRIVER PRIVACY ACT OF 2015, that ``S. 766 would use the definition
of EDR in section 563.5 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
In this context the Committee contemplates that the term should not be
interpreted as to burden unnecessarily the development and
dissemination of advanced vehicle safety technologies, including
autonomous vehicles. In the latter respect, the Committee contemplates
that the EDR would be discrete from any devices and functions used for
the operation of such vehicles.'' Our vehicles are only being used for
testing by our engineering team right now. When we begin any pilot
tests, we will make it clear to users how any personal information will
be used, and we plan to notify users before such personal information
is used for any purpose other than getting them from point A to point B
in our vehicle.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Dr. Chris Urmson
Question 1. In her written testimony, Dr. Cummings stated that
``the self-driving car community is woefully deficient in its testing
and evaluation programs (or at least in the dissemination of their test
plans and data)'' and that companies should commit to ``principled,
evidence-based tests and evaluations.'' How would you respond to these
concerns? Do you believe that the self-driving car community, including
your company, is testing rigorously enough? If so, should there be
greater dissemination and transparency of test plans and data?
Answer. As we develop our self-driving car, we're constantly
testing, analyzing and evaluating how our software performs. We do this
on our test track, in the real world (1.5 million miles to date), and
in our simulator (more than 3 million miles a day). Ultimately, a self-
driving car's readiness for the public can't be boiled down to a single
number, but we can accumulate a portfolio of metrics for our system
that are useful to watch over time.
One metric we're watching closely as an important indicator of our
progress is the rate of what we call ``simulated contacts.'' These are
situations in which, when we replayed a real-world situation in our
simulator, we determined that our vehicle would likely have made
contact with another object if our test driver hadn't taken over
driving. We have many other metrics and methodologies that will be
useful for establishing our safety record over time. On our test track,
we run tests that are designed to give us extra practice with rare or
out-of-the-ordinary situations. And our simulator generates thousands
of virtual testing scenarios for us; it executes dozens of variations
on situations we've encountered in the real world by adjusting
parameters such as the position and speed of our vehicle and of other
road users around us. This helps us test how our car would have
performed under slightly different circumstances--valuable preparation
for a public road environment in which fractions of seconds can be of
critical importance.
In addition to the testing that is done on public roads, our
simulator and on our private track, there is another important element
to understanding that we are ready for operation. This is the
completion of a functional safety analysis. This process is used to
identify the ways in which the car can fail and and create a safety
risk. The identified causes are then mitigated to reduce or eliminate
the risk associated with the various failure modes. This analysis is
supplemental to the various testing that is done and further
strengthens our confidence regarding public road deployment.
Thanks to all this testing and analysis, we can develop confidence
in our abilities in various environments. Throughout these processes,
it has proved extremely valuable for us to publish information on how
far we've traveled, new capabilities we've added, and any accident
encountered. We make this information available through monthly reports
on our website at https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/
Question 2. As you may know, NHTSA is working on new guidance to
states, policymakers, and companies on self-driving vehicles. Do you
believe that NHTSA has sufficient expertise, in terms of staffing and
resources, to guide the development of autonomous vehicles?
Answer. There are significant areas of technical expertise within
NHTSA today, supporting a range of advanced automotive safety
technologies, including self-driving cars, which exceed those available
at the state levels. However, we believe that additional staffing and
resources would help accelerate the efforts that NHTSA is undertaking
in this area going forward.
Question 3. Specifically, what, if any, additional authorities
should Congress consider providing NHTSA to allow for safe deployment
of autonomous vehicles?
Answer. We strongly support NHTSA's goals and believe that
Congressional action is needed to keep pace with safety technologies
being developed by vehicle manufacturers and technology innovators,
including fully self-driving cars. To achieve this goal, we propose
that Congress move swiftly to provide the Secretary of Transportation
with new authority to approve life-saving safety innovations. This new
authority would permit the deployment of innovative safety technologies
that meet or exceed the level of safety required by existing Federal
standards, while ensuring a prompt and transparent process.
Questions 3a. Should Congress provide authority to an agency, such
as the Federal Trade Commission, to issue privacy and data security
rules for autonomous vehicles?
Answer. We do not believe that the Federal Trade Commission has
requested this type of authority but the agency has repeatedly publicly
outlined how its current authority encompasses the privacy of new
technologies. In an October 2014 filing with NHTSA on the V2V ANPRM,
the FTC stated that, ``the Commission's primary source of legal
authority in the privacy area has been Section 5 of the FTC Act, which
empowers the Commission to take action against deceptive or unfair
commercial practices.'' ``To date, the FTC has brought more than fifty
cases against businesses that allegedly failed to maintain reasonable
security.'' ``In addition to enforcing the law, the FTC has distributed
millions of copies of educational materials for consumers and
businesses to improve their understanding of ongoing threats to
security and privacy. On the policy front, the Commission regularly
holds seminars and workshops to examine the implications of new
technologies and business models on consumer privacy.''
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Dr. Chris Urmson
Question. Mr. Urmson, would Google support mandatory cybersecurity
and privacy standards for autonomous vehicles?
Answer. Cybersecurity and privacy must be front of mind for those
working on this technology. We believe that it will be critical for the
automotive and technology industries to apply existing industry
cybersecurity and privacy standards from the technology sector to self-
driving cars to ensure the security and privacy of both the vehicles
and their passengers. For example, all our communication to and from
the car is over an encrypted and authenticated channel. In addition,
data that is stored in the car itself will be encrypted such that even
if the vehicles were compromised, there would be no readable data
aboard them. The same security practice is used in Google's Data
Centers today, to prevent data from being accessed even if a system is
compromised (e.g., (see Google Transparency Report on E-mail Encryption
in Transit).
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Dr. Chris Urmson
Question 1. The need to protect connected vehicles from
cybersecurity threats presents an opportunity for the auto industry to
partner with security researchers to ensure the robust safety of these
technologies. Can you describe the value of the ``bug bounty'' programs
your companies offer to security researchers and hackers to share
vulnerability information with your company?
Answer. Since 2010, Google's Security Reward Programs have been a
cornerstone of our relationship with the security community. Part of
this relationship involves providing cash rewards for quality security
research that identifies security vulnerabilities in products that we
provide or proactive security improvements to select products. Google
currently offers the following security reward programs: Google
Vulnerability Reward Program (VRP), Patch Reward Program, Vulnerability
Research Grants, Chrome Reward Program, Android Reward Program. We've
now paid more than $4,000,000 in rewards to security researchers since
2010 across all of our reward programs, with rewards ranging from $100
to $20,000 for each vulnerability disclosed based on the severity.
These programs have been successful because of two core beliefs:
Security researchers should be rewarded for helping us
protect Google's users.
Researchers help us understand how to make Google safer by
discovering, disclosing, and helping fix vulnerabilities at a
scale that's difficult to replicate by any other means.
In 2015, Google added the Vulnerability Research Grants program to
proactively identify bugs beyond the areas of research normally
supported by our vulnerability rewards. These are up-front awards that
we will provide to researchers before they ever submit a bug. We
publish different types of vulnerabilities, products and services for
which we want to support research beyond our normal vulnerability
rewards. We then award grants immediately before research begins, with
no strings attached. Researchers then pursue the research they applied
for, as usual, and are still eligible for regular rewards for the bugs
they discover.
Question 1a. Are these programs an effective way to engage the
security and privacy communities?
Answer. Yes, these security vulnerability reward programs have
helped Google identify thousands of vulnerabilities across numerous
product areas since 2010. In addition, they continue to foster a
crucial relationship between Google and the security research community
in identifying current and future vulnerabilities. The programs also
incentivize researchers to disclose vulnerabilities to Google first, to
allow adequate time for repairing it, before it is publicly disclosed
and puts users at risk.
Question 2. What data does your company collect from cars, and how
are you storing it on your own systems?
Answer. Our self driving vehicles currently use a number of sensors
to help understand their surroundings and arrive safely at their
destination. This information is crucial to maintaining and improving
road safety. The vehicles use this information in real time to do
things like navigate, obey traffic rules, and avoid hazards. This
information also powers simulations used by our engineering team to
test the self-driving software, which improves the safety and passenger
experience of the vehicles, and are stored in Google's state-of-the-art
Data Centers. Security is part of our data centers' DNA. We build
custom servers exclusively for our data centers, never selling or
distributing them externally. We've also designed them so they don't
include unnecessary hardware or software--reducing the number of
potential vulnerabilities. We also have robust disaster recovery
measures in place. For example, in the event of a fire or any other
disruption, we shift data access automatically and seamlessly to
another data center so that our users can keep working, uninterrupted.
Our emergency backup generators continue to power our data centers even
in the event of a power failure. At the data centers themselves, we
have access controls, guards, video surveillance, and perimeter fencing
to physically protect the sites at all times.
Question 3. How is that data being protected from privacy and from
cyber threats?
Answer. We have a world-class team dedicated to making our
technology secure, which includes measures to protect the cars from
being hacked. All our communication to and from the car is over an
encrypted and authenticated channel. Data that is stored in the car
itself is encrypted such that even if the vehicles are compromised,
there would be no readable data aboard them. The hard drive that stores
the information is regularly removed from each car and wiped clean so
that the car never has large volumes of data onboard.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Michael F. Ableson
Question 1. In her written testimony, Dr. Cummings stated that
``the self-driving car community is woefully deficient in its testing
and evaluation programs (or at least in the dissemination of their test
plans and data)'' and that companies should commit to ``principled,
evidence-based tests and evaluations.'' How would you respond to these
concerns? Do you believe that the self-driving car community, including
your company, is testing rigorously enough? If so, should there be
greater dissemination and transparency of test plans and data?
Answer. At GM we are working diligently to test this technology. We
regularly partner with outside experts and the academic community. We
also undertake significant testing at our dedicated Milford Proving
Grounds facility.
We have state of the art simulation testing capabilities and are
building an Autonomous Driving Simulation Lab and a Driver in the Loop
Simulator Lab at the Milford Proving Ground, which will be in use in
2016. The Autonomous Driving Simulation Lab will provide capability to
simulate autonomous driving dynamics over a wide variety of conditions.
The full motion Driver in the Loop Simulator will enable us to
rigorously develop the vehicles systems, optimize safety and ensure
passenger comfort. Our partnership with Virginia Tech University has
also enabled us to test and model tire performance which will be used
in the Autonomous Simulators as well as regularly test vehicles on the
Virginia Smart Road and in the SoVa Motion Labs.
In addition, we believe that controlled ride-sharing projects, such
as those we are planning with Lyft provide us with a safe testing
platform for automated vehicles. We also believe transparency
surrounding testing and data are important, and we are exploring ways
to further this objective to increase consumer confidence. We are also
regularly engaged with NHTSA in connection with its automated vehicle
efforts, which includes testing and data considerations.
Question 2. As you may know, NHTSA is working on new guidance to
states, policymakers, and companies on self-driving vehicles. Do you
believe that NHTSA has sufficient expertise, in terms of staffing and
resources, to guide the development of autonomous vehicles?
Answer. We cannot speak to NHTSA's staffing and resources but we
are extremely encouraged by NHTSA's actions taken to date. This
technology is changing rapidly and all involved parties will have to
continue to adapt to these changes.
Question 3. Specifically, what, if any, additional authorities
should Congress consider providing NHTSA to allow for safe deployment
of autonomous vehicles?
Answer. We believe NHTSA is taking the correct steps within the
parameters of its authority. As noted in my testimony, we will continue
to work with NHTSA to find creative ways to advance automated
technology in real world controlled projects to accelerate learning
about the technology and how it performs. As we learn through real
world projects, we will have better information to determine if
additional legal authority is needed going forward.
Questions 3a. Should Congress provide authority to an agency, such
as the Federal Trade Commission, to issue privacy and data security
rules for autonomous vehicles?
Answer. GM's commitment to data privacy and security is unwavering
and we appreciate any effort aimed toward increasing privacy and
security. We do not believe, however, that a single binding set of
rules or a particular set of practices apply in all contexts. The best
approach will vary depending upon circumstances, and automakers must be
free to choose the solution that best fits both the needs of the
product and the demands of automotive safety and innovation. We also
believe that existing authority already exists through Federal and
state consumer protections statutes to protect consumers of autonomous
vehicles.
Question 4. At the hearing, many of us on the Committee couldn't
help but be reminded of the hearings that took place two years ago in
that very room. In that case, the defect in the ignition switches
wasn't something related to software or LIDAR or anything approaching
the technological complexity of what's required in a self-driving car.
In fact, the deadly problem in GM's ignition switches was really just a
simple nuts-and-bolts mechanical problem.
Question 4a. Could you walk us through what your company does in
terms of spotting and reporting potential safety issues as your company
develop autonomous vehicle technologies?
Answer. GM utilizes a number of processes in an attempt to detect
potential safety issues in GM vehicles, including data analytics and
GM's Speak Up for Safety program. GM's Emerging Issue Identification
process, along with the Safety and Field Investigations (SFI) process,
help identify and analyze potential safety issues and conduct specific
investigations as appropriate. Where a cybersecurity issue is
identified that may impact vehicle safety, the issue is brought into
the SFI process. GM routinely communicates with NHTSA regarding issues
currently under investigation by GM and the results of GM's
investigation and decision-making processes. In addition, we
periodically meet with NHTSA and review cybersecurity issues that might
be of interest. These processes apply to all vehicles, including those
with autonomous technologies.
Question 4b. What internal processes are now in place to prevent
personnel from covering up defects?
Answer. Please see the Answer to 4a above.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Michael F. Ableson
Question 1. The need to protect connected vehicles from
cybersecurity threats presents an opportunity for the auto industry to
partner with security researchers to ensure the robust safety of these
technologies.
Question 1a. Can you describe the value of the ``bug bounty''
programs your companies offer to security researchers and hackers to
share vulnerability information with your company?
Answer. GM finds great value in working with the security research
community. We welcome their input; we have, in fact, as of April 12,
thanked 68 hackers, through our website, https://hackerone.com/gm for
their contribution to GM's Security Vulnerability Disclosure Program.
Question 1b. Are these programs an effective way to engage the
security and privacy communities?
Answer. General Motors has established strong relationships with
many security researchers, various consortiums and other third-party
cybersecurity experts. These relationships are implemented through
contractual security-focused arrangements, contractual vulnerability
testing and solution engagements and mutual collaboration agreements.
In addition, General Motors engages with the cybersecurity research
community through regular attendance at research community conventions
and meetings. Also, General Motors employees play leading roles in SAE
and other standard setting organizations that are actively engaged with
the research community. GM's Security Vulnerability Disclosure Program
is a way to allow researchers who may not be already working with GM to
communicate to GM if they know of vulnerabilities in GM products.
Question 2. How does your company ensure that the supply chains are
protected from cyber threats?
Answer. We utilize our requirements as pre-sourcing cybersecurity
qualifications for suppliers for relevant components. Our cybersecurity
organization interacts with suppliers throughout the development
process conducting, among other activities, design reviews, code scan
reviews, supplier security testing results reviews, security and
penetration testing (conducted by General Motors and external experts)
and final cybersecurity sign off. We also have contracts requiring our
suppliers to meet our requirements, with rights to conduct audits and
reviews. We are also working towards a supplier training program on
topics including GM's cybersecurity requirements and best practices.
Question 3. How does the Auto-ISAC assist in ensuring that cyber
threat information is efficiently exchanged across the industry,
including suppliers and manufacturers?
Answer. The Auto ISAC can facilitate cyber threat information
exchange across the industry through its information sharing portal.
Since its inception, the ISAC has accomplished the following:
100+ intelligence reports published
10 public speaking events organized
428 intelligence sources developed
40 vehicle hacking tools tracked
130+ active users on the portal
18+ Board of Directors and Standing Committee meetings held
9 portal training sessions (in both English and Japanese)
30+ mentions in the press
The Auto ISAC has also identified and reported more than 14
vulnerabilities, provided by both Auto-ISAC members and other cyber
intelligence sources.
Question 4. What data does your company collect from cars, and how
are you storing it on your own systems?
Answer. The type of information generated by vehicles can vary by
make, model, model year, as well as individual customer use of a
vehicle and its features and services. In general terms, GM vehicles
generate raw data regarding system status and operation through on-
board computers or electronic control units within the vehicle. The
majority of this data is not transmitted outside the vehicle or
retained permanently in the vehicle's systems. Data that is transmitted
off-board the vehicle through the OnStar system is encrypted during
transit into our back office systems, where the data is stored with
appropriate data protection safeguards in place.
OnStar is GM's primary mechanism for collection of vehicle data.
OnStar's Privacy Statement delineates three categories of data
collected (https://www.onstar
.com/privacy). These categories are defined as Vehicle-Related
Information (examples include odometer, oil life remaining, tire
pressure, diagnostic data and information about vehicle collisions);
Driving Information (examples include geolocation, speed, safety belt
usage, and other similar information about how the vehicle is used);
and Account Information (examples include contact and billing
information and information about how customers use certain OnStar
services and its website).
Question 5. How is that data being protected from privacy and from
cyber threats?
Answer. General Motors continues to devote substantial resources
and effort to protect vehicles from cybersecurity threats and to
maintain data privacy practices that promote security, transparency,
choice, and integrity. We are taking a multi-layered approach to in-
vehicle cybersecurity and are designing many vehicle systems so they
can be updated with enhanced security measures as potential threats
evolve. For example:
We were the first auto manufacturer to create an integrated
and dedicated global organization focused on minimizing the
risks of unauthorized access to vehicles and customer data.
Jeff Massimilla, our Chief Product Cybersecurity Officer, has
responsibility for the end to end cybersecurity of our vehicles
and reports on a regular basis to our CEO and Board of
Directors.
We have collaborated with experts in the defense and
aerospace industries, government organizations, academia and
industry consortiums on best practices and key lessons.
We are also in full support of the recently formed Auto
Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Auto ISAC), which will
identify trends and common cyber threats and focus the
industry's ongoing efforts to safeguard vehicle electronic
systems and networks. Jeff Massimilla is the Vice Chairman of
the Auto ISAC Executive Committee.
GM has launched a Security Vulnerability Disclosure Program
through which security researchers who are not already working
with us that find security bugs or vulnerabilities related to
our products or services can inform GM via a security website
portal.
We strive to ensure that our customers are aware of what data we
might collect and how it could be used. The user terms and privacy
statements implemented across our customer-facing channels are designed
to provide customers with clear, meaningful, descriptions of our data
policies and practices. We also publish our policies in order for
consumers to make informed choices about our products and services. It
is also our practice to obtain opt-in consent for any services that may
fall outside those described in the OnStar User Terms and Privacy
Statement. Once OnStar services are activated, a customer may
subsequently cancel the services at any time, however, cancelling core
services means that vehicle connectivity will no longer be available.
Question 6. As the software and operating systems of GM vehicles
offer increasing automated functionality, it is possible that liability
will swing towards the manufacturers.
Question 6a. Do you expect automakers to assume more liability at
higher costs?
Answer. One of the great promises of automated functionality is the
potential improvement in driving safety by the reduction of driver
error as a factor in the number and severity of accidents. At present,
it is difficult to estimate the impact of increasing automated
functionality on the norms of liability, given the nascent state of the
technology, the large and growing car park of conventional vehicles,
and the role of autonomous in ride-sharing platforms versus
individualized driving, all of which can influence the approach to
autonomous vehicle liability by the tort bar and OEMs.
Question 6b. How could you see this potential shift affecting
suppliers and consumers?
Answer. Please see above.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Glen W. De Vos
Question 1. At the hearing, we discussed a number of potential
benefits and opportunities offered by autonomous vehicles, including
increased safety, mobility, and efficiency. How do you think
transportation and mobility will change in the future? Will the design,
operation, and ownership of cars change? How will the regulatory and
legal environment need to adapt to those changes?
Answer. Autonomous vehicles are expected to significantly
revolutionize the driving experience. First, safety will be
dramatically increased. Today's commercially available active safety
features, also known as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS),
alone will reduce annual driving deaths in the U.S. by one-third or
more than 10,000 lives a year once adopted throughout the fleet. Full
automation has the promise to go even further, making most auto crashes
and injuries a thing of the past. The reduction in accidents will also
significantly lessen road congestion, which crashes greatly exacerbate.
Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I)
communication, together known as V2X, will further help with congestion
as better information flow from infrastructure to vehicles can, not
only allow cars to reroute to the least congested road, but also allow
for better traffic management practices, such as better traffic light
timing. These technological advances will allow cars to operate more
efficiently and with fewer impediments. In addition, fuel economy will
improve since reducing both idling and the start/stop of most daily
commutes saves fuel. All of this can happen in advance of full
automation.
Full automation can produce even more remarkable changes. Road
design, for example, can be simplified since many of the current road
design features are intended to address drivers' limitations. From
roundabouts replacing clover leafs, to platooning vehicles allowing for
faster speeds and fewer lanes on the highway, automated vehicles could
have a profound impact on the built infrastructure, reducing cost, and
saving energy.
It remains to be seen how car ownership patterns change. Automated
vehicles make it easier to foresee a future in urban areas where fewer
residents own their own cars, instead relying on fleets of driverless
vehicles as shared personal transportation devices. Automated vehicles
could also allow people with disabilities, including age-related
ailments, to safely drive--restoring freedom of mobility to millions--
and therefore expand the ranks of car owners.
It will be important for the industry and regulators to work
together to adapt to these changes. The first area where the Department
of Transportation (DOT) and National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) can work with the industry is through
implementation of the STICRs Act. The STICRs Act will speed consumer
adoption of ADAS by updating the 5-star safety rating system. Safety
conscious consumers want to buy cars that are highly rated and the
inclusion of active safety in the 5-star rating will have an almost
immediate impact on consumer adoption of these life-saving
technologies. Greater adoption of ADAS will not only save lives now but
will set the stage for greater consumer acceptance of full automation
in the future.
It is also important to develop a uniform set of policies and
regulations pertaining to automated driving. Currently, many states are
establishing their own regulations in this space. It will be important
to have national policies, not 50 potentially varying state-level
policies, that are flexible enough to allow for the roll-out of
automated vehicles for fleets, the movement of goods and services, and
individual consumers.
Question 2. Self-driving cars are likely to increase mobility,
especially for those that are currently unable to drive. In developing
such technologies, how does your company work to increase accessibility
and incorporate the needs of people with disabilities, so that the
technology and interfaces can be used independently?
Answer. Fully automated driving will revolutionize the driving
population. It will provide more mobility and driving opportunities to
people who are currently unable to drive due to disabilities.
In the immediate future, ADAS has the potential to help people who
may be discouraged from driving. Technologies such as automatic
emergency braking will create a safer environment for drivers with
potentially slower reflexes or who do not have as much driving
experience, such as the elderly or new young drivers. The cocoon of
safety that is created by ADAS will increase confidence among drivers
and encourage more independent vehicle use.
Question 2a. In response to my question at the hearing about timing
for the availability of autonomous vehicles in the marketplace, GM's
witness expressed that GM expects to deploy vehicles in the next couple
of years, depending on how the technology develops and the criteria
established by regulators. When do you think these cars will be ready
and available in the marketplace?
Answer. Despite the success of our cross-country drive and our
demonstration of urban driving at CES 2016, significant challenges
remain in moving automated driving from concept to reality and finally
to commercialization. The availability of automated cars in the
marketplace will also depend on regulatory activity and mass consumer
adoption--which is difficult to predict. Technological advances and
strong consumer demand could result in fully automated cars entering
the consumer marketplace in the next decade. Several automobile
manufacturers have already announced automated vehicle launches for as
early as 2020 and Delphi is helping lead the way. Delphi V2V technology
is scheduled to be introduced on the 2017 Cadillac CTS later this year.
Volvo and others began offering automated functions like automatic
emergency braking and traffic jam assist in 2014. V2V and V2I will also
play an important role in providing information about the environment
in which the vehicle is driving. These technologies are important
foundations for automated vehicles and will help save lives before
fully automated vehicles are deployed.
Question 3. While self-driving cars have the potential to save many
lives, advanced computing and electronics may also create new concerns.
Can you elaborate on what steps your company is taking to make sure it
stays ahead of cyber vulnerabilities and other safety issues with these
new technologies and connectivity?
Answer. Delphi takes cybersecurity and safety very seriously.
Making sure that our products are safe and secure has always been a
priority for Delphi. Accordingly, Delphi was the first Tier 1 supplier
to join the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Auto-
ISAC) to further improve cybersecurity threat awareness and
coordination across the industry. The Auto-ISAC provides a forum for
information exchange among entities in the automotive industry for the
purpose of sharing trusted and timely information about existing or
potential cyber-related threats and vulnerabilities in light duty on-
road passenger vehicle electronics and associated networks.
Additionally, Delphi is in the midst of creating a state-of-the-art
R&D cybersecurity lab to verify new tools and technology and process
security incidents when they occur.
Delphi works with a number of international organizations,
government agencies and companies to ensure a coordinated approach to
the safety and security of interconnected vehicles--including the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). We have also worked with Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs) to ensure that the products we engineer meet OEM
specifications, and leverage open-source and industry accepted
information security protocols.
Delphi has also taken an aggressive internal approach to ensure
that our products are secure. In 2014, we appointed a central
cybersecurity director to ensure a uniform and comprehensive corporate
wide approach to cybersecurity. We also have a dedicated team of
engineers and IT professionals who provide oversight in the area of
cybersecurity and connected vehicles from supply to delivery and
aftermarket. Additionally, a steering committee meets regularly to
provide appropriate guidance with respect to policies, procedures, and
standards.
We also strategically engineer safety into technology. For example,
Engine Control Units or ECUs are developed with a secure boot and
programming functionality so only valid and trusted programs and
software are executed. A vehicle's wireless connectivity is also
protected using industry encryption standards to protect the vehicle
network and the user's privacy.
Question 4. There are clearly benefits of driver assistance
technologies, many of which are available today. Do you think driver
assistance technologies can evolve to fully autonomous cars? Or will we
see a mix of vehicles on the roads? How will the STICRS Act, enacted
into law as part of the FAST Act, help to speed the deployment of such
technologies?
Answer. The STICRs Act will greatly speed the adoption of life-
saving active safety technology. There are technologies that are
available in the marketplace today, such as automatic emergency
braking, blind spot detection and lane departure warning which can have
an immediate safety impact. Before STICRs, ADAS was not mandated as
part of the New Car Assessment Program's (NCAP) 5-star safety rating.
The 5-star rating is an important factor in driving consumer demand.
Safety conscious consumers want to buy cars that are highly rated.
Including active safety in the 5-star rating will give consumers a
clearer picture of which vehicles are the safest to own and increase
demand for active safety technology.
ADAS will be a crucial aspect as we move towards fully automated
cars. Over time, automated driving will likely evolve from ADAS.
Technologies that are available in the market today will provide a
foundation for automated driving. In addition, as a March 2016 AAA
survey of drivers illustrated, only one in five drivers today trust
``self-driving'' cars. Increased consumer adoption of ADAS will speed
consumer acceptance of fully automated vehicles. The same survey found
that ADAS technology is already desired by sixty percent of the driving
public.
Question 5. While driver assistance technologies may serve as the
building blocks for self-driving cars of the future, there are some
concerns that, if we have cars that handle nearly all driving
situations, human drivers might get complacent and not pay attention
and take control of the car when they need to. What is Delphi doing to
address those concerns?
Answer. With respect to driver engagement, there are two technology
systems that we implemented in our driverless car to help address the
issue.
A. Driver Monitoring: Delphi's automated driving platforms are
equipped with state-of-the-art driver state sensing systems,
which allow the vehicle to monitor the availability of the
driver in situations where a takeover may be necessary. If the
driver is found to be unavailable, the vehicle is capable of
coming to a stop until it is safe to proceed.
B. Drive-by-wire system: The drive-by-wire system featured in
Delphi's automated driving platforms is implemented in a manner
that preserves the function of the production vehicle's
steering and drivetrain. When manually operated, the vehicle
drives exactly as a production vehicle would. When auto mode is
engaged, the automated system uses the same vehicle input
interfaces as a human driver, which allows passengers to
directly see and feel how the vehicle is behaving. The
automated driving system is completely separable from the stock
system, which allows the driver to instantaneously assume full
control of the vehicle at any time.
Question 6. How supportive has NHTSA been of your efforts to
develop and get autonomous vehicles on the road? How can a public-
private partnership be helpful in developing and deploying these
technologies?
Answer. In December of 2015, NHTSA announced the creation of new 5-
star safety rating systems that would include ADAS. The new ratings
will include three 5-star ratings: crashworthiness, crash avoidance,
and pedestrian protection. The announcement follows passage of the
STICRs Act and will increase consumer demand for active safety
technology, a building block for automated vehicles. The timeline set
by the STICRs Act is to promulgate a rule within one year. It is
critical that this timeline does not slip.
Additionally, the Obama Administration's announcement of a ten-
year, $4 billion effort to ``accelerate the development and adoption of
safe vehicle automation through real-world pilot projects'' through the
programs authorized by the FAST Act demonstrates broad support for
moving the U.S. to an automated future. These pilots should be a useful
public-private partnership. For example, DOT's Smart Cities initiative
will be helpful in driving development of intelligent transportation
systems on a city-wide basis that no single company or local government
could accomplish on its own.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Glen W. De Vos
Question 1. In her written testimony, Dr. Cummings stated that
``the self-driving car community is woefully deficient in its testing
and evaluation programs (or at least in the dissemination of their test
plans and data)'' and that companies should commit to ``principled,
evidence-based tests and evaluations.'' How would you respond to these
concerns? Do you believe that the self-driving car community, including
your company, is testing rigorously enough? If so, should there be
greater dissemination and transparency of test plans and data?
Answer. Delphi is committed to ensuring that all of our products
are safe and reliable. Our technologies go through a rigorous testing
process to guarantee that they are safe and will perform to the
specifications set by our customers. In addition to the substantial and
continuous testing Delphi performs in the development and manufacture
of its existing ADAS product line, Delphi conducted the first cross-
country automated drive last year. During the test drive, the car was
in autonomous mode 99 percent of the time. This drive allowed us to
collect nearly three terabytes of data that will be instrumental in
improving automated driving technologies. Delphi will continue to be at
the forefront of developing, testing and evaluating the component
technologies that are saving lives today, and that will allow for
automated vehicles in the future. We look forward to continuing to work
with DOT and NHTSA to improve and evolve the testing and evaluation
programs and protocols on these critical safety features.
Question 2. As you may know, NHTSA is working on new guidance to
states, policymakers, and companies on self-driving vehicles. Do you
believe that NHTSA has sufficient expertise, in terms of staffing and
resources, to guide the development of autonomous vehicles?
Answer. Delphi has a strong working relationship with NHTSA and has
been pleased with NHTSA's recent steps on updating NCAP to include
ADAS, and its outreach to industry on the future of automated vehicles.
In addition to its talented staff, continued collaboration with the
automotive industry will help NHTSA access some of the specialized
expertise it requires to make informed decisions about the future of
automated vehicles.
Question 3. Specifically, what, if any, additional authorities
should Congress consider providing NHTSA to allow for safe deployment
of autonomous vehicles?
Answer. NHTSA currently has broad authorities in the regulation of
vehicle safety. Congress has proven in the past that additional
legislative action can have a beneficial impact on vehicular safety,
specifically as it relates to automation technologies. Congress's
passage of the FAST Act which included the STICRs bill gave NHTSA the
mandate to quickly update its NCAP 5-star rating system to include ADAS
technologies. This new legislative requirement was a significant step
towards driving consumer adoption of ADAS technologies which will save
thousands of lives annually, and is a critical step on the road to
consumer acceptance of full automation.
There are a number of areas in which NHTSA and DOT need to continue
to be active. One is in the V2V roll-out. DOT needs to have sufficient
authority to ensure that through a collaborative process with industry,
V2V and V2I can rollout in a timely and coordinated fashion. V2V will
be a major safety improvement not only for new cars but, through the
after-market, existing vehicles. The Federal Government will be a
driver of this adoption, through infrastructure spending as well as
through the designation and protection of the necessary spectrum.
Another area that could benefit from NHTSA's expertise is the
reconciling of the multiple state rules governing automated driving. A
balkanized 50-state framework will increase the cost and slow the roll-
out of automated vehicles. A collaborative process involving NHTSA and
the companies that are developing the marketing of automated and semi-
automated technologies that helps drive national rules of the road
makes more sense than 50 state solutions.
Questions 3a. Should Congress provide authority to an agency, such
as the Federal Trade Commission, to issue privacy and data security
rules for autonomous vehicles?
Answer. With respect to privacy, as a Tier 1 supplier, Delphi
builds to the standards requested by our OEM customers. Delphi only
keeps and stores data associated with its own test vehicles, unless
data storage is a product feature that is disclosed and agreed to by
customers. For our aftermarket offering, Delphi Connect, Delphi stores
data associated with end customer vehicles. This attribute, however, is
an essential product feature and is clearly disclosed to customers in
our terms of service for Delphi Connect. Delphi's experience and
practices do not inform the question of whether additional regulatory
authority in this space is needed or advisable.
With respect to cybersecurity, it is clear that expanded
collaboration and information sharing among and between the companies
responsible for building automated systems, as well as with relevant
agencies of the Federal Government, is critical. It is for this reason
that Delphi was the first Tier 1 supplier to join the Automotive
Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Auto-ISAC). There is a long
list of agencies that either currently are or would like to collaborate
with the automotive sector on cybersecurity. They include the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), DOT (including NHTSA),
and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as others with cyber
security and research expertise in the field. Delphi believes that
strong internal controls, adoption and implementation of best practices
and collaboration and information sharing between and among the
industry and with government agencies are key to developing and
maintaining cybersecurity in automated vehicles. At this time, it is
unclear if expanding FTC's regulatory authority would improve the
cybersecurity of automated vehicles.
Question 4. At the hearing, many of us on the Committee couldn't
help but be reminded of the hearings that took place two years ago in
that very room. In that case, the defect in the ignition switches
wasn't something related to software or LIDAR or anything approaching
the technological complexity of what's required in a self-driving car.
In fact, the deadly problem in GM's ignition switches was really just a
simple nuts-and-bolts mechanical problem.
Question 4a. Could you walk us through what your company does in
terms of spotting and reporting potential safety issues as your company
develop autonomous vehicle technologies?
Answer. Delphi is committed to making cars safer. Delphi's business
is built around the megatrends of Safe, Green, Connected, and as these
megatrends converge and become more integrated, we work to remain
uniquely positioned to bring full-system solutions to our customers. We
have a robust and market leading development and manufacturing process
that ensures the highest quality standards are achieved in all our
products.
All of our technologies are commercialized following a rigorous
development process which includes--but is not limited to--component
qualification, simulation, verification, environmental validation,
functional testing, FMEA, Functional Safety (ISO26262)
compliance, and fleet testing. Systems are verified at both the sensor
level (bench, chamber, real world usage profile) per functional test
plans with derived performance requirements and at the vehicle feature
level using functional test plans that evaluate true positive and false
positive performance on test track and in real world environments. The
false positive performance requirements are generated from a functional
safety case and typically require very large amounts of real world data
collection to ensure that the vehicle performs properly under all
conditions and in all environments. This testing always includes
environments where issues had been identified during the development of
prior systems. All performance issues identified are resolved using
structured problem solving in a ``test/develop countermeasure/re-
simulate process.
Question 4b. What internal processes are now in place to prevent
personnel from covering up defects?
Answer. Delphi has conducted a thorough review of its policies and
procedures related to safety. We believe our policies and practices are
robust, are being improved and will continue to improve.
Delphi's chief technology officer meets routinely with the
company's global engineering team to reinforce the importance of
raising concerns and providing feedback to our customers. Additionally,
the chief technology officer personally reinforces with the company's
global engineering team the importance of promptly raising concerns so
that they can be handled.
We have strengthened our procedures to promptly communicate safety
concerns to our senior management team. Also, we have strong document
retention policies in place and our critical engineering documents are
stored digitally. We continuously improve our processes and procedures
to increase vehicle safety.
We have enhanced monitoring of safety issues that arise during
product development, so that we can ensure they are identified and
addressed early in the process.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Glen W. De Vos
Question 1. How does your company ensure that the supply chains are
protected from cyber threats?
Answer. Delphi takes cybersecurity and safety very seriously.
Delphi will qualify the integrity and operation of new software and ICs
that will be used for our cybersecure product designs. This will be
accomplished through collaboration and cooperation with dedicated
suppliers during the development phase, followed by testing in our lab
during product development.
Making sure that our products are safe and secure has always been a
priority for Delphi. Accordingly, Delphi was the first Tier 1 supplier
to join the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Auto-
ISAC) to further improve cybersecurity threat awareness and
coordination across the industry. The Auto-ISAC provides a forum for
information exchange among entities in the automotive industry for the
purpose of sharing trusted and timely information about existing or
potential cyber-related threats and vulnerabilities in light duty on-
road passenger vehicle electronics and associated networks.
Delphi works with a number of international organizations,
government agencies and companies to ensure a coordinated approach to
the safety and security of interconnected vehicles including the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). We have also worked with Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs) to ensure that the products we engineer meet OEM
specifications, and leverage open source and industry accepted
information security protocols.
Delphi has also taken an aggressive internal approach to ensure
that our products are secure. In 2014 we appointed a central
cybersecurity director to ensure a uniform and comprehensive corporate
wide approach to cybersecurity, and we have a dedicated team of
engineers and IT professionals to provide oversight in the area of
cybersecurity and connected vehicles from supply to delivery and
aftermarket. Additionally, a steering committee meets regularly to
provide appropriate guidance with respect to policies, procedures, and
standards.
Question 2. What data does your company collect from cars, and how
are you storing it on your own systems?
Answer. Delphi only keeps and stores data associated with its test
vehicles. We collect a broad array of data from the sensors associated
our automated vehicles. The data is both stored on-board and outside
the vehicle. These are Delphi owned vehicles. Delphi does not store
data from consumer owned vehicle unless data storage is a product
feature that is disclosed and agreed to by customers. For our
aftermarket offering, Delphi Connect, Delphi stores data associated
with end customer vehicles. This attribute, however, is an essential
product feature and is clearly disclosed to customers in our terms of
service for Delphi Connect.
Question 3. How is that data being protected from privacy and cyber
threats?
Answer. As noted in Question 1, Delphi takes protection from
privacy and cyber threats very seriously. Delphi has developed its
Engine Control Units, or ECUs, with secure boot and programming
functionality, so only valid and trusted programs and software are
executed. The wireless connectivity is protected using industry
encryption standards to protect the vehicle and user's privacy,
including security to authenticate and gain access (WiFi protected
access 2 or WPA2). We also leverage Bluetooth to connect a user's
personal devices, but ensure that the connection is via Secure Simple
Pairing (or SSP) which allows for encryption of data between linked
devices, thus providing additional security.
Delphi has a history of working to improve cybersecurity across the
automotive sector. Delphi has, on multiple occasions, hosted the SAE
International/Battelle CyberAuto Challenge. The challenge entails a 5-
day workshop where teams of students and professionals, including
automotive engineers, government engineers, and ``white hat'' hackers,
work on production vehicles to find real solutions to the challenges
posed by cybersecurity in automobiles. Teams work to identify
automotive cybersecurity trends and develop talent in a new technical
discipline in this high tech space.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Joseph Okpaku
Question 1. At the hearing, we discussed a number of potential
benefits and opportunities offered by autonomous vehicles, including
increased safety, mobility, and efficiency. How do you think
transportation and mobility will change in the future? Will the design,
operation, and ownership of cars change? How will the regulatory and
legal environment need to adopt to those changes?
Answer. The notion of car ownership is already changing at a rapid
pace. As I stated in my testimony, according to a study by the
University of Michigan, in 2014 only 24 percent of sixteen year olds
obtained a driver's license. In 1983, that figure was 46 percent.
Additionally, as millennials age and gain more market buying power, it
is more likely that they will spend money on access to services, likely
through a smartphone, rather than spending on full ownership of a good
or service.
Today, we are a nation driven by innovation, creativity, and
positive transformation, all of which are shared core elements in our
emerging digital economy. Lyft's co-founders John Zimmer and Logan
Green have undertaken the formidable goal of filling the 80 percent of
empty seats in cars on the road, and providing a true alternative to
car ownership. With rapid urbanization comes increased traffic
congestion, a detriment that continues to strain our economy,
infrastructure, and environment. Lyft's vision is that through a mobile
ridesharing platform, we will be able to take more cars off the road
and complement existing public transit options. Lyft believes that this
vision can only be achieved through collaborating and partnering with
government, to ensure there are regulations in place to protect
consumers and allow for competition.
Now, three and half years after Lyft launched, smart regulations
have been enacted in over 30 states across the country. As the digital
economy continues to grow, and broadband and spectrum issues become
even more important with the advent of self-driving cars, there will be
new opportunities that lie ahead for government and industry. Lyft sees
similar parallels to the developing autonomous vehicle industry, and
would caution not to overly regulate too quickly. Thoughtful and
unburdensome regulations need to be developed to allow for innovation,
promote fair competition, and provide set safety standards. Lyft looks
forward to working with Congress, states, and NHTSA as autonomous
testing continues, and thoughtful regulations develop.
Question 2. Self-driving cars are likely to increase mobility,
especially for those that are currently unable to drive. In developing
such technologies, how does your company work to increase accessibility
and incorporate the needs of people with disabilities, so that the
technology and interfaces can be used independently?
Answer. Lyft has long been on a mission to reconnect people and
their communities through better transportation options. We're making
sure that people who need rides most are able to easily get them. Over
the last few years Lyft has been committed to helping people with
disabilities through rideshare, and we anticipate that this shift to
autonomous vehicles will only continue to improve mobility options for
all.
Lyft has partnerships with a broad range of accessibility/
disabilities groups from across the country, including the National
Federation of the Blind and the National Down Syndrome Society. These
partnerships are based on the notion that, among other things, having a
safe, reliable, on-demand, and cashless form of transportation has been
transformative for people with disabilities. These partners have helped
us think through improvements to the Lyft platform and policy
developments, as well as how to best engage and educate our community.
As we move into the new autonomous vehicle mobility space, we look
forward to continuing to work with our partners on ensuring that our
platform provides an inclusive service that benefits everyone in our
community.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dean Heller to
Joseph Okpaku
Question 1. Given that seniors in Nevada represent 13 percent of
our state's population, expanding seniors' mobility is of great concern
to me. I know many of the populations that could benefit the most from
ride sharing and ultimately on-demand autonomous vehicles are the very
people who either can't afford or struggle to use technologies, like
smart phones, that are needed to actually request a vehicle.
Last August, my office held a roundtable in Reno with seniors,
Federal agencies, health care providers, community leaders, and others
who are concerned about the health and well-being of Nevada's senior
citizens.
The Nevada legislature had recently passed legislation clearing the
way for ride share companies like Lyft and Uber to operate in the
state, so I heard directly from a constituent with her interest in your
services, but she doesn't own a cell phone. Another constituent said he
only had a flip phone so he could call his family during emergencies.
I think on-demand autonomous vehicles could be a major benefit for
the elderly. It could help seniors get to their doctor's appointment,
run errands like getting groceries, or simply ensure they maintain
their independence even though it might not be safe for them to drive.
What can we do to make sure these types of technologies are more
available to elderly populations?
Answer. Lyft has been dedicated to increasing mobility options by
providing safe, affordable, and reliable rides. For seniors, many of
whom no longer have a driver's license and have limited mobility
options, Lyft has provided them with an on-demand service that can get
them to medical appointments and restore their freedom and
independence.
Every year almost 3.6 million Americans miss or delay medical care
because they lack appropriate transportation to their appointments.
However, more than a quarter of Americans 65 years and older do not own
smartphones, so that segment of the population had not been able to
access the traditional Lyft platform. To address this issue, Lyft was
excited to announce a digital dispatch partnership with National
MedTrans Network that would allow for seniors or caretakers to call for
a Lyft ride through their phone or a desktop computer. Through this
kind of partnership we're already fulfilling 2,500 rides per week in
New York City alone. Across the country, Lyft has transported nearly
100,000 people through our partnerships with healthcare organizations.
Lyft has lowered ETAs by 80 percent, and reduced the average cost of
non-emergency medical transportation by an average of 20 percent,
providing dramatic reductions in wait times and missed physician
appointments.
As we shift into the autonomous space, access to more mobility
options will only increase for our senior populations and their
caregivers. We look forward to working with communities to best serve
their needs in innovative and impactful ways.
Question 2. Likewise, I think on-demand autonomous vehicles could
have major benefits for our veterans. In the Pahrump, NV area, the VA
was providing taxi cab vouchers to get veterans to their appointments.
However, cab access in that area was limited.
Has Lyft done any work with veteran service organizations or the VA
to develop strategies to improve veteran mobility?
Answer. Lyft has been proud to work with veteran's communities
across the country. Last November, in honor of Veterans Day, Lyft
teamed up with First Lady Michelle Obama's Joining Forces initiative to
provide free transportation to former military men and women who lack a
way to get to job interviews.
Since then we have been developing partnerships with local Veteran
Service Organizations (VSOs) and the National Coalition for Homeless
Veterans to continue to help provide transportation options to homeless
veterans going to job interviews.
As we shift toward autonomous vehicles, Lyft's goal is to deploy
this new technology and service for all communities at all income
levels. We look forward to continuing to work with VSOs to ensure that
our heroes have access to reliable transportation options.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Joseph Okpaku
Question. Mr. Okpaku, last year, Montana enacted a law permitting
ride-sharing companies to operate. Uber begin registering drivers in
January. Lyft does not yet have a presence. How will autonomous
vehicles enable Lyft and other transit providers to expand services to
rural communities?
Answer. Lyft commends Montana for its great work in enacting
legislation at the State level that permits ride-sharing companies to
provide safe, affordable rides throughout the State. Lyft looks forward
to opportunities to develop a rider and driver market-base in the
state. The advent and deployment of autonomous vehicles will bring many
benefits to consumers across various communities, both urban and rural.
The anticipated benefits of autonomous vehicles such as better, more
efficient vehicle utilization rates and a reduction in the frequency
and severity of vehicle incidents, will all help drive down the cost of
providing a shared mobility ridesharing platform that integrates
autonomous vehicle technology. While the focus of such platform is
likely to be in in urban markets at first, the anticipated cost savings
of such a platform will make investment in expanding such platform to
all communities, including rural communities, more likely. Lyft looks
forward to working with you as these technologies continue to develop.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Joseph Okpaku
Question 1. In her written testimony, Dr. Cummings stated that
``the self-driving car community is woefully deficient in its testing
and evaluation programs (or at least in the dissemination of their test
plans and data)'' and that companies should commit to ``principled,
evidence-based tests and evaluations.'' How would you respond to these
concerns? Do you believe that the self-driving car community, including
your company, is testing rigorously enough? If so, should there be
greater dissemination and transparency of test plans and data?
Answer. At Lyft, safety has always been the cornerstone of our
business model, and it will continue to be the foundation for our
evolution into the autonomous vehicle space. We fully agree with Dr.
Cummings' statement that ``principled, evidence-based tests and
evaluations are needed.'' Lyft announced its partnership with GM in
January 2016 to, among other things, grow an autonomous vehicle on-
demand network. This joint partnership will leverage GM's deep
knowledge of autonomous technology and Lyft's capabilities in providing
a broad choice of ride-sharing services to consumers. Lyft will not be
manufacturing the actual autonomous hardware that is subject to the
testing referenced by Dr. Cummings. Our role is to remain focused on
consumer networks and providing a safe, established, and affordable
means by which to build consumer support, awareness, and comfort with
self-driving cars.
Lyft will continue to work with GM and regulators to ensure that
each vehicle that any of our passengers enters is one that is safe,
reliable, and secure. This includes ensuring that any autonomous
vehicle that integrates with the Lyft platform has undergone and passed
a rigorous testing and validation process. While we disagree with Dr.
Cummings' statement that ``the self-driving car community is woefully
deficient in its testing and evaluation programs,'' we are always
supportive of a more open dialogue about transparency and seeking the
right balance between sharing of information, protection of consumer
privacy, and safeguarding proprietary business information.
Question 2. As you may know, NHTSA is working on new guidance to
states, policymakers, and companies on self-driving vehicles. Do you
believe that NHTSA has sufficient expertise, in terms of staffing and
resources, to guide the development of autonomous vehicles?
Answer. Similar to the Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) in
the rideshare industry, there is no regulatory precedent for the new
autonomous vehicle industry. Thoughtful and targeted regulations need
to be developed to allow for innovation, fair competition, and adequate
safety standards.
Lyft looks forward to working with NHTSA on its guidance to be
released in the summer of 2016. To date, Lyft has not engaged directly
with NHTSA on its proposed guidance, but Lyft commends NHTSA for its
foresight to engage in this discussion at this time and for the
thoughtful and open manner in which it has undertaken this task. Given
that we believe the forthcoming guidance is only the first step in the
development of sound, uniform policy regarding autonomous vehicles,
Lyft would support increased funding to NHTSA to further build and
strengthen its staff and core competencies with regard to autonomous
vehicles.
Question 3. Specifically, what, if any, additional authorities
should Congress consider providing NHTSA to allow for safe deployment
of autonomous vehicles?
Answer. Lyft does not have insight into any additional authorities
that NHTSA may need at this time, and would defer to the agency to
express its needs to Congress.
Question 3a. Should Congress provide authority to an agency, such
as the Federal Trade Commission, to issue privacy and data security
rules for autonomous vehicles?
Answer. We do not believe that Congress should, at this time,
provide additional authority to issue privacy and data security rules
specifically for autonomous vehicles. We anticipate AV technology will
evolve quickly, whereas by its nature the regulatory and rule-making
process is comparatively slow. Even well intentioned regulations or
rules issued now to protect against data security or privacy threats
could quickly become obsolete.
However, Lyft would welcome an opportunity to partner with NHTSA,
DOT, FTC or other appropriate agencies to develop industry standards
that address data security and privacy concerns without unduly
burdening new and promising technology and business models relating to
autonomous vehicles. In this regard, it should be noted that the FTC
already believes it has the general authority to safeguard against
privacy and data security violations. See generally, https://
www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/protecting-consumer-privacy,
stating:
``The FTC has been the chief Federal agency on privacy policy
and enforcement since the 1970s, when it began enforcing one of
the first Federal privacy laws--the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Since then, rapid changes in technology have raised new privacy
challenges, but the FTC's overall approach has been consistent:
The agency uses law enforcement, policy initiatives, and
consumer and business education to protect consumers' personal
information and ensure that they have the confidence to take
advantage of the many benefits of the ever-changing
marketplace.''
Given the FTC's involvement in privacy enforcement, we have
confidence that the Commission can and will use their existing
authority to address improper conduct relating to data security and
privacy in connection with autonomous vehicles.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Joseph Okpaku
Question 1. What data does your company collect from cars, and how
are you storing it on your own systems?
Answer. Lyft currently neither owns nor operates cars, and
therefore collects no data from cars. During the driver onboarding
process, Lyft collects general identifying information regarding
vehicles, such as the make, model and year of vehicles, which is
required to comply with regulatory obligations in jurisdictions where
it operates. Lyft also collects evidence of compliance with local
vehicle inspection requirements.
Question 2. How is that data being protected from privacy and from
cyber threats?
Answer. Lyft maintains an information security program to prevent
unauthorized access, destruction, modification, transfer or disruption
of Lyft systems and infrastructure that store, host, process, or
dispose of the data we collect to operate the Lyft service. Lyft's
security engineering team is primarily responsible for the Lyft
information security program and works closely with the engineering,
IT, and legal teams to handle cross-functional security projects and
issues. The information security program is designed to prevent,
detect, and respond to security incidents that may compromise data
confidentiality, integrity, and accessibility, including but not
limited to, unauthorized computer or network access, compromised
systems or credentials, malware attacks such as viruses, Trojan horses,
and worms, password cracking, denial of service, network spoofing,
phishing, social engineering, non-malicious employee misuse or error,
and lost or stolen digital devices.
Lyft is hosted entirely on a third party cloud infrastructure,
which is standard across the technology industry, and provides a strong
security foundation and physical security controls. The cloud
infrastructure has achieved numerous compliance certifications,
including ISO 27001 and SOC 2. Internally, Lyft implements and
maintains measures to prevent and detect security vulnerabilities prior
to any security incident. These measures include network access
controls and segmentation, network monitoring technologies to detect
and investigate anomalous activity, automated configuration management
tools, monitoring and identification of security vulnerabilities. Lyft
also places strong limitations on employee and machine access to the
cloud infrastructure, limits employee access to applications and data
(including customer data) on an as-needed basis, subjects employees to
a responsible data usage policy, uses single-user accounts, strong
authentication mechanisms, and does not collect or store payment card
data. Furthermore, the security team is involved in all stages of
software development process and all changes to Lyft applications and
infrastructure are subject to approval through this process.
Lyft's information security program is also designed to address and
respond to security vulnerabilities and data incidents, should they
occur. Our information security program includes a privacy and data
security reporting policy, an incident response team, and an incident
response plan that clearly establishes policies and procedures to
identify, assess, investigate, escalate, and respond to security
vulnerabilities and incidents. Upon identification of a potential
security vulnerability, the security team mitigates and resolves the
issue in a timely manner according to the severity of the vulnerability
and its likelihood of exploitation. Lyft also conducts regular backups
for disaster and incident response purposes and captures and retains
log data for debugging, monitoring, and responding to incidents.
Finally, Lyft seeks to limit security incidents by training employees
on our responsible data use and handling policy, basic security
awareness to prevent social engineering, phishing and other network
attacks, and escalation policies.
Question 3. As the software and operating systems of GM vehicles
offer increasing automated functionality, it is possible that liability
will swing towards the manufacturers.
Question 3a. Do you expect automakers to assume more liability at
higher costs?
Answer. We agree that this is an important question, but it is
probably too early for anyone to predict how litigation risk and
liability will shift. However, as safety experts and industry leaders
acknowledge, autonomous vehicles will significantly reduce the number
of accidents leading to injuries and fatalities on our Nation's streets
and highways. Thus, even if manufacturers and operators of autonomous
vehicles wind up taking on a higher proportion of litigation risk--risk
that in essence is being shifted from drivers--the inherent safety of
this technology will reduce litigation and overall exposure to
liability. We are confident that our court system, our common law
jurisprudence and our insurance markets have sufficient flexibility to
evolve along with autonomous vehicle technology, and look forward to
working with Congress to ensure that it does so in a fair and efficient
way.
Question 3b. How could you see this potential shift affecting
suppliers and consumers?
Answer. Please see above.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Dr. Mary Cummings
Question. In light of the concerns you raised about the inherent
limitations of human-automation interaction, would you say that Google
is taking the better path by developing completely self-driving cars
instead of the many other companies that are developing and
commercializing numerous semiautonomous features as stepping stones to
fully self-driving cars?
Answer. There is no one ``right path'' in terms of developing self-
driving cars. Because of known issues with human inattention and
propensity for distraction, Google X is moving towards a fully
autonomous car. This could be a good path but it assumes that the
technology is mature enough to function in all weather conditions,
under all driving scenarios including low probability events, and in
mixed vehicle settings, i.e., where human drivers of widely varying
abilities still command vehicles that have no advanced technology on
them. If the technology is not mature enough (which it will eventually
be but is not currently), then these vehicles should only operate in
limited environments with significant safety controls in place.
Other companies are choosing the ``optionally-operated'' concept
where the technology provides driver assistance. While more achievable
in the near-term, driver assist is also not a perfect technology in
that most systems require humans to pay attention under dynamic
conditions, which is not likely in the typical driving population.
However, this stepping stone approach allows manufacturers to introduce
incremental functionalities in limited releases that can be assessed
and modified. But because of the need to still include the human in the
loop in some capacity, manufacturers of these partially capable systems
need to pay much more attention to the human-technology interaction
aspects of their designs, which few companies are doing.
[all]