[Senate Hearing 115-434]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-434
TRANSPORTATION INNOVATION: AUTOMATED TRUCKS AND OUR NATION'S HIGHWAYS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
34-306 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MIKE LEE, Utah GARY PETERS, Michigan
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
TODD YOUNG, Indiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 13, 2017............................... 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 38
Statement of Senator Young....................................... 40
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 42
Statement of Senator Lee......................................... 44
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 45
Statement of Senator Gardner..................................... 47
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................ 49
Statement of Senator Inhofe...................................... 51
Statement of Senator Hassan...................................... 53
Statement of Senator Capito...................................... 55
Statement of Senator Duckworth................................... 57
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 59
Witnesses
Scott G. Hernandez, Colonel, Colorado State Patrol............... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Troy Clarke, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer,
Navistar, Inc.................................................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Deborah A.P. Hersman, President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Safety Council........................................ 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA).............................. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Ken Hall, General Secretary Treasurer, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Appendix
Article dated September 12, 2017 entitled, ``Self-Driving Truck
Technology Is the Answer to Safer Roads'' from Gary Shapiro,
President and CEO, Consumer Technology Association............. 65
Letter dated September 12, 2017 from Jacqueline Gillan,
President, Affairs, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; and
Catherine Chase, Vice President of Governmental, Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety........................................ 66
Letter dated September 12, 2017 from Beth Osborne, Interim
Director, Transportation for America........................... 68
Letter dated September 12, 2017 from Timothy Blubaugh, Executive
Vice President, Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association..... 70
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, prepared
statement...................................................... 71
Hon. David L. Strickland, Esq., Counsel, Self-Driving Coalition
for Safer Streets and Partner, Venable LLP, prepared statement. 72
Eric Meyhofer, Head of Advanced Technologies Group (ATG), Uber
Technologies, Inc., prepared statement......................... 75
Letter dated September 21, 2017 from Alex Rodrigues, CEO and Co-
founder, Embark and Jonathan Morris, Head of Public Policy,
Embark......................................................... 78
Truck Safety Coalition, prepared statement....................... 81
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to:
Colonel Scott G. Hernandez................................... 84
Troy Clarke.................................................. 84
Response to written question submitted to Deborah A.P. Hersman
by:
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 84
Hon. Maggie Hassan........................................... 85
Response to written question submitted to Chris Spear by:
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 85
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 86
Hon. Maggie Hassan........................................... 87
Response to written question submitted to Ken Hall by:
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 87
Hon. Maggie Hassan........................................... 88
TRANSPORTATION INNOVATION: AUTOMATED TRUCKS AND OUR NATION'S HIGHWAYS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Peters, Wicker, Moran,
Inhofe, Capito, Lee, Gardner, Young, Cantwell, Duckworth,
Blumenthal, Markey, Booker, Hassan, and Cortez Masto.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. Good morning. Before we begin, I certainly
want to express our support for and thoughts and prayers for
all the victims of the recent hurricanes, and most recently, of
course, in the State of Florida. And our colleague and the
ranking member on this Committee, Senator Nelson, he and
Senator Rubio are there today, as they should be, and looking
out for the needs of their constituents. And so, again, we
certainly want to express our support and prayers for them and
for the people of Florida as they deal with a horrific storm
and its aftermath.
This Committee has been working for some time in a
bipartisan fashion to address the advancement of autonomous
vehicles. And I especially want to thank Senator Peters for
partnering with me in this effort. I also appreciate the
contributions of Ranking Member Nelson, who, as I said, is
unfortunately unable to join us today.
We've put a lot of work into this effort to date, and I
look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to
introduce and pass bipartisan legislation.
Given this Committee's broad jurisdiction over
transportation, interstate commerce, and vehicle safety, we are
well-positioned to oversee and address the emergence of this
transformative technology. Beginning last Congress, we've held
two hearings and hosted a demonstration of this technology for
Committee members. With today's hearing, we'll take a closer
look at the promise and implications of the technology for
trucks and larger vehicles.
Automated vehicle technology holds great promise to
transform transportation in this country: expanding mobility,
reducing traffic congestion and related emissions, and
increasing productivity, among other benefits. But the most
exciting aspect of this transformative advancement is the
potential to save thousands of lives every year on our Nation's
highways.
In 2015, more than 35,000 people died in major vehicle
crashes in the United States. With more than 90 percent of
those deaths attributable to human error, automated vehicles
have the potential to reduce these tragic numbers dramatically.
Too many lives are lost on our roads, and I look forward to
hearing from Ms. Hersman about how automated vehicles,
including trucks, can help to reduce this number.
Trucks share our roads, deliver our goods, and keep our
economy moving. Including trucks in the conversation about
automated vehicles is important as we week to improve safety.
It also puts our economy on a level playing field as other
countries around the world deploy automated freight trucks.
In 2015, trucks traveled over 280 billion miles to carry
over 70 percent of the goods by tonnage on our roadways. A 2017
Energy Information Administration study projected that
automated trucks could yield fuel savings between 6.7 and 18.6
percent, improving our economic competitiveness, lowering
consumer prices, and supporting job growth. I am glad that Mr.
Spear has joined us today to speak to the impacts of trucking
on our economy and the role of automated trucks in the future
of transportation innovation.
Testing and development is already ongoing as companies in
the U.S. have increasingly explored the potential benefits of
automated trucks. Companies like Uber, Tesla, Google, Embark,
Starsky, and others have invested in automated truck
technology.
Truck manufacturers like Navistar are actively pursuing
automated technologies in trucks. Colonel Scott Hernandez,
Chief of the Colorado State Patrol, who joins us today, has
seen this technology firsthand. Last year, he participated in a
test of Otto, now Uber's truck startup, which drove 120 miles
on Interstate 25 in Colorado.
As other countries devote significant attention and effort
to stimulating innovation in this area, strong Federal
leadership will be necessary to maintain our position as global
leader and ensure that these vehicles are tested and deployed
safely.
Just yesterday, Secretary Chao announced the Department of
Transportation has updated its policy guidance on automated
vehicles. I am pleased to see action from the administration on
this transformative technology. DOT's new guidance improves
upon similar efforts by the prior administration and takes the
same position regarding the inclusion of all motor vehicles,
both cars and trucks, from light to heavy duty, under the same
regulatory framework. And though their approaches differ,
states that have passed automated vehicle legislation similarly
cover all motor vehicles, cars and trucks. In doing so, they
have recognized the need to address automated motor vehicles
cohesively, without leaving out certain vehicle classes.
Of course, it's important to consider all impacts of this
new technology. It is crucial that we hear about the potential
impact on jobs, and engage in a clear-eyed discussion about how
to best prepare for the future. So I am glad that Mr. Hall is
able to join us today.
There are over 3 million commercial vehicle drivers in the
U.S., and they are the backbone of the economy. Technological
advancements have the potential to affect them in very
different ways, including in positive ways. Technology should
make a driver's life easier and safer, which, in turn, will
improve the rest of our transportation system and those who use
it every day.
Automation will bring many benefits and many challenges,
but they are not entirely new challenges. As former President
Johnson said in response to the challenges of automation during
his term, and I quote, ``Automation is not our enemy.
Automation can be the ally of our prosperity if we will just
look ahead, if we will understand what is to come, and if we
will set our course wisely after proper planning for the
future,'' end quote. I'm glad we are continuing that discussion
today. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses as
we move forward with legislation to address automated vehicles.
And I now want to turn to Senator Peters for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for calling this very important hearing.
As the Chairman mentioned, I'm in this seat today because
Senator Nelson is back home in his great State of Florida
helping to begin the very long recovery effort after the
devastating Hurricane Irma, and certainly our thoughts and
prayers are with Senator Nelson as well as with all of the
people of the State of Florida.
As the Chairman mentioned last Friday, he and I released a
discussion draft of our self-driving car legislation, which is
the result of months of collaborative effort, countless
meetings with stakeholders across the spectrum of interests,
and further bipartisan work from Senator Nelson. I want to
thank Chairman Thune and his staff for the many long hours and
effort that have gone into this bipartisan draft.
This legislation will provide the first-ever changes in
Federal law targeted at ushering in a new era of mobility and
transportation innovation. The bill will facilitate the safe
development and adoption of self-driving cars, reduce existing
regulatory barriers, and establish a new regulatory framework
to support this innovation going forward.
Importantly, it will also ensure that the United States
leads the international race to deploy these new technologies.
We must develop and build them here in our country, creating
new 21st century manufacturing jobs as well.
For the remainder of this month, we will work diligently to
resolve and finalize the outstanding issues in this draft
legislation, including the topic of today's hearing, whether
highly automated trucks and buses should be part of this
particular legislation, or addressed in some future piece of
legislation.
I will note that while gathering feedback on Chairman
Thune's and my draft legislation, many stakeholders were clear
that the prospect of self-driving trucks raises a very
different set of issues from self-driving cars, and ultimately,
those same stakeholders expressed serious concerns with
including self-driving trucks in this bill without a much more
robust discussion and evaluation of their impact by industry,
academia, and government.
I will also note that our draft legislation was informed by
two Commerce Committee hearings, in March of 2016 and June of
2017, and two iterations of NHTSA's Federal automated vehicle
policy, all of which were focused on highly automated,
lightweight passenger cars, not trucks.
And, finally, I will note that the House recently passed
its self-driving vehicle legislation unanimously without the
inclusion of self-driving trucks weighing over 10,001 pounds.
It is indisputable that the trucking industry is critically
important to our economy and to the day-to-day consumer needs,
delivering more than 10 billion tons of freight per year and
employing more than 3 million Americans as truck drivers. The
same can be said of the bus industry, which provides important
transportation options for many Americans, and creates
thousands of jobs.
Major changes to these industries, brought on by high
levels of automation, will have a major impact on jobs,
transportation, and the economy, not to mention roadway safety.
And we need to make sure that when we do establish a regulatory
framework for self-driving trucks, we get it right, after
having considered all of the implications.
For example, we need to be able to answer some fundamental
questions. For example, What is the trucking industry's
timeline for deployment of highly automated trucks? Will the
industry deploy Levels 4 or 5 automated trucks, or will it
stick to lower levels of automation? What specific Federal
motor vehicle safety standards will highly automated trucks
need exemptions from? Do the unique characteristics of the
trucking industry require additional safeguards for highly
automated trucks, particularly for safety and cybersecurity
issues? How will changes to the vehicle safety standards impact
operations and enforcement? And should we be considering those
impacts now? What are the job impacts of highly automated
trucks? And what are the industry's plans for retraining or
reassigning the drivers who are in danger of losing their jobs?
But in our discussions to date, we have not gotten as clear
of an understanding on issues related to self-driving trucks as
we have during our countless discussions on self-driving cars.
As a result, I'm of the mind that highly automated trucks are
not ripe for inclusion in this bill.
Before I close, I want to be clear that improving safety on
our highways is critically important to me. It is one of the
reasons why advancing self-driving car legislation is so
important to me as well. But I also recognize that in the long
term, self-driving trucks and buses are also intended to
improve safety on our highways. This is certainly clear. But I
question assertions that excluding self-driving cars--or
trucks, excuse me--I question assertions that excluding self-
driving trucks from this particular bill will result in less
safe roads, and that they don't merit special considerations
going forward. We cannot allow such premature conclusions to
stand in this Committee's way of talking specifics and getting
the answers we need to have a more complete understanding of
the safety, workforce, and policy implications of highly
automated trucks.
Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here
today and for helping start this very important conversation,
and I look forward to the testimony.
[The prepared statement of Senator Peters follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gary Peters, U.S. Senator from Michigan
Thank you to the Chairman for calling this important hearing.
I'm in this seat today because Sen. Nelson is back home in his
great state of Florida, helping to begin the long recovery effort after
the devastating Hurricane Irma, and our thoughts are certainly with him
and his constituents this morning.
As the Chairman mentioned, last Friday he and I released a
discussion draft of our self-driving car legislation, which is a result
of months of collaborative effort, countless meetings with stakeholders
across the spectrum of interests, and further bipartisan work with
Senator Nelson.
I want to thank Chairman Thune and his staff for the long hours and
effort that have gone into our bipartisan draft.
This legislation will provide the first-ever changes in Federal law
targeted at ushering in a new era in mobility and transportation
innovation.
The bill will facilitate the safe development and adoption of self-
driving cars, reduce existing regulatory barriers, and establish a new
regulatory framework to support this innovation going forward.
Importantly, it will also ensure that the United States leads the
international race to deploy these new technologies. We must develop
and build them here, creating new 21st century manufacturing jobs in
the United States.
For the remainder of this month, we will work diligently to resolve
and finalize the outstanding issues in this draft legislation--
including the topic of today's hearing--whether highly-automated trucks
and buses should be part of this particular legislation, or addressed
in a separate bill.
I will note that while gathering feedback on Chairman Thune's and
my draft legislation, many stakeholders were clear that the prospect of
self-driving trucks raises a very different set of issues from self-
driving cars. And--ultimately--those same stakeholders expressed
serious concerns with including self-driving trucks in this bill
without a much more robust discussion and evaluation of their impact by
industry, academia, and government.
I will also note that our draft legislation was informed by two
Commerce Committee hearings--in March 2016 and June 2017--and two
iterations of NHTSA's Federal Automated Vehicle Policy. All of which
were focused on highly-automated light-weight, passenger cars--not
trucks.
And finally, I will note that the House recently passed its self-
driving vehicle legislation unanimously, without the inclusion of self-
driving trucks weighing over 10,001 pounds.
It is indisputable that the trucking industry is critically
important to our economy and to our day-to-day consumer needs,
delivering more than 10 billion tons of freight-per-year and employing
more than 3 million Americans as truck drivers.
The same can be said of the bus industry, which provides important
transportation options for many Americans and creates thousands of
jobs.
Major changes to these industries brought on by high levels of
automation will have major impacts on jobs, transportation and the
economy--not to mention roadway safety.
And we need to make sure that when we do establish a regulatory
framework for self-driving trucks--we get it right after having
considered all of the implications.
For example, we need to be able to answer fundamental questions
like, what is the trucking industry's timeline for deployment of
highly-automated trucks?
Will the industry deploy levels 4 or 5 automated trucks, or
will it stick to lower levels of automation?
What specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards will
highly-automated trucks need exemptions from?
Do the unique characteristics of the trucking industry
require additional safeguards for highly-automated trucks,
particularly for safety and cybersecurity issues?
How will changes to the vehicle safety standards impact
operations and enforcement? And should we be considering those
impacts now?
What are the job impacts of highly-automated trucks and what
are the industry's plans for retraining or reassigning the
drivers who are in danger of being out of work?
But in our discussions to date, we have not gotten as clear of an
understanding on issues related to self-driving trucks as we have
during our countless discussions on self-driving cars. As a result, I
am of the mind that highly-automated trucks are not ripe for inclusion
in this bill.
Before I close, I want to be clear that improving safety on our
highways is critically important to me. It is one of the reasons why
advancing this self-driving car legislation is so important to me. And
I recognize that in the long-term, self-driving trucks and buses are
also intended to improve safety on our highways. That is certainly
clear. But I question assertions that excluding self-driving trucks
from this particular bill will result in less safe roads and that they
don't merit special considerations going forward. We cannot allow such
premature conclusions to stand in this Committee's way of talking
specifics--and getting the answers we need to have a more complete
understanding of the safety, workforce, and policy implications of
highly-automated trucks.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today and for
helping to start the conversation on this very important topic. I look
forward to your testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Peters.
And we'll move now to our panel. We want to thank you all
for being here and welcome you, and look forward, obviously, to
hearing from you. We would ask, if you can, to confine your
oral remarks as close to 5 minutes as possible. Your entire
statement will be included as part of the record, but it will
maximize the opportunity for members of the Committee to ask
questions.
We'll start on my left, and your right, with Colonel Scott
Hernandez, who is Chief of Colorado State Patrol, from
Lakewood, Colorado. We'll move then to Mr. Troy Clarke, who is
Chief Executive Officer of Navistar; Ms. Deborah Hersman, who
is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National
Safety Council; Mr. Chris Spear, who is President and Chief
Executive Officer of the American Trucking Associations; and
Mr. Ken Hall, who is the General Secretary-Treasurer of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
So, Colonel Hernandez, if you would proceed.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT G. HERNANDEZ, COLONEL,
COLORADO STATE PATROL
Colonel Hernandez. Absolutely. Good morning. Good morning,
Chairman Thune, Senator Peters, and members of the Committee.
Thank you for holding this important hearing and for inviting
me here today to discuss the role automated vehicles will play
in the future and how they may improve safety on our Nation's
highways.
My name is Scott Hernandez, and I'm the Colonel of the
Colorado State Patrol, and I am honored to lead 1,200 members
whose primary goal is to save lives on our highways.
This year, 410 people have been killed on Colorado
roadways, a staggering number. We are committed to reducing the
number of people killed eventually to zero. The enforcement
community is excited about the potential improvements to
roadway safety that are possible with the deployment of
autonomous vehicles. Our commitment is to reduce crashes,
injuries, and fatalities on our nation's highways, and we know
automated technology has already saved lives through the
elimination of human error, such as distracted driving and many
other unsafe driving habits.
I am also a member of the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance. CVSA, which every state is a member, works to improve
commercial motor vehicle safety and uniformity by bringing
truck and bus regulatory, safety, and enforcement agencies
together with industry representatives to solve highway
transportation safety problems. Recognizing the tremendous
potential benefits, CVSA has long been a supporter of
legislation, regulation, and policies that encourage the
deployment of safety technologies, proven through the
independent research to improve CMV safety.
Even through preventing crashes or mitigating the severity
of crashes, autonomous vehicles are the natural next
progression in vehicle safety technology, and the enforcement
community stands ready to assist in making sure that these
technologies are deployed as seamlessly and as effectively as
possible.
In the late summer of 2016, Otto approached the State of
Colorado expressing interest in conducting an intrastate
delivery in an autonomous commercial vehicle. With
consideration of the fact that there are no laws or regulations
prohibiting the operation of autonomous vehicles to include
this scenario in Colorado, we chose to partner with Otto to
ensure safety remains paramount. We also understood the
potential for government and enforcement to learn from the
process in order to participate in reasonable regulations in
the future.
During the early morning hours of October 20, 2016, an
autonomous commercial vehicle delivered a product traveling 120
miles from Ft. Collins, Colorado, to Colorado Springs in a
Level 4 autonomous demonstration. Soon after entering
southbound I-25 from the Ft. Collins Port of Entry, the driver
placed the vehicle in autonomous mode and retreated to the
space behind and between the driver passenger seat. The
commercial vehicle traveled southbound on I-25 again for over
120 miles until the driver took over the controls and exited
the interstate toward the terminal. The demonstration
highlighted the future possibilities and use of autonomous
commercial vehicles.
The Colorado State Patrol and Colorado Department of
Transportation took extensive measures to reduce the risk
associated with this demonstration. We used NHTSA's ``Federal
Autonomous Vehicle Policy'' and California's autonomous vehicle
laws and rules as guidance. Pre-event testing was monitored for
consistency and achievement through specific safety performance
gates, ranging from off-road testing to extensive on-road
testing. The truck was inspected and deemed to be without a
violation by CVSA-certified safety inspectors, and the company
underwent a safety audit to ensure that it had appropriate
level of safety management practices in place to safely operate
in commerce.
The State Patrol and Department of Transportation received
detailed weekly briefings on performance through required
safety and testing protocols, including testing of scenario
plans for risk and fallback.
In an effort to ensure the demonstration was completed in a
safe manner for all involved, the State Patrol escorted the
autonomous vehicle in a similar fashion as a motorcade or
rolling special event, consistently monitoring safety protocols
and situational assessment. While we will still need to work
toward total solutions, the Colorado State Patrol made progress
toward understanding the perspective of other governmental
agencies, understanding autonomous vehicle crash
investigations, understanding why cybersecurity will be
essential as this technology progresses, understanding how the
vehicle systems work, and how to begin advancing the process of
standardized inspection procedures, understanding the
development of a unique regulatory framework, and how to better
partner with all stakeholders.
This demonstration illustrated the probability that
autonomous commercial motor vehicles, when operated during the
right location, time, and situation, could reduce crash risk
and traffic congestion. Additionally, the demonstration has
provided important information and experience to the Colorado
State Patrol and our partners responsible for establishing the
necessary legal and regulatory framework for the testing and
implementation of autonomous vehicle technologies.
Clearly, technological advances in the past have saved
lives, and clearly technology will continue to save lives in
the future. Our experience in Colorado makes it clear that it
is time to begin planning in earnest for the deployment of semi
and fully automated CMVs. As this Committee moves forward with
legislation setting the national framework to guide the
deployment of autonomous vehicles, we believe that
consideration must be given to CMV industry. We all have many
questions that need to be addressed as we work toward
deployment of these technologies.
Many questions need to be answered before autonomous
vehicles can be allowed to enter the driving population. I want
to stress that is the purpose of these questions, is not--that
the purpose of these questions is not to slow innovation or
create roadblocks to the technology. The enforcement community
recognizes the safety benefits and welcome the change--any
changes that improves roadway safety. However, we must ensure
that inspectors, investigators, and industry understand the
role of this technology and how it will impact CMV enforcement
programs.
We strongly encourage you to consider all facets of this
issue, including what to do once the vehicles are on the roads.
Doing so will help avoid uncertainty for the motor carrier
industry and the enforcement community.
I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this timely
discussion on the future of automated commercial vehicles.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Hernandez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott G. Hernandez, Colonel,
Colorado State Patrol
Introduction
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and Members of the Committee,
thank you for holding this important hearing and for inviting me here
today to discuss the role automated vehicles will play in the future of
safety on our Nation's highways.
My name is Scott Hernandez. I am the Colonel of the Colorado State
Patrol. As the Colonel, I am responsible for leading approximately
1,200 members whose primary goal is to save lives on our highways. In
Colorado to date 247 people have been killed, a staggering number of
people. We are committed to driving that number down, eventually to
zero.
I am also a member of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA), a nonprofit association comprised of local, state, provincial,
territorial and Federal commercial motor vehicle safety officials and
industry representatives. We represent the state agencies tasked with
the responsibility for the administration and enforcement of commercial
motor carrier safety regulations in the United States (U.S.), Canada
and Mexico. We work to improve commercial motor vehicle safety and
uniformity by bringing truck and bus regulatory, safety and enforcement
agencies together with industry representatives to solve highway
transportation safety problems. Every U.S. state, territory and
possession, all Canadian provinces and territories, and the country of
Mexico are CVSA members.
First, let me say that the enforcement community is excited about
the potential improvements to roadway safety that are possible with the
deployment of autonomous vehicles. Our commitment is to reduce crashes,
injuries and fatalities on our Nation's roadways, and we see great
potential in autonomous technology. As we all know, driver behavior is
the leading cause of motor vehicle crashes. Technology can help
eliminate or reduce the risk of human error and driver distraction. In
fact, basic versions of vehicle autonomy are already operating on our
roads, preventing crashes. Examples of such technologies include
enhanced anti-lock braking system (ABS) monitoring systems, vehicle
stability systems, lane departure warning systems and collision warning
systems. These systems all improve vehicle safety by helping keep
vehicles in their lanes and operating at a safe distance from one
another.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has repeatedly
called for deployment of safety technologies on both commercial and
personal vehicles to help reduce crashes and save lives. In fact, NTSB
has called on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) to establish performance standards and mandate deployment of
collision avoidance technologies on commercial motor vehicles in its
annual NTSB Most Wanted List. Recognizing the tremendous potential
benefits, CVSA has long been a supporter of legislation, regulation and
policies that encourage the deployment of safety technologies proven,
through independent research, to improve commercial motor vehicle
safety, either through preventing crashes or mitigating the severity of
crashes. Autonomous vehicles are the natural next progression in
vehicle safety technology and the enforcement community stands ready to
assist in making sure that the technology is deployed as seamlessly and
as effectively as possible.
In the late summer of 2016, OTTO approached the State of Colorado
expressing interest in conducting an intrastate delivery using an
autonomous commercial motor vehicle. With consideration to the fact
that there were no laws or regulations prohibiting the operation of
autonomous vehicles to include this scenario in Colorado, we chose to
partner with OTTO to ensure safety remained paramount. Colorado policy
makers also understood the potential for government and enforcement to
learn from the process in order to participate in reasonable
regulations in the future.
During the early morning hours of Oct. 20, 2016, an autonomous
commercial motor vehicle, specifically a 3-axle truck-tractor and 2-
axle semi-trailer vehicle combination, delivered a product traveling
120 miles from Ft. Collins to Colorado Springs, Colorado, in a level 4
autonomous demonstration. Soon after entering southbound on I-25 from
the Ft. Collins Port of Entry, the driver placed the commercial motor
vehicle in autonomous mode and retreated to the space behind and
between the driver and passenger seat. The vehicle traveled southbound
on I-25 for over 120 miles until the driver took over the controls and
exited the interstate towards the terminal. The demonstration
highlighted the future possibilities and use of autonomous commercial
motor vehicles.
The Colorado State Patrol and Department of Transportation took
extensive measures to reduce the risks associated with this
demonstration. We used NTHSA's ``Federal Autonomous Vehicle Policy''
and California's autonomous vehicle laws and rules as guidance. Pre-
event testing was monitored for consistency and achievement through
specific safety performance gates, ranging from off-road testing to
extensive on-road testing. The truck was inspected and deemed to be
without a violation by CVSA-certified roadside safety inspectors and
the company underwent a safety audit to ensure it had the appropriate
level of safety management practices in place to safely operate in
commerce. Two separate rides covering over 200 miles were conducted by
a Colorado State Patrol commander to visually confirm the technology.
The Colorado State Patrol and the Colorado Department of Transportation
received detailed weekly briefings on performance through required
safety and testing protocols, including testing of scenario plans for
risks and fallback.
OTTO provided certification of safety assessments, vehicle, driver
and insurance. The safety assessments certification included system
safety, validation and data sharing. Driver certification included
lists of all drivers, driver training and overall experience. Vehicle
certification included the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS).
In an effort to ensure the demonstration was completed in a safe
manner for all involved, the Colorado State Patrol escorted the
autonomous commercial motor vehicle in a similar fashion as a motorcade
or rolling special event, constantly monitoring safety protocols and
situational assessment. Constant communication throughout the event
existed between the driver/passenger, engineers and state troopers.
The demonstration was beneficial for law enforcement, as we were
able to learn valuable lessons. While we will still need to work toward
total solutions, the Colorado State Patrol made progress toward
understanding the perspective of other governmental agencies,
autonomous vehicle crash investigations, why cyber security will be
essential as this technology progresses, the development of a unique
regulatory framework and how to better partner with all stakeholders.
The proof of concept in Colorado indicates that self-driving
vehicles will play a critical role in improving traffic safety and may
reduce congestion in the future. This demonstration has provided
important information and experience to the Colorado State Patrol and
our partners responsible for establishing the necessary legal and
regulatory framework for the testing and implementation of autonomous
vehicle technologies. Technological advances in the past have saved
lives and, clearly, technology will continue to save lives in the
future as the Colorado State Patrol, the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance and the law enforcement community moves toward zero deaths on
our roadways.
Our experience in Colorado makes it clear that it's time to begin
planning in earnest for the deployment of semi-and fully-automated
commercial motor vehicles. As this Committee moves forward with
legislation setting a national framework to guide the deployment of
autonomous vehicles, we believe that consideration must be given to the
commercial motor vehicle industry. How will autonomous vehicles affect
enforcement of Federal safety regulations? Which regulations apply to
autonomous vehicles and which will have to be modified to adapt to the
new technology? Are there regulations that autonomous vehicles should
be exempted from entirely? For example, how will Federal hours-of-
service requirements apply? If there is a person in the cab while the
vehicle is operating autonomously, does that person need to maintain
their record of duty status? If so, how should that time be recorded?
On duty, driving? On duty, not driving? Off duty?
We also have questions regarding the maintenance or mechanical
fitness of the underlying components of the autonomous vehicle system;
such as, ABS monitoring systems, vehicle stability systems, lane
departure warning systems, collision warning systems, etc. If the
underlying systems are not functioning properly, then the autonomous
system will not work either. We will need to review current inspection
procedures and regulatory requirements to ensure that inspectors know
how to verify that a system is functional and what to do if it is not.
If an autonomous vehicle is placed out of service for critical safety
violations, how will the motor carrier be notified?
Autonomous vehicles will also have an impact on the roadside
enforcement program. How will an inspector stop an autonomous vehicle
for inspection? Will these vehicles be able to recognize and yield to
emergency vehicle signals? Further, currently, the driver plays an
integral role in the inspection process, working with the inspector to
verify that critical vehicle mechanical components and systems are
functioning properly. How will this change once inspectors begin
encountering driver-less vehicles?
These are just a few of the many questions that will need to be
answered before autonomous vehicles can be allowed to enter the driving
population. I want to stress that the purpose of these questions is not
to slow innovation or create roadblocks to the technology. The
enforcement community recognizes the safety benefits and welcome any
change that improves roadway safety. However, we must ensure that
inspectors and industry understand the role this technology will play
and how it will impact commercial motor vehicle enforcement programs.
We strongly encourage you to consider all facets of the issue,
including what to do once the vehicles are on the roads. Doing so will
help avoid uncertainty for the motor carrier industry and the
enforcement community.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this timely
discussion on the future of automated commercial motor vehicles.
The Chairman. Thank you, Colonel Hernandez.
Mr. Clarke.
STATEMENT OF TROY CLARKE, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT,
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAVISTAR, INC.
Mr. Clarke. Good morning, Chairman Thune, Senator Peters,
and members of the Committee. I am honored to be here this
morning to discuss an important topic in our industry,
autonomous technology applications in commercial trucks.
I am Troy Clarke, and I currently serve as the Chairman,
President, and Chief Executive Officer of Navistar,
Incorporated, the manufacturer of International trucks, IC
school buses, diesel engines, and military vehicles. Navistar
is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois, just outside of Chicago,
and has over 12,000 employees worldwide.
If I may, I would first like to provide a quick overview of
our industry. There are four major commercial truck
manufacturers in our country today. Ours is a small, highly
competitive industry which expects to produce around 325,000
vehicles this year--a small fraction compared to the passenger
car and light-truck market.
Our customers range from large fleets, like J.B. Hunt and
Penske with thousands of vehicles, to independent drivers
operating only one truck. We build trucks and buses via mass
customization, each one tailored to meet the specific needs of
a particular customer. Reliability and upfront costs all impact
purchase decisions. And a new truck ranges in price from
$60,000 to $150,000. In other words, they represent major
capital investments. And they only generate revenue for our
customers when they're up and running.
Given all this, our customers invest significantly in the
latest safety technology to protect their valuable capital
asset as well as their most important human capital, the
driver. This explains why market penetration rates for
technologies like electronic stability control, radar-following
cruise control, cameras for object detection, lane departure
warning systems, and collision mitigation systems have been
increasing every year. We call these advanced driver-assistance
systems, or ADAS, and they offer quantum leaps of safety,
productivity, and environmental benefits. Many of them also
serve as the building blocks to greater automation.
Navistar sees autonomous technology as an extension of the
safety technology already in place, and we believe that these
greater levels of self-driving technology will help reduce
human error, which accounts for approximately 94 percent of all
motor vehicle accidents.
Before we arrive at the future, however, our customers tell
me that they have much more immediate needs. They already have
driverless trucks, but that's because they have trouble
recruiting and retaining drivers. As truck makers, we don't
hire or train drivers; our customers do. But as we continue to
develop the technologies that could lead to autonomous
vehicles, we will make much of that available to provide
today's drivers with greater ease of use, comfort, safety,
productivity, and efficiency, factors that I believe will
attract more people to this important and noble profession.
Personally, I believe drivers will become more like airline
pilots, even more highly trained and skilled than they are
today. They will be employed to manage multiple vehicle assets
for optimized safety and efficiency. For example, an autonomous
vehicle may be deployed on a highway while the driver sitting
in his or her seat is managing controls and monitoring several
platooning trucks, ensuring the safe and secure operation of
the trucks under their care.
Autonomous technology is not being created in a vacuum. Our
industry is developing vehicle-to-vehicle, or V2V, systems to
allow cars and trucks to talk to one another. As Federal
regulations are being drafted and implemented, we want to
ensure that passenger and commercial vehicles are following
similar safety and design standards for optimal compatibility
on the highway. Otherwise, passenger cars equipped with V2V
technology may not be able to communicate effectively with
large commercial vehicles, and could create blind spots in the
transportation network that could create inadvertent hazards.
Ours is an industry of business-to-business transactions.
Development and validation cycles are long, and penetration and
adoption rates take more time than in the light-vehicle
industry. When we test on the road, we have to match the
conditions our customers face, so we test trucks in many
different states and climates. Trucks cross multiple state
lines daily and sometimes traverse the same state multiple
times in one day. It's important for our industry to
participate in the creation of advanced driving technologies
now. Providing clarity on the legislative and regulatory front
will allow us, truck manufacturers, to design and validate
systems that meet the future needs of our customers while
minimally disrupting the industry.
Advanced driving and autonomous technologies will come to
our industry. Large-scale displacement of drivers is not likely
to happen, especially in the short and medium term. We believe
these technologies will improve safety, improve productivity,
and lower cost, as well as lead to more efficient use of the
existing infrastructure.
In the commercial vehicle industry, we have proven that
regulations and technology can work together to advance the
interests of all stakeholders. The time for these discussions
is now. And I applaud the Committee on holding this hearing so
that we can begin the dialogue on this issue. I welcome any
questions at the right time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:]
Prepared statement of Troy Clarke, Chairman, President,
and Chief Executive Officer, Navistar, Inc.
Good morning Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and members of
the Committee. I am honored to be here this morning to discuss an
important topic in our industry . . . autonomous technology
applications in commercial trucks.
I am Troy Clarke, and I currently serve as the Chairman, President
and Chief Executive Officer at Navistar, Inc., the manufacturer of
International trucks, IC school buses, diesel engines and military
vehicles. Navistar is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois just outside of
Chicago and has over 12,000 employees worldwide.
I would like to first provide a quick overview of our industry.
There are four major commercial truck manufacturers in the country
today. Ours is a small, highly competitive industry which expects to
produce around 325,000 vehicles this year--a small fraction compared to
the passenger car and light truck market.
Our customers range from large fleets like JB Hunt and Penske with
thousands of vehicles to independent drivers operating one truck. We
build our trucks and buses via mass customization . . . each one
tailored to meet the specific needs of a particular customer.
Reliability, upfront costs and the vehicles' residual value all impact
purchasing decisions. A new truck ranges in price from $60,000 to
$150,000 . . . in other words, they represent major capital
investments. And they only generate revenue for our customers when they
are up and running. Given all of this, our customers invest
significantly in the latest safety technology to protect this valuable
capital asset as well as their most important human capital--the
driver.
This explains why market penetration rates for technologies like
electronic stability control, radar and cameras for object detection,
lane departure warning systems, and collision mitigation systems have
been increasing every year. We call these advance driver assistance
systems or ADAS, and they offer quantum leaps of safety, productivity
and environmental benefits. Many of them also serve as the building
blocks to greater automation. An example of early automation in our
industry is adaptive cruise control.
Navistar sees autonomous technology as an extension of the safety
technology already in place and we believe that these greater levels of
self-driving technology will help reduce human error, which accounts
for approximately 94 percent of all motor vehicle accidents.
Before we arrive at that future, however, our customers tell me
that they have much more immediate needs--they already have driverless
trucks, but that's because they have trouble recruiting and retaining
drivers.
As truck makers, we don't hire or train drivers. Our customers do.
But as we continue to develop technologies that could lead to
completely autonomous vehicles, we will make many of them available to
provide today's drivers with greater ease of use, comfort, safety,
productivity and efficiency--factors that, I believe, will attract more
people to this important and noble profession.
Personally, I believe drivers will become more like airline
pilots--even more highly trained and skilled than they are today. They
will be employed to manage multiple vehicle assets, for optimized
safety and efficiency. For example, an autonomous vehicle may be
deployed on a straight highway with mixed vehicles, while the driver
sitting in his or her seat is managing the controls and monitoring
several platooning trucks, and ensuring the safe and secure operation
of the trucks under their care.
Autonomous technology is not being created in a vacuum. Our
industry is developing Vehicle to Vehicle (V to V) systems to allow
cars and trucks to ``talk'' to one another. As Federal regulations are
being drafted and implemented, we want to ensure that passenger and
commercial vehicles are following similar safety and design standards
for optimal compatibility. Otherwise, passenger cars equipped with V to
V may not be able to communicate with large commercial vehicles which
will create enormous blind spots in the transportation network and
potentially create inadvertent hazards.
Ours is an industry of business to business transactions.
Development and validation cycles are long, and penetration and
adoption rates take more time than in the light vehicle industry. When
we test on the road we have to match the conditions our customers face
so we test trucks in many different states and climates. Trucks cross
multiple state lines daily and sometimes traverse the same state
multiple times in one day. It's important for industry to participate
in the creation of advanced driving technologies now. Providing clarity
on the legislative and regulatory front will allow us, truck
manufacturers, to design and validate systems that meet the future
needs of our customers while minimally disrupting the industry.
Advanced driving and autonomous technologies will come to our
industry. Large scale displacement of drivers is not likely to happen,
especially in the short and medium term. We believe these technologies
will improve safety, improve productivity and lower cost, as well as
lead to more efficient use of existing infrastructure. The commercial
vehicle industry has proven that regulations and technology have worked
together to advance the interests of all stakeholders.
The time for these discussions is now and I applaud the Committee
on holding this hearing so that we can begin the dialogue on this
issue. I welcome any questions that you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Clarke.
Ms. Hersman, welcome back to this Committee.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH A.P. HERSMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL
Ms. Hersman. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking
Member Peters, and members of the Committee. As President and
CEO of the National Safety Council, I strive every day to
realize our mission of eliminating preventable deaths, and we
believe that all vehicle crash fatalities are preventable. Yet
today, over 100 people die on our roadways every day in our
vehicles and in crashes involving our vehicles--all vehicles.
We can help reduce these statistics with technology.
In 2004, I had the privilege to serve as a Member and then
Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. During my
10 years there, I saw too many commercial motor vehicle crashes
that could have been prevented, and they could have been
prevented by advanced technology.
The NTSB first called on putting advanced technology in
commercial vehicles back in 1995, and it is an issue that is on
their Most Wanted List today. Today, we've certainly gone
beyond the Level 2 technology that they had hoped for and
envisioned back in 1995, and are talking about fully automated
vehicles.
I know that you all have read all of our testimony. There
are a lot of facts and figures in my long written testimony, so
I would like to actually take my time with you this morning to
share a personal story.
Last year, I came home from a trip, and my 10-year-old son
met me at the door and he said, ``Mommy, did you see your
car?'' That's not a good thing when you walk in the door from a
trip. And I said, ``What happened to my car?'' And he took me
out in the garage and he showed me. And this picture up here on
the screen is my car. And, yes, it's ironic, the license plate
says ``BESAFER'' on it.
My husband was coming home to our house on a lower speed
roadway, and he was rear-ended by another vehicle as he slowed
to allow an emergency vehicle to turn into the firehouse in
front of him. And being a former investigator, my first
questions to my husband were, ``What happened? What was going
on? What was the situation? What were the circumstances? What
was the driver doing?'' And unfortunately, he didn't have a lot
of good answers for me. He told me the gentleman was a little
bit older and that there was a dog in the car.
For the next couple of days, I spent, you know, kind of my
time thinking, ``What happened? How did this happen? Could it
have been prevented? Did it involve distraction? Did it involve
fatigue? Could it have been prevented?''
About 3 weeks later, I came home, and my husband was in a
pretty somber mood, and he told me he had received a call from
the insurance adjuster who was managing our claim. And the
insurance adjuster had just called the gentleman who was the
driver of the Jeep Liberty who had hit our car. Mr. Norton had
called his house, and his son answered the phone, and when he
asked to speak to Mr. Norton, his son said that he had been
killed in a crash. And the insurance adjuster said, ``I thought
there were no injuries in the crash.'' And he said, ``My dad
was killed on Friday.''
And because we knew the information about the driver, we
went to Google, like many of us do when we're trying to find
something out, and we found that Mr. Norton had been in an
intersection crash in his Jeep Liberty just shortly before. And
this picture up on the screen is the picture that was in the
newspaper.
And again the same questions started to run through my
head, ``What happened? How did this happen? Who was at fault?
Could this have been prevented? Did it have something to do
with what had happened 3 weeks before?''
And as a safety professional who has spent decades working
on how to prevent transportation events and incidents, I
realized that while it's important for us to understand why
something happened, what's most important is to understand how
we can prevent these things from occurring again. And we have
the ability to prevent these fatalities that occur on our roads
every day.
A hundred people every day. Mr. Norton was a father, he was
a member of a community, probably a church community. He had an
extended network. That happens 100 times every day. And we can
do more, we can do better, we can address this issue, and we
can save lives. If we are going to get to zero, we have to do
it by looking at all of the fatalities and all of the things
that we can do to prevent them. This conversation here today
begins that discussion. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hersman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deborah A.P. Hersman, President
and Chief Executive Officer, National Safety Council
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to testify today on proposed legislation to
create a framework to save lives on our roadways. The National Safety
Council (NSC) believes that in order for our nation to receive the
biggest benefit from this technology, all motor vehicles--both personal
and commercial--must be included in this legislative proposal.
The National Safety Council is a 100-year-old nonprofit committed
to eliminating preventable deaths in our lifetime by focusing on
reducing fatalities and injuries in workplaces, on the road and in
homes and communities. Our more than 13,500 member companies represent
employees at more than 50,000 U.S. worksites. Not only do we work with
companies but also with organized labor, who share our dedication to
keeping workers safe on and off the job. With almost 40 percent of
workplace fatalities involving motor vehicles, accelerating the
availability and adoption of crash reduction and mitigation technology
is crucial to that vision.
In 2015, there were 4,067 fatalities in large truck crashes and 667
were occupants of large trucks. Fatalities on our roadways are trending
in the wrong direction and technology can help reverse the death toll.
However, to achieve maximum benefit and save the most lives, we must do
so holistically by applying technological advances to all vehicles.
After all, roads are built for both cars.
NSC commends Commerce Committee leaders for offering a framework to
increase transparency around the technology in advanced driver
assistance systems (ADAS)-equipped vehicles and prioritizing safety in
the process. As a nation, there are more vehicles on the road today
traveling more miles, and yet the most dangerous factors in roadway
travel continue to be human factors. According to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 94 percent of investigated
crashes can be attributed to driver error. The top four reasons for
crashes are caused by human behavior or choices: alcohol, speed,
fatigue and distraction, giving ADAS systems and automated vehicles the
potential to reduce preventable crashes and deaths in an unprecedented
way.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
NSC\1\ estimates that 40,200 people lost their lives on our
Nation's roadways in 2016, a 14 percent increase from where we were
just two years ago. Over 100 people die each day in motor vehicle
crashes, and another 4 million people are injured severely enough to
consult a medical professional every year. Beyond the human toll, these
deaths and injuries cost society over $385 billion, including
productivity losses, medical expenses, motor vehicle property damages
and employer costs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Decision errors include driving too fast for conditions, too
fast for the curve, false assumption of others' actions, illegal
maneuver and misjudgment of gap or others' speed. Performance errors
include factors such as overcompensation and poor directional control.
Non-performance error is most commonly sleeping.
\2\ National Safety Council Injury Facts 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of these numbers represent a person who leaves behind loved
ones. NSC believes advanced vehicle technology, up to and including
fully automated vehicles, can provide many benefits to society, but the
most important contribution will be the potential to greatly reduce the
number of fatal crashes on our roadways.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
These trends are not improving. NSC data reveal that the 18,680
roadway fatalities during the first six months of 2017 are 1 percent
lower than the same period in 2016, but still 8 percent higher than the
same period two years ago. Our complacency is killing us. If we are to
redirect this trend in a positive direction, we must adopt a sense of
urgency coupled with large, near term gains to save lives on our
roadways.
So that we all know where we stand, in 2015:
10,265 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving
crashes, an increase of almost 300 from 2014,\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812350
3,477 people were killed in distraction related crashes, an
increase of almost 300 from 2014,\4\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving
9,874 people were killed while unrestrained, an increase of
over 400 from 2014.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812374
The maps below tell the story of the national trends in roadway
fatalities.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
These statistics are not isolated to passenger vehicles, and in the
same way, policy options should not be limited to passenger vehicles.
Commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) represent 4 percent of vehicles on the
roadways but are involved in 11 percent of fatal crashes. That
translates to over 4,000 people being killed in crashes with CMVs
annually. The large mass, increased time and space required for braking
and incompatibility in structures (front, rear and side design of the
vehicles) tell part of the story of why these vehicles are involved in
so many fatal crashes, but human factors, like speeding, fatigue and
distraction also contribute. Rear-end collisions represent 10 percent
of fatal commercial vehicle crashes--three times more fatalities than
rear-end collisions involving passenger cars. By not deploying ADAS
technologies such as forward collision warning or automatic emergency
braking, thousands of preventable fatalities and injuries are occurring
every year.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Safety Evaluation Report and Data Recorders
The proposed legislation is intended to set the framework to aid
the inevitable transition to ADAS technologies and fully automated
vehicles. Our roadways were not made for passenger and commercial
vehicles to operate independently of each other, and both types of
vehicles are being tested at this time. Therefore, the policies
outlined in this legislation should apply to all vehicles.
The current draft legislation establishes greater transparency
around the development of ADAS and automated vehicles by mandating the
safety evaluation report (SER) that outlines reporting requirements for
manufacturers. The bill also includes the use of a data recording
device, something which is already widely used in the automotive
industry today and yields valuable data in crash reconstruction
efforts.
Electronic logging devices (ELDs) and electronic data recorders
(EDRs) provide a window into the human-machine interface with advanced
vehicles. The knowledge gained from these devices allows manufacturers
to be nimbler and make adjustments in near real-time to improve safety
based on what is actually occurring in operation, rather than making
changes based on assumptions and estimations that must be accommodated
in a later model year. To this end, Congress should facilitate data
sharing as widely as possible by requiring that manufacturers provide
accessible, standardized data to law enforcement, state highway safety
offices, investigators, insurers, and/or other relevant stakeholders.
Collecting and sharing de-identified data about near misses and other
relevant problems would also help to aggregate vital performance
information for the motor vehicle industry, allowing it to take
proactive steps based on leading indicators rather than waiting for a
crash or a series of crashes to occur. Leading indicators are
``proactive, preventative and predictive measures that monitor and
provide current information about the effective performance, activities
and processes of a . . . system that drive the identification and
eliminate or control of risks.''\7\ The NSC Campbell Institute, a
leader in environmental, health and safety, states that tracking
leading indicators allows world-class safety organizations to make
further improvements to their safety records.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.thecampbellinstitute.org/file/
download.php?id=20130925358263a8956de938e7c0
0a2bbbb8413d
\8\ http://www.thecampbellinstitute.org/file/
download.php?id=2015092336b107f72d10a379134a
f9249d3457ab
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquiring an understanding of what happens when systems perform as
intended, fail as expected, or fail in unexpected ways yields is
valuable information for manufacturers--some of whom have common
suppliers--and researchers and the safety community in analyzing the
safety benefits and potential limitations of these technologies as they
continue to mature. Further, in-service data, as well as near miss and
post-crash information sharing, can help civil engineers and planners
design better and safer roadways, as well as help safety and health
professionals design better interventions to discourage risky driving
or affect the behaviors of other roadway users.
De-identified data sharing has existed in the aviation industry for
many years and proven highly successful. The Aviation Safety
Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) system allows for sharing of
de-identified data across the industry, making it possible for
manufacturers, operators, researchers, regulators and other
stakeholders to identify trends and act on them. Similarly, analysis of
de-identified data in the vehicle industry will provide windows into
leading indicators, increasing the potential to save lives.
While there are competing priorities regarding protecting personal
privacy and proprietary systems or designs, NSC believes that safety
should be the ultimate priority. Requiring the SER and data sharing
will aid in improving safety.
Education and Training
Another encouraging component in the draft legislation is the
creation of the consumer education workgroup focused on new safety
technologies. With nearly 17.4 million new passenger cars and trucks
sold in 2015,\9\ understanding the technology on these vehicles is
necessary, yet a University of Iowa survey found that 40 percent of
respondents reported they had experienced a situation in which their
vehicle acted in an unexpected way. When this occurs in a real-life
driving situation, among multiple drivers and a variety of vehicles, it
can lead to disastrous outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://www.autoalliance.org/auto-marketplace/sales-data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Safety Council and our research partners at the
University of Iowa are focused on educating consumers about in-vehicle
safety technology through our MyCarDoesWhat campaign.\10\ This brand
agnostic education campaign informs drivers about how safety
technologies work, how to best interact with them, and how to identify
situations when the technology may not perform optimally and should not
be relied upon. Because of the need for continued human involvement in
the operation of many of these features, the campaign tagline is, ``You
are your car's best safety feature.'' Too often, marketing and media
reports using terms such as ``autopilot'' and ``autonomous'' only
confuse consumers about the capabilities of their vehicles and
contribute to losses of situational awareness around the driving task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ www.mycardoeswhat.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drivers cannot effectively use these life-saving technologies if
they do not understand both their functions and limitations, and these
education efforts should be extended to the safe use of automated
commercial vehicles. The AV policy proposes that this education be
delivered in multiple ways, including computer based, hands-on and
virtual reality training, and other innovative approaches. The
MyCarDoesWhat education campaign follows that approach and has
developed a virtual reality module. Further, we recommend ongoing
evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the various messages,
methods of delivery and media so they can be improved over time. NSC
appreciates the recognition by the Senate that education is a necessity
if we are to realize the life-saving effects of these vehicles.
The AV START Act
As previously mentioned, there are several good provisions in the
draft bill that the National Safety Council would like to highlight.
Including whether a vehicle in a crash is equipped with some
automation on post-crash investigation reports. NSC called this
out in our report ``Undercounted is Underinvested: How
Incomplete Crash Reports Impact Efforts to Save Lives'' earlier
this year. This data can be vital to improve safety systems.
Improving research on the human machine interface to ensure
drivers remain engaged in the driving task before full
automation. In too many other modes of transportation, users
have become confused about what technology is ``saying'' to
them and results have been fatal. Standardizing these alerts
(visual, aural, haptic) could decrease this confusion.
I offer some additional provisions for your consideration to
include in the legislation.
Reporting of certain types of crashes, such as fatal and
serious injury crashes, to a Department of Transportation
database can help ensure correct information is disseminated
about these events. We have already seen the overwhelming media
attention on automated vehicle crashes. By creating a database,
one place would exist for locating common and accurate
information.
Testing on public roads should be reported to the states in
which tests occur. Adding this level of transparency can help
states be more involved, especially if they must send resources
to respond to a testing event.
Encouraging the designation of a common nomenclature and
performance standard for each safety feature or system so
drivers can better understand and compare performance.
Tying ADAS and automation components to vehicle
identification numbers (VIN) so that more complete crash
reporting and analysis can be completed.
Requiring rulemaking to mandate safety technology with
proven results to require it on all vehicles.
Technology in Transportation
Improvements in technology and safety in transportation have
historically gone hand-in-hand. During my decade at the National
Transportation Safety Board, the NTSB called for many safety
improvements that would reduce or mitigate fatal transportation
incidents, some of which were at least partially attributable to
predictable and preventable human behavior. Technology like auto-pilot
features in aviation control airspeed and heading, leaving human
operators free to monitor larger systems and issues to ensure safe
flight. Similarly, positive train control is still being implemented on
passenger and freight railroads but will certainly prevent numerous
collisions. Electronic charts standardize routes and transponders in
the maritime industry projecting the routes other vessels will travel.
This Committee oversees all of these industries and these very
technologies are ones you have debated and mandated. You know that each
advancement in technology has impacts, some of which are known while
others may result in unintended outcomes.
At this point in the deployment of vehicle safety technology, human
drivers are still ultimately responsible for the safe operation of
their vehicle and often need to intervene in certain conditions. We can
expect this intervention will continue to be necessary as technologies
mature. However, we also fully understand that this may not always be
the case. At some point drivers, including those who may be impaired,
may do more harm than good.
Currently, vehicle manufacturers are making different choices about
how to develop fully automated vehicles. Some manufacturers believe
that human drivers will always be required behind the wheel and that
highly or fully automated features will serve to assist the human or
take over when the driver fails to take corrective action. Others see
the role of the traditional driver disappearing entirely, with vehicles
providing safe transportation and mobility through artificial
intelligence--all by themselves. NSC believes that both should be seen
as viable courses of action and thus addressed in any new policies.
There is real debate today as to whether fully self-driving
vehicles will actually achieve widespread acceptance in the coming
decades. Some people believe that American drivers, while willing to
embrace systems that provide them assistance, will always want the
option of hands-on driving. Other people believe that it may actually
be safer for humans to simply be passengers in fully automated
vehicles.
Regardless of the level of autonomy, we know that active safety
system integration into the U.S. fleet will be more robust in years to
come, and as these features continue to penetrate the driving world, we
can expect to see changes in the very definition of the word
``driver.'' In the last few years, NHTSA offered that there may be a
day when ``driver'' may refer to an automated system rather than a
human being. Today, some states are contemplating this same idea,
especially those who run the licensing systems and law enforcement
charged with enforcing state regulations. These state leaders, along
with other Federal and state entities, should cooperate and
collaborate, moving beyond their traditional roles to respond to the
new questions rather than addressing them on a piecemeal basis.
Finally, one of the biggest challenges in moving from level 1 to
level 4/5 vehicles is successfully identifying the challenges and
improvements needed for the human-machine interface to be successful.
In other industries, such as aviation, there have been many lessons
learned regarding mode confusion and overreliance on automation. We
must recognize that the most dangerous environment will exist when both
the human and machine are involved in the safe operation of a vehicle.
The greatest risks are not when one or the other has sole
responsibility for the vehicle, but when the control is shared. A
``driver'' whose role is primarily to serve as a safety monitor, always
on-guard in case of a system malfunction or other emergency, will be
susceptible to boredom, fatigue, and/or distraction, all of which may
contribute to a more dangerous situation.
In order to save lives on our roadways--the most dangerous way to
travel in this country--all options should be at the disposal of policy
makers. If necessary, NHTSA must use its authority to address defects
quickly and effectively, sharing as much information with the public as
possible.
NTSB-NSC Roundtable on Safety Technologies in Large Trucks
On July 24, NSC and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
co-hosted a roundtable discussion with nearly two-dozen fleet managers,
vehicle manufacturers, government officials, researchers, software
experts, safety advocates and more. The panel discussed strategies to
increase adoption of ADAS in commercial motor vehicles.\11\ NTSB has
recommended advanced technology on CMVs since 1995 because of the life-
saving potential of this technology, and this issue is currently on its
Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2017-adas-rt.aspx
\12\ https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/default.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NTSB-NSC roundtable discussion provided three key
takeaways.\13\ First, technologies exist today that can reduce both the
frequency and severity of crashes involving large trucks, saving lives
and preventing injuries. Some of the lifesaving technologies available
for large trucks include automatic emergency braking, forward collision
warning, lane departure warning and blind spot monitoring. These
technologies assist--but do not replace--the driver. Roundtable
participants who had investigated fatal crashes said many of those
tragedies could have been mitigated or prevented entirely by collision
avoidance technologies. However, the penetration rate of these
technologies in large trucks is less than 10 percent.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCeGam2RNfE
\14\ https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Pages/SIR1501.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second takeaway from the discussion centered on the importance of
proper training for drivers. Drivers must use new technologies
appropriately, and the threat of overreliance on new technologies is
legitimate and must be addressed in training sessions. For example, a
truck equipped with electronic stability control does not give a driver
freedom to go faster around curves. Likewise, a truck that features
collision avoidance technologies does not clear the way for a driver to
be drowsy or distracted behind the wheel. Drivers must remain alert and
attentive at all times even with new ADAS features in place.
The third and final takeaway was that manufacturers, carriers and
others who work in the trucking industry can take the lead in this
life-saving mission. There is power in partnerships. Regulations could
speed the adoption of ADAS in large trucks, but nothing is preventing
fleets from equipping new vehicles and retrofitting old vehicles with
some of these technologies. There is a cost component to this
investment, but one trucking company at the roundtable reported a
significant return on investment.\15\ After installing collision
avoidance technologies, the company recorded a 70 percent reduction in
frequency and a 95 percent reduction in severity of crashes. Not only
did this keep both its employees and the public safer, but also cut
down drastically on the legal, health care, insurance and operational
costs associated with crashes. Another participant noted that costs
associated with a single crash can destroy a small fleet or an owner-
operator.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCeGam2RNfE
\16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash Investigations
As mentioned earlier, NTSB first recommended advanced technology in
vehicles over 20 years ago in 1995, calling on U.S. Department of
Transportation to test collision warning systems in commercial
fleets.\17\ NTSB specifically singled out commercial operations in this
initial recommendation, and since that time, NTSB has expanded its
recommendation to include passenger vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/
SIR1501.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While at NTSB, I was the unfortunate witness to many crashes that
could have been prevented by advanced technology that has been
available for years. The crashes cited below represent just a few
involving commercial vehicles.
Bronx, New York: 15 dead and 18 injured. This crash could have been
prevented or mitigated by lane departure warning, adaptive cruise
control (ACC), and a speed limiter. The driver was operating at 14 mph
over speed limit and run off the road due to fatigue.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Osseo, Wisconsin: 4 dead and 36 injured. This crash could have been
prevented or mitigated by AEB, ACC and lane departure warning (LDW).
This was a high school band returning from a band competition.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Munfordville, Kentucky: 11 dead and 2 injured. This crash could
have been prevented or mitigated by AEB and LDW. The truck crashed into
a church van on the way to a wedding, and the two surviving passengers
were children restrained in car seats pictured below.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Miami, Oklahoma: 10 dead and 6 injured. This crash could have been
prevented or mitigated by AEB. The truck did not react to stopped
vehicles ahead and struck the end of a passenger vehicle, resulting in
a multiple vehicle collision.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Grey Summit, Missouri: 2 dead and 38 injured. This crash could have
been prevented or mitigated by AEB.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
If this bill is moving forward, it should do so including all motor
vehicles.
Road to Zero
On October 5, 2016, NSC, NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announced the Road to Zero (RTZ) Coalition. RTZ is an initiative
focused on identifying new ways to look at the persistent problem of
roadway fatalities. Today, nearly one year later, there are over 350
unique organizations that have joined the coalition that I am honored
to lead with a number of Steering Group members (listed below). Our
shared vision of a future with no roadway fatalities cannot be realized
unless we redouble efforts on existing solutions and accelerate
implementation of new measures like ADAS and automated vehicles.
In early 2018, the Road to Zero coalition will produce a vision for
reaching zero fatalities on our roadways by 2050. I look forward to
sharing this document with you, as I know it will be an important
addition to the discussion of roadway safety policy development.
NSC is joined on the Steering Group for the Road to Zero Coalition
by the following organizations: AAA, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA),
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), Association of Global Automakers, Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance (CVSA), Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS), Intelligent Car Coalition, International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP), Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), National
Association of State Emergency Medical Services Officials (NASEMSO),
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), National
Association of County Engineers (NACE), and the Vision Zero Network.
Conclusion
We cannot continue to do things the same way and expect different
results. When it comes to saving lives on our roadways, this means
implementing a legislative framework for advancing safety technology on
ALL motor vehicles. By advancing safety technology in trucks and buses,
as well as passenger cars, the bill before you today represents a step
in that direction to move us closer to a goal of zero fatalities on the
roadways.
The National Safety Council is committed to working with you to
advance safety, up to and including automated vehicles. Doing this well
is essential. Lives depend on it.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Hersman.
Mr. Spear.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS SPEAR, PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (ATA)
Mr. Spear. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Senator Peters, and
members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today.
I think Debbie's testimony really captures the importance of
this issue well, and she is a great contribution to the safety
story.
The American Trucking Associations' federation has more
than 30,000 member companies spanning all parts of the trucking
industry, from every size, type, and class of motor carrier
operation, to truck makers, tech companies, as well as
insurers. That diverse membership is important for discussions
like this one, where the trucking industry's key role in our
economy meets rapidly developing technology. There are more
than 7 million people employed in the trucking industry and in
trucking-related jobs in the U.S., including 3.5 million truck
drivers. One in 16 jobs in the U.S. are trucking related where
truck-driving jobs are the top job in 29 states.
Truck drivers, who ATA is celebrating this week as part of
National Truck Driver Appreciation Week, move more than 70
percent of our Nation's freight tonnage. They help deliver
products to communities in every corner of the country every
day--stores, factories, schools, hospitals--and as you're
seeing today, they're on the front lines of disaster response
delivering supplies to help the people of Texas and Florida
live and rebuild after two historic storms.
Those same drivers, we believe, will be a part of our
industry for the long haul. While some people use the terms
``autonomous'' and ``driverless'' interchangeably, ATA believes
the world of automated vehicles will still have an important
role for the drivers. Just as pilots play a key role in our
airline industry, truck drivers will do the same on the ground
by leveraging the benefits of automated technology while
navigating the cityscapes and handling the customer pickups and
deliveries. The trucking industry spends over $9 billion
annually on safety, including technology enhancements, to help
ensure that drivers and passengers of all vehicles make it
safely to their destination.
The technology we're discussing today is the next step in
the evolution of the types of safety technology the trucking
industry is already investing in. This technology is becoming
more robust in both commercial and passenger vehicles. To fully
maximize the safety of other benefits of automated driving
technology, it makes sense to provide protections and
incentives for innovation in commercial vehicles, not just
passenger vehicles. This includes Federal preemption to ensure
that State and Federal regulations do not impede interstate
commerce. It also includes the ability to receive exemptions
from existing Federal regulations so that new technology can be
developed and tested both in commercial and non-commercial
vehicles.
We are at a critical moment in the development of
autonomous technology. There are many questions to be answered,
including those about cybersecurity, about the impact on
trucking operations, and how vehicles will interact with one
another, as well as infrastructure. What is clear is that those
questions should be answered for commercial and passenger
vehicles at the same time. As you draft legislation intended to
address many of these questions, I'd respectfully ask that the
Committee consider the following points.
First, ensure that the Federal Government has the sole
authority to regulate automated vehicle technology. As an
industry that routinely crosses state lines, the rules of the
road must be the same across the country in order to maintain a
free flow of goods. Our industry cannot be subject to a
patchwork of conflicting state rules. We service the entire
country, and the trucking industry needs uniform rules to
effectively do that.
Second, we believe Federal agencies and state governments
must commit to supporting innovation for both commercial and
passenger vehicles, using existing regulatory exemptions to
allow manufacturers and technology companies to test and
develop new systems.
Third, Federal agencies must coordinate their own missions
with respect to automated vehicles. We believe the benefits of
automated vehicles would be greatly enhanced, for instance, by
vehicle connectivity, using the 5.9 GHz safety spectrum. The
use of this communications channel for vehicle-to-vehicle and
vehicle-to-infrastructure systems will fully unlock the
potential of automated vehicles to improve safety, reduce
traffic congestion, and decrease emissions. We encourage the
Federal Communications Commission to preserve all seven
channels of 5.9 GHz spectrum for safety and to take no action
that could harm the initiatives the Department of
Transportation is pursuing with this spectrum.
Finally, we urge the Federal Government to consider the
existing slate of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and
how they might be impacted by increased automation as well as
how regulations can accommodate this new technology and improve
safety, productivity, and the environment. This should include
the impact of automated vehicle use on CSA scores, liability,
and insurance regulations, speed limiters, and hours-of-service
rules. This isn't to say these regulations should be changed.
The DOT should first determine how a more automated environment
will impact the industry it regulates in order to minimize
disruption and confusion as this technology becomes more robust
and widely available.
This concludes my testimony. Chairman Thune, Senator
Peters, members of the Committee, I thank you again for the
opportunity to testify on this important subject, and I look
forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spear follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA)
Introduction
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and distinguished members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in today's
hearing on Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and Our Nation's
Highways. My name is Chris Spear, and I am the President and CEO of the
American Trucking Associations (ATA). Founded in 1933, ATA is the
Nation's preeminent organization representing the interests of the U.S.
trucking industry. Directly and through its affiliated organizations,
ATA encompasses more than 30,000 companies and every type and class of
motor carrier operation.
The trucking industry is an integral component of our Nation's
economy, and a significant contributor to the highway trust fund.
Despite being less than 13 per cent of the vehicles on the road,
trucking pays nearly half of the money that goes into the highway trust
fund \1\ each year. That's more than $18 billion that goes toward the
construction, operation and maintenance of the roads that all vehicles
share. Trucking transports more than 70 percent of our Nation's freight
tonnage and employs 7.4 million workers in trucking-related jobs across
many sectors of the economy, including over 3.5 million commercial
drivers \2\. These drivers are on the road every single day moving the
economy. Approximately 80 percent of all U.S. communities depend solely
on trucks to deliver and supply their essential commodities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Highway Statistics 2015, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, and American Trucking Associations,
Trucking Trends 2017 (August 2017)
\2\ American Trucking Associations, American Trucking Trends 2017
(August 2017)
\3\ ATA staff, developed the 80 percent figure by using the Rand
McNally Commercial & Marketing Guide (2001) numbers for rail service to
communities and calculating the inverse, ultimately deriving the number
of communities serviced by truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's hearing coincides with National Truck Driver Appreciation
Week, when America takes the time to honor all professional truck
drivers for their hard work and commitment in tackling one of our
economy's most demanding and important jobs. These 3.5 million
professional men and women not only deliver our goods safely, securely
and on time, they also keep our highways safe and serve as role models
in their communities. During this hurricane season, we should also
recognize these drivers for overcoming the challenges of roadways and
communities devastated by natural disasters to bring in critical goods
to aid in the recovery efforts. We know there are concerns about the
elimination of drivers or a change in their role from automation. We
continue to believe that the automated technologies being developed
today will assist drivers, improving safety and productivity, and that
the job of truck driver will be with us for the foreseeable future.
However, we do not dismiss the importance of considering the potential
impacts on the workforce and the need to develop programs that will
help prepare workers with the skills needed for the jobs of the future.
The trucking industry has a substantial stake in the success of
safe automated and connected vehicle technology. The roads are the
workplace of the truck driver, and safety is of paramount importance.
There were 33.8 million commercial trucks of all classes (including
3.63 million Class 8 trucks) registered in the U.S. in 2015 \4\. That
same year, medium and heavy duty trucks accounted for 7.9 percent of
the vehicle miles traveled \5\. Safety gains achievable by removing
human error, which is a factor in 87 percent of large truck crashes \6\
and 94 percent of all vehicle crashes \7\, and the additional economic
and societal benefits, are very enticing to an industry that already
spends over $9 billion annually on safety, including technology
enhancements, to help ensure that drivers and passengers of all
vehicles make it safely to their destination.\8\ Additionally, the
preponderance of research studies find that car drivers are principally
at fault in approximately three-quarters (70-75 percent) of fatal car-
truck crashes \9\. Connectivity and automated technology can work
together to reduce or eliminate these crashes. With these technologies,
we can not only improve safety, but lower fuel burn and emissions, and
help reduce traffic congestion, which costs the trucking industry $63.4
billion a year--the time lost to traffic is equivalent to having
362,000 drivers sitting idle for an entire year.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ American Trucking Associations, Trucking Trends 2017 (August
2017)
\5\ Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 2015, Table
VM-1, accessed online at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/
statistics/2015/pdf/vm1.pdf.
\6\ Large Truck Crash Causation Study, Federal Highway
Administration, July 2007
\7\ Singh, S. (2015, February). Critical reasons for crashes
investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey.
(Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 115).
Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
\8\ American Trucking Associations, (2016, June 26). Trucking
Industry Spends $9.5 Billion In Safety Annually. Retrieved from: http:/
/www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/News%20and%20Infor
mation/Reports%20Trends%20and%20Statistics/06%2028%2016%20-
%20Trucking%20Industry
%20Invests%20$9%205%20Billion%20in%20Safety%20Annually.pdf
\9\ Relative Contribution/Fault in Car-Truck Crashes, February
2013, http://www.trucking.org/
\10\ Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry: 2017 Update,
American Transportation Research Institute, Arlington, VA, May 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automated driving technology is the next step in the evolution of
the safety technology currently available, and it is critical that
Federal policies developed for this new technology include all vehicles
that operate on our nations roadways. While self-driving vehicle
demonstrations are exciting to watch, automated technology comes in
many levels that will assist the driver and in some cases, handle the
driving task. Some may predict the elimination of all driving jobs,
including both drivers of passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles,
but that future, if it exists at all, is too far into the future to
see. Realistically, what we are talking about now is fostering the
development of all levels of automated technology, so that those levels
of technology which provide improved safety and productivity can be
tested, proven, and deployed to benefit all road users. We need to
think about how this innovation can solve problems like crashes,
congestion, and emissions, and let that guide policy and drive
outcomes. In short, this innovation and its benefits, centers on
solutions in which their remains a role for drivers, rather than a
driverless approach.
As you well know, passenger cars and commercial vehicles operate on
the same roads, making it critically important that both benefit from
innovation in safety technology. While there are differences between
passenger and commercial vehicles, it makes sense to provide
protections and incentives for innovation in commercial vehicles as
well as passenger vehicles--things like Federal preemption to ensure
that state and Federal regulations do not conflict or impede interstate
commerce, and the ability to receive exemptions from existing Federal
regulations so that new technology can be developed and tested--these
should apply to both commercial and non-commercial vehicles.
Automated Technology in Trucking
Automated vehicle technologies have the potential to dramatically
impact nearly all aspects of the trucking industry. These technologies
can bring benefits in the areas of safety, environment, productivity,
efficiency, and driver health and wellness. Although some people use
the terms ``autonomous'' and ``driverless'' interchangeably, ATA
believes that the driver will retain an important role in trucking,
even with automated trucks. In addition to monitoring the automated
driving systems and manually driving in the cityscape and at loading
docks, drivers will retain their current responsibilities for securing
the cargo, particularly hazardous cargo, as well as for customer
interaction with the shipper and receiver.
In the trucking industry, you have a business-to-business
relationship between the fleets purchasing the vehicles and the
companies offering the technology. How individual carriers choose to
incorporate automated technologies in their fleets will likely not be a
``one size fits all'' application, but rather will depend on each
carrier's operations and anticipated return on investment for the
technology. Trucking companies will want to see convincing data before
they invest in changing their operations to incorporate the new
technology. Trucking is also a highly regulated industry. Regulations
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), as well as the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others affect
both the vehicle technology and the driver's responsibilities, which
will also have an impact on a company's decision on whether and how to
deploy automated technology.
The bottom line is that the trucking industry is vitally interested
in automated vehicle technologies and the safety and efficiency promise
they hold. The safety gains achievable by removing human error, a
factor in 94 percent of all vehicle crashes,\11\ could be
transformative in reducing fatalities and injuries on our roadways, as
well as in preventing even minor crashes, which would reduce traffic
congestion and pollution, providing additional economic and societal
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Singh, S. (2015, February). Critical reasons for crashes
investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey.
(Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 115).
Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automated Driving Technology and Jobs
The development of automated technology for vehicles does not mean
that all vehicles will become ``driverless vehicles'' and that every
kind of driving job will be eliminated. The reality is much more
complex. While there may be applications where an automated system can
take over the driving task, this is unlikely to replace commercial
vehicle drivers altogether, just as in the airline industry pilots are
still in the cockpit and responsible for the safe operation of their
vehicle. As with any technology that increases productivity, there is a
likelihood that there will be a decrease in the number of people needed
to do the same amount of work. Right now, we are facing a shortage of
drivers, particularly for long-distance drivers, around 50,000. If
these trends continue, the shortage could hit over 150,000 in a decade.
And as the shortage becomes more acute, it will begin to affect the
ability of goods to be delivered on time, which is becoming more
important in today's on-demand economy. Projections are that we'll need
to hire about 890,000 truck drivers over the next 10 years.\12\ The
American Transportation Research Institute, the not-for-profit research
arm of the trucking industry, recently released a report on how
autonomous technologies will impact the trucking industry. That
assessment found that highly automated trucks will likely draw new,
younger drivers into the trucking industry by better meeting the job
expectations of millennial workers.\13\ Making our drivers more
productive may also be an important element in addressing this shortage
and avoiding shipping delays. Additionally, as we have seen with other
new technologies, there are new jobs created as well, which in the case
of automated trucks could include new categories of maintenance
technicians and new jobs that will develop along with business models
that take advantage of the new capabilities this technology brings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ American Trucking Associations, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis
(October 2015)
\13\ Identifying Autonomous Vehicle Technology Impacts on the
Trucking Industry, American Transportation Research Institute,
Arlington, VA, November 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the automated technology is still developing, it is difficult to
make any projections on how driving jobs will ultimately be affected
without gathering more data. As I pointed out earlier, there is a
business-to-business relationship between the fleets purchasing the
vehicles and the companies offering the technology in the trucking
industry. Fleet owners will want information on what the new technology
can do and what it will cost before they can make decisions on how it
would impact their operations. For example, will it operate only on
open highway or only in traffic jams? Will it operate under all weather
conditions? Can the technology operate when it gets off the main roads
and navigate to a customer's delivery location, which may involve
driving on private roads? Will the system need frequent calibration or
have other special maintenance requirements? With this type of
information, companies can then determine how the role of the driver
would change. This information may help inform future regulatory policy
as well. However, in order to answer these and other questions, there
will need to be more data gathered in real-world testing and
demonstration projects, which could be stalled if companies have to
work through a maze of disparate state regulations or are unable to put
sufficient vehicles on the road to collect the necessary data.
While no one can predict the distant future--I still haven't seen
the Jetson's flying car on the road or in the air yet--I can tell you
this: Trucking companies rely on good, safe drivers. As an industry, we
are working hard to recruit new drivers and retain the excellent
drivers we have now. Automated technology has the promise of keeping
these drivers safer on the roads, and making them more productive. As
automated technology changes the role of the driver, trucking companies
will work to retrain drivers as needed to operate with the new
technology. We need to embrace this innovation and shape policies that
are sensible for all vehicles that share the road, while reflecting the
unique aspects of the trucking industry's role in our economy that
allows businesses and private citizens to confidently ship goods across
state lines and throughout America. Right now, trucks move more than 10
billion tons of freight--nearly 71 percent of all U.S. domestic freight
tonnage--and those figures are only expected to grow as our economy and
population also grow.\14\ We will continue to need human beings in the
cabs of our trucks for some time. In addition to the anticipated safety
benefits, what these technologies may do is make those drivers more
efficient, make driving a more attractive career choice, and attract
new people to our industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. Freight Transportation Forecast to . . . 2028, produced
by IHS Global Insight, Inc. for American Trucking Associations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cybersecurity
As with passenger vehicles, cybersecurity is an important
consideration for commercial vehicles. ATA has taken steps to help
ensure a robust cybersecurity environment for motor carriers. ATA is
developing a motor carrier-based program for sharing information about
emerging cyber threats and attacks. This program will focus on the
unique threats to truck fleets, and will coordinate with the Auto-ISAC,
which has recently opened its membership to truck manufacturers and
equipment suppliers. ATA has also been working with the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI), DHS, and intelligence sharing and analysis
groups including the National Motor Freight Traffic Association Heavy
Vehicle Cybersecurity Working Group, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) Volpe Center Commercial Truck Cyber Working Group.
ATA also has a seat on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Cyber Leadership
Council. ATA's Technical Advisory Group and Technology & Engineering
Policy Committee have been working with our members to provide industry
thought leadership and to raise awareness of motor carrier and supply
chain risk and cybercrime prevention.
In June, the U.S. Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development &
Engineering Center (TARDEC) held a CyberTruck Challenge where truck OEM
engineers and university students attempted to hack into trucks to
identify potential vulnerabilities. Later this month, ATA's Technology
& Maintenance Council will host its first CyberTech challenge at our
National Technician Skills Competition which will help technicians
diagnose and detect cyber attacks.
All of these initiatives are working to keep trucking safe as it
moves toward connected and automated driving.
Policy Recommendations to Support Safety Innovations
The trucking industry relies on an interstate highway system that
facilitates the free flow of goods between the states. As automated
truck technology is developed, tested, and commercialized, it is
critical that federal, state and local laws do not create disparities
that limit commerce and obstruct the successful adoption of these
potentially safety- and productivity-boosting technologies. The
regulation of performance and technical specifications of automated and
connected truck technology should be solely the responsibility of the
Federal Government. States should maintain their existing
responsibilities that do not interfere with the flow of interstate
commerce. In the absence of Federal regulation, states should support
operations of commercial motor vehicle automated and connected
technologies within their rights of intrastate jurisdiction. However,
conflicting requirements among Federal and State agencies will create
roadblocks to deployment of automated technology, delaying the safety
benefits, fuel savings, emissions reductions, and potential efficiency
improvements to our country's transportation system. The Federal
Government must take a clear leadership role and, where necessary,
exercise Federal preemption to ensure that there is no conflict between
Federal and state regulations. It is critically important to provide
certainty to the developers of automated technology for all vehicles
that there will not be a disparate set of state laws, now or in the
future, that unnecessarily impede the ability of a company to test and
operate vehicles with their technology across state lines and in
interstate commerce. Without this certainty, innovation will be slowed
as companies divert resources to addressing a patchwork of state
policies, or find that the vehicles they developed in Nevada cannot be
operated in California and they need to make changes to their designs.
As automated vehicle technology is rapidly developing, it is
important that government policy and regulations support innovation and
do not inhibit the flexibility of carriers to choose automated
technologies best suited to their individual needs. Federal agencies
and state governments should be fully committed to encouraging
innovation in both commercial and passenger vehicles to bring safety
and other benefits to all road users. Exemptions from existing Federal
regulations that will allow new technology to be developed and tested
is one way to help support innovation while also gathering data that
could inform future standards and policies. NHTSA already has authority
in this area, but exemptions are now limited to 2,500 vehicles per
manufacturer per year, with each exemption lasting for a period of two
years. Expanding the number and duration of exemptions from standards
that prevent new safety technology from being put on the road will
allow more real-world data to be collected more quickly, which will
lead to improved system design and better information for making both
regulatory and business decisions. To be clear, the exemption process
does not automatically provide a manufacturer with the ability to avoid
any or all safety standards. It is a rigorous process which requires a
manufacturer to apply for the exemption and provide information that
will allow NHTSA to make its determination based on, among other
things, equivalent or better safety levels and the overall public
interest. Increasing the number and duration of the exemptions would
not relax safety, but rather provide a faster path to achieving higher
levels of safety and updated regulations.
It is important to note, too, that the Federal preemption and
exemption changes we are recommending support not only innovation of
fully automated vehicles, but also the levels of partial automation
that will bring safety benefits as well.
Coordination among Federal agencies is another way to remove
barriers and more fully realize benefits that can come from automation.
ATA sees great potential for vehicle connectivity using the 5.9 GHz
Safety Spectrum to improve the performance of automated vehicles.
Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I)
communication using the Safety Spectrum can save lives and reduce
traffic congestion and vehicle emissions. The benefits of V2V/V2I
technology will grow when coupled with automated vehicle technology,
and vice versa. As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
considers action that would allow other uses of the 5.9 GHz spectrum
that was allocated for V2V and V2I communication, we believe it is
important that any decisions over sharing the Safety Spectrum should be
driven first and foremost by public safety, preserving all 7 channels
of spectrum for safety. The FCC should take no action that could
jeopardize the vehicle safety initiatives that the DOT is pursuing with
this spectrum.
Federal agencies should also begin the work of evaluating the
benefits of connected and automated technology on public safety and the
economy, considering both passenger and commercial vehicles. A better
understanding of how these technologies may benefit the public along
with consideration of how regulations can be changed to take advantage
of the capabilities that this new technology provides will lead to
better policy decisions and the development of a regulatory framework
that help to realize these benefits. For example, in the commercial
sector, FMCSA should begin to review Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations and see what might be changed to account for the new
driving environment with automated technology where the driver may be
in the seat but not operating the controls. Perhaps there can be
changes made in hours of service that would improve productivity
without reducing safety? How should speeds be managed with connected
and automated technology? What will be the impact of connected and
automated technology on CSA scores, liability, and insurance? These are
questions that should be considered by DOT along with an examination of
the impact on interstate commerce of conflicting state laws and the
importance of preserving a seamless set of safety standards to minimize
disruptions to the economy and the national supply chain. A thorough
examination of these issues will help insure that the future regulatory
framework is correct, not flawed.
Conclusion
ATA supports the development of automated vehicle technology for
all vehicle types. This technology has the potential for improving
safety, the environment, reducing congestion, and saving fuel. While
there are concerns about the impact automated technologies will have on
the future of work, affected stakeholders should embrace this coming
innovation and work together to prepare the workforce to operate with
the new technology. Some may see a driverless future, but with the
complexity and diversity of the trucking industry, we expect the driver
will retain an important role in trucking for a long time to come, with
automated truck technology that will improve safety and productivity.
To prepare for the future, Federal agencies should begin the work
of evaluating the benefits of connected and automated technology on
public safety and the economy, and reviewing regulations to see what
changes could be made to take advantage of the capabilities that this
new technology provides. Preserving a seamless set of safety standards
across the country will help to minimize disruptions to the economy and
the national supply chain, and support the development of new
technology.
Trucking plays a critical role in our economy--keeping the shelves
of our local supermarkets fully stocked; delivering life-saving medical
supplies to hospitals and clinics; and delivering goods at every stage
of production from raw materials to the store shelf--and it should not
be left out of any legislation that supports innovation in automated
vehicle technology.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Spear.
Mr. Hall.
STATEMENT OF KEN HALL,
GENERAL SECRETARY TREASURER,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
Mr. Hall. Chairman Thune, Senator Peters, members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today on an issue that is of vital importance to American
workers.
I'm the General Secretary-Treasurer of the Teamsters union,
the Nation's largest transportation union, representing workers
in almost every transportation industry. Teamsters members
could be delivering anything from bakery goods to concrete,
palletized material, to your latest online package, or getting
you to work on time and safely transporting your kids to
school.
While nearly 600,000 of our 1.4 million members turn a key
in a truck to start their workday, the issues that we will be
discussing today don't just impact those who drive vehicles for
a living. A future that includes partial and fully autonomous
vehicles could also change the nature of work for those in
nearly every part of the transportation industry in our
country.
Planning for the future and incorporating new technologies
into our members' daily lives is not new to me or to my union.
In addition to my duties as General Secretary Treasurer, for
over 20 years I also served as Director of the Union's Package
Division, and in this position, I ran the Teamsters daily
interactions with UPS, under the single largest collective
bargaining agreement in North America.
The issues facing the 250,000 Teamsters who work for UPS
are inextricably tied to the incorporation of new technology.
The logistics industry as a whole has changed extraordinarily
over time, and Teamsters have been in the thick of it. We have
strived to balance the incorporation of countless pieces of new
technology into the workplace while ensuring that workers are
guaranteed a right to avoid harassment and to always feel safe
on the job. My career has shown me that new technologies can
exist in an environment where workers are still taken care of.
But it takes strong and aggressive action from those workers to
make sure that happens.
Self-driving vehicles have the potential to change the
transportation industry as we know it. That can be for the
better or for the worse, depending on the actions of this
Committee, workers, and others take in guiding their
implementation onto our roads. It is incumbent upon the members
of this Committee to help ensure that workers are not left
behind in this process. It is essential that American workers
are not treated as guinea pigs for unproven technologies that
could put their lives at risk.
The issues facing autonomous commercial trucks are
fundamentally different and potentially more calamitous than
those facing passenger cars and warrant their own careful
consideration. The consequences for getting this wrong could be
deadly both for workers and other drivers on the roads. The
public discussion in Congress on autonomous vehicles has tended
to focus on the impact of small personal cars on our daily
lives, increasing mobility for the disabled, and alleviating
congestion in our cities. These are all important topics. But
taking a cookie-cutter approach in dealing with those issues
and applying it to heavy vehicles is reckless.
For instance, I have yet to hear a serious discussion about
how we will make sure an 80,000-pound automated truck will be
able to maneuver around a warehouse or drop yard and not injure
the countless workers also occupying that same space, or how we
would make sure that the rules governing a driver's training
requirements would be updated the moment one of those new
vehicles is put on the road. And we haven't gotten to the
largest issue of them all, the potential impact on the
livelihoods and wages of millions of your constituents. These
issues should be considered carefully and deliberately at the
outset of this discussion, not after the fact.
For all the discussion here about the potential benefits
that may accompany this technology, I urge you to consider
these possibilities with a healthy dose of realism. When you
hear manufacturers tell you that a list of strong safety
metrics will translate into effortless deployment on the roads,
I urge you to recall some of the other issues that this
Committee has so furiously worked on this year.
This Committee has spearheaded investigations into
Volkswagen knowingly cheating its customers out of emission
benefits. The airbag manufacturer Takata knowingly sold
defective airbags that have claimed the lives of American
citizens. Market forces did not convince these companies not to
cheat and push the envelope past what was safe, and that same
mentality is a constant factor in the trucking space where
margins are consistently tight and competition is fierce. The
fear of many transportation workers is that, absent strong
action and guidance from this Committee and others, a new
generation of autonomous vehicles will provide limitless
opportunity for this same pattern of reckless behavior.
There are so many impacts to consider. Unchecked, this new
technology could open up our citizens to having their privacy
breached and personal data sold. Issues such as worker
harassment and tracking would be intertwined with existing
collective bargaining agreements and workplace policies. A
truck driver will have to think about having his rig hacked and
used as the next weapon in a Nice or Barcelona-style attack,
and millions of Americans could have their paychecks decreased
because half of their job has now been automated away and their
employer thinks that it can get away with no longer paying them
the full wage they once did.
I applaud you for having this hearing with the Teamsters'
voice at the table. I look forward to working with the
Committee to ensure the priorities and concerns of working
families remain at the center of this debate. In all aspects of
automation, but especially when we're considering commercial
motor vehicles, it is more important to get it done correctly
rather than just get done quickly.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Hall, General Secretary Treasurer,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, Senator Peters, members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today on an issue that is of vital importance to American workers.
My name is Ken Hall. I am the General Secretary Treasurer of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The Teamsters Union is the
Nation's largest transportation union, representing workers in almost
every transportation industry. Teamster members could be delivering
anything from bakery goods to concrete, palletized material to your
latest online package--or getting you to work on time and safely
transporting your kids to school.
While nearly 600,000 of our 1.4 million members turn a key in a
truck to start their workday, the issues we will be discussing today
don't just impact those who drive vehicles for a living. A future that
includes partial and fully autonomous vehicles could also change the
nature of work for those in nearly every part of the transportation
industry in our country.
Planning for the future and incorporating new technologies into our
members' daily lives is not new to me or to my Union. In addition to my
duties as General Secretary Treasurer, for over twenty years I also
served as director of the union's package division. In this position I
ran the Teamsters daily interactions with UPS, under the single largest
collective bargaining agreement in North America.
The issues facing the 250,000 Teamsters who work for UPS are
inextricably tied to the incorporation of new technology. The logistics
industry as a whole has changed extraordinarily over time and Teamsters
have been in the thick of it. We have strived to balance the
incorporation of countless pieces of new technology into the workplace
while ensuring that workers are guaranteed a right to avoid harassment
and to always feel safe on the job. My career has shown me that new
technologies can exist in an environment where workers are still taken
care of. But it takes strong and aggressive action from those workers
to make sure that happens.
Self-driving vehicles have the potential to change the
transportation industry as we know it. That can be for the better or
for the worse depending on the actions that this committee, workers,
and others take in guiding their implementation onto our roads. It is
incumbent upon the members of this committee to help ensure that
workers are not left behind in this process. It is essential that
American workers are not treated as guinea pigs for unproven
technologies that could put their lives at risk.
The issues facing autonomous commercial trucks are fundamentally
different, and potentially more calamitous than those facing passenger
cars, and warrant their own careful consideration. The consequences for
getting this wrong could be deadly both for workers and other drivers
on the roads. The public discussion in Congress on autonomous vehicles
has tended to focus on the impact of small personal cars on our daily
lives--increasing mobility for the disabled, and alleviating congestion
in our cities. These are all important topics. But taking a cookie
cutter approach in dealing with those issues and applying it to heavy
vehicles is reckless.
For instance, I have yet to hear a serious discussion about how we
will make sure an 80,000 pound automated truck will be able to maneuver
around a warehouse or drop yard and not injure the countless workers
also occupying that same space. Or how we would make sure that the
rules governing a driver's training requirements would be updated the
moment one of these new vehicles is put on the road. And we haven't
gotten to the largest issue of them all, the potential impact on the
livelihoods and wages of millions of your constituents. These issues
should be considered carefully and deliberately at the outset of this
discussion, not after the fact.
For all of the discussion here about the potential benefits that
may accompany this technology, I urge you to consider these
possibilities with a healthy dose of realism. When you hear
manufacturers tell you that a list of strong safety metrics will
translate into effortless deployment on the roads, I urge you to recall
some of the other issues that this committee has so furiously worked on
this year.
This committee has spearheaded investigations into VW knowingly
cheating its customers out of emission benefits. The airbag
manufacturer Takata knowingly sold defective airbags that have claimed
the lives of American citizens. Market forces did not convince these
companies not to cheat and push the envelope past what was safe. And
that same mentality is a constant factor in the trucking space where
margins are consistently tight and competition is fierce. The fear of
many transportation workers is that absent strong action and guidance
from this committee and others, a new generation of autonomous vehicles
will provide limitless opportunity for this same pattern of reckless
behavior.
There are so many impacts to consider. Unchecked, this new
technology could open our citizens up to having their privacy breached
and personal data sold. Issues such as worker harassment and tracking
would be intertwined with existing collective bargaining agreements and
workplace policies. A truck driver will have to think about having his
rig hacked and used as the next weapon in a Nice or Barcelona-style
attack, and millions of Americans could have their paychecks decreased
because half of their job has now been automated away and their
employer thinks that it can get away with no longer paying them the
full wage they once did.
I applaud you for having this hearing with the Teamsters' voice at
the table. I look forward to working with the Committee to ensure that
the priorities and concerns of working families remain at the center of
this debate. In all aspects of automation, but especially when we are
considering commercial motor vehicles, it is more important to get it
done correctly rather than just done quickly.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
And thanks again to all of you for your testimony. And
we'll have an opportunity to have members of the Committee to
ask some questions. And I'll start with Colonel Hernandez.
Based on your years of experience, do you think that
autonomous vehicle technology can advance safety for trucks?
Colonel Hernandez. Absolutely. I think that, as we've
heard, it already has in many ways. But witnessing what
happened on October 20 of last year, it was clear that there
are some advantages. And a couple of those that I probably
didn't capture in my initial testimony was the hours, and the
demonstration was at night when there was reduced traffic. And
so that was both for safety concerns, and will be for safety
concerns in the future. So just the timing possibilities. And
it was, like I said, a Level 4 demonstration. And what that
meant was that there was still a driver there to get that
vehicle onto the highway and then into the terminal area. So
that driver was involved in that process.
But without a doubt, I believe that there are some
advantages. I think the key is, is that we're all at the table
to discuss with them, to discuss this together, through the
process and make sure that commercial vehicles are not left
out. I think the fact that they've already demonstrated this
puts us behind, and I think that it shouldn't be left further
behind in the process. Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Hersman, the crashes that you highlighted
in your testimony are horrible, and yet could have been
prevented or mitigated with crash-avoidance technology. And you
mentioned that we cannot continue to do things the same way.
Since trucks are involved in some of the most jarring examples
that you've cited, would you say that accelerating the
deployment of automated vehicles or automated trucks should
provide significant safety benefits?
Ms. Hersman. Yes. With proper testing and controls, I think
this is the game changer when it comes to highway fatalities.
Advanced technology can solve many problems that we've
struggled with for decades. And I think it's important to have
the conversations and the issues that you've outlined in your
bill. Whether it's data sharing, testing protocols, engagement
of all of the right stakeholders, these are all things we need
to begin to discuss.
The Chairman. Thanks.
Mr. Clarke, is there any reason to think that when it comes
to automated vehicles, that Federal safety standards governing
core automated technologies, things like sensors and radar,
should be fundamentally different for trucks and cars and
develop at different speeds?
Mr. Clarke. The fact of the matter is, is that the basic
sensor technology and some of that type of componentry which
are put on the truck is very similar to what is in cars.
However, our heavy vehicles are much different than cars. They
weigh more, they take longer to stop, they have high centers of
gravity. In fact, one of the reasons why we need to advance at
the rate we are is because of the fact that some of the
solutions that allow the heavy vehicle to perform in a similar
manner to a light vehicle have yet to be engineered.
We need the data from real-life, in-hands use by real
customers to understand what the proper validation processes
and practices, you know, will be, or what the engineering
problems are that we need to solve. We see no reason why
commercial trucks should move forward in this area at a
different speed or under a different timetable than light
vehicles.
The Chairman. Mr. Spear, this appears to be an instance in
which many trucking companies and manufacturers are actually
pushing for more Federal regulation of the industry. Could you
explain the reasons why you think more leadership from the
Federal Government will accelerate the safety benefits of this
new technology?
Mr. Spear. I wouldn't say that it's more regulation, but at
least one standard, one seamless Federal standard, and that
comes from Federal leadership. So we would push and advocate
heavily for that as opposed to 50 different state regulatory
regimes. We're interstate commerce. We move the economy.
Seventy percent of the freight was in your opening remarks.
That's no small figure. And we cross state lines every day. And
it's a reality that our drivers face every day, and, you know,
compliance with multiple state regimes would be very disruptive
to the economy, to these companies, and I think it would be a
jobs issue over time if we're not able to move freight in a
productive way, in a safe way, and obviously in a profitable
way.
So having one seamless standard at the Federal level is
what we would advocate, and it's certainly a much better
approach in our view than a patchwork of state laws,
conflicting state laws.
The Chairman. OK. Thank you.
Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
each of our witnesses for outstanding testimony here today as
we begin this very important discussion about trucks and
autonomy.
Mr. Hall, I couldn't agree with you more that we need to
get this right, that there is a great deal of potential in this
technology. We have to do it right and we have to be thoughtful
about it, and that's certainly why we have spent so much time
on this issue related to automobiles. As I mentioned in my
opening comments, hours and hours of conversations with all
stakeholders.
It has been a very comprehensive program as we've focused
on automobiles. But as everyone has said, trucks are different
than automobiles, and one of those differences deals with the
employment impact, which I think you stated very clearly.
And I think, Mr. Spear, you mentioned it's the top job in
over 20 states.
So folks who we represent in our communities, it could
potentially have a significant impact, and one that we have to
think very carefully about, the impact that it's going to have
on our communities in our state.
Mr. Spear, in your testimony, you said that the ATA
believes that the driver will retain an important role in
trucking even in automated vehicles, or if I may paraphrase, I
think that's in your written testimony. And I think we all
could agree that we don't want to see large-scale job losses.
But I didn't see in your testimony any data, studies, best
practices, or business plans that address how a company
operating today is prepared to address driver displacement.
Now, Mr. Clarke mentioned that drivers would still have a
role in platooning, as an example of how a driver would be in
that business model, but even that means a displacement of
drivers. If you are platooning trucks, that means you have
several trucks driving together, and normally you have each of
those trucks with a driver in the front, and now you may just
have one driver in front of a platoon. So there are
differences.
So my question to you, Mr. Spear, and certainly to Mr.
Clarke as well, What are you doing internally to prepare for
possible driver displacement as a result of highly automated
trucks?
Mr. Spear. Quite frankly, we don't view it as a
displacement issue because we don't believe Level 5, no
steering wheel, no pedals, is imminent. What we're really
focused on is driver-assist technologies, not driverless. And
if that's acceptable in this Committee, then we're really
talking about, How do we enable drivers to be safer, more
productive, equipment more environmentally friendly, less
congestion? These are all measurable returns that our fleets
will invest in and are good for drivers as well. We'd like them
to be less fatigued, better rested. And if technology can play
a role in that, that's good for the entire motoring public.
But in terms of driver displacement, we already have a
$50,000--50,000-driver shortage as it stands, and if that trend
continues, it will be double in 5 years. We have to hire
960,000 employees over the next decade into this industry. So
we're pushing hard to bring more talent into the industry.
That's what our fleets are preparing for, not for displacement.
And to the degree that it is driver-assist technology, we
welcome that. And ways that we can measure better productivity
and safety, lower emissions, less congestion, those are all
things that we'd be very interested, and that's why we feel
trucks need to be part of this legislation.
Driverless, Level 5, that's decades away, and it's just not
even in the scope of our fleets' vision at this point, but I
think Level 2 and 3 are. So with that, I think driver-assist is
much more reasonable and why we're not concerned about
displacement at this time.
Senator Peters. When you say that driverless technology for
trucks is decades away, and yet for automobiles, it's just a
few years away, why the difference?
Mr. Spear. Well, I think I would agree with my colleague
Mr. Hall. He is struggling to find an argument where you are
going to have a driverless truck navigate in a scenario where
it's going to do a dropoff or a pickup. We wouldn't argue with
that because we think the driver is still going to be in the
seat. It's really the long haul where you're going to see a lot
of the value come from driver-assist technology, Levels 2 and
3.
So we don't believe that that's going to be a threat. We
think drivers are going to play an intricate role in the
cityscapes, the pickups, the deliveries, but in terms of the
long haul where you can see efficiencies to lowering fuel burn,
lowering emissions, better safety by having connectivity
between trucks, cars, infrastructure, those are all good things
that are going to really improve safety in our opinion. So we
don't look at it as a threat, certainly not in the near term.
Senator Peters. Mr. Hall, you obviously have a different
perspective, and I would like you to have an opportunity to
hear a little bit more about your perspective after Mr. Spear's
testimony.
Mr. Hall. Well, I was certainly happy to hear his
testimony, but, you know, we look at this as--first of all, let
me be clear. Our union has always been willing to talk about
new technology. If you look at the workplaces that we
represent, they look very unsimilar to warehousing and all
these other different aspects of industries that we represent.
They're much different than they were when I began as a
Teamster. But there is very much of a difference here when
we're talking about having an 80,000-pound vehicle barreling
down the road.
We are not opposed to looking at some of the changes that
we have heard here, but to have a tractor-trailer going down
the road without a driver, which is what I believe is coming,
then I think there are lots of reasons why we should be
concerned about that, and not the least of which is
cybersecurity.
I mean, we--no matter what technology you put into these
trucks, we've seen already in areas around the world where
large trucks have been used to essentially attack the citizens
of those particular areas. And so that's one of the things that
I think we have a lot of work to do before we can go to this--
before we can advance with the larger trucks.
Senator Peters. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Peters.
Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Mr. Spear, what do you say to that cyber
threat argument that Mr. Hall raised?
Mr. Spear. Well, I think it's a serious issue, and I think
the auto industry and the trucking industry are very committed
to ensuring--there is nobody out there that wants their
equipment to be compromised. So I think putting together very
strong protocols in concert with Federal policies. We work very
regularly not only with DOT and NHTSA, but also with DHS. I
would agree with Mr. Hall, I don't think you want a tank truck
that's driverless in an ISIS world. That is not something we're
advocating.
So going back to the earlier discussion about driver
displacement, that is not something that we believe is in the
foreseeable future, but where we can use technology to enhance,
you know, the safety and the productivity of the fleets and the
driver, we're all in on that.
Senator Wicker. So just as we guard against cyber threats
with airlines and other aspects of our economy, we can answer
that question with the trucking question. Is that your
position?
Mr. Spear. Yes, I think so. We work very closely with DHS,
FBI, Volpe.
Senator Wicker. OK.
Mr. Spear. We've been working with DOD on testing. Trucks
have been a very integral part of cybersecurity testing
protocols, and now with the ISAC at the auto industry, the
Information Sharing Advisory Committee, they are now accepting
our companies to be a participant in that realm. So now you're
going to have the auto industry and the trucking industry
comparing best practice to make certain there's a seamless
protocol that's----
Senator Wicker. Well, let me get to another couple of
topics.
Mr. Spear and Mr. Hall, do you agree that we do have an
impending truck driver shortage?
Is that your position, Mr. Spear?
And is that your position, Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall. It is.
Mr. Spear. It is.
Senator Wicker. OK. Well, Mr. Spear, it seems to me, based
on your testimony, that actually going to a Level 2 or 3,
really you're saying that's really not going to be an answer to
the trucker shortage because we're still going to need
basically the same number of truck drivers. Is that correct?
Mr. Spear. Well, it's not a clearly defined answer.
However, I like to use the analogy of generational gaps. I can
usually fix a lot of things on my phone and laptop, but it's
easier to hand them to my kids. I can get it done a heck of a
lot quicker than I can. And what we would like to see in terms
of the new generation of drivers and technicians is to speak to
that generation. This technology does that. And to make
trucking cool, to make trucking attractive, tech-savvy in this
generation, I think is a good fit.
And I think we're ushering in a lot of new talent that's
going to be able to really cope with this technology and make
it work to the benefit of society. So we believe in that. It
may be more indirect, but we think that that is an attractive
element in terms of bringing new talent into our industry----
Senator Wicker. OK, I see. So we can add to the workforce.
Let me ask you about your statement on the 5.9 GHz safety
spectrum. If we don't get that and we don't get the exclusive
use of that, as your testimony advocates, what would that mean?
Mr. Spear. I think it would be a huge setback. I'm a bit
more bullish on this issue than others. We do work closely with
the National Safety Council on this issue and feel that having
connectivity between cars, trucks, and infrastructure is, in my
opinion, the secret sauce because now you don't have cars
cutting off trucks. And two-thirds of the accidents that
involve trucks are caused by passenger vehicles, driver
behavior, speeding, texting.
So connectivity plays a key role as that becomes more of a
problem, eliminating congestion. These are huge issues that
gain from connectivity through that 5.9. If we don't have that,
you're simply going to be working off of other applications.
Bluetooth, for instance. We look a lot at platooning in our
industry, trucks trailing trucks. That's done basically on a
Bluetooth platform. I'm not saying that's a bad platform to
work from, but a much more robust and safer platform would
certainly be a 5.9, and preserving that for safety would be
something that we would advocate.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Mr. Clarke, we have information in our Committee brief
about advances in our competitor countries in this regard.
Germany, United Kingdom, South Korea, even China, are working
hard at this. Who's ahead of whom in this area? And what can we
learn from the experiences of the other countries? And if you
can, touch on the connectivity issue that Mr. Spear touched on.
Mr. Clarke. Yes, thank you, Senator. Actually, on the
connectivity issue, you know, I would endorse comments of Mr.
Spear. Look, connected vehicles see much further than any
driver. Connected vehicles can be prepared to avoid
circumstances, and certainly engage the driver in ways that are
not possible today, seeing miles ahead to weather, road
conditions, congestion, other type of circumstances. It is the
secret sauce, I think, and really is one of the keys to
unlocking the potential of this technology.
Senator Wicker. How are our global competitors doing?
Mr. Clarke. You know, this is--you know, in some of the
trade journals you may have read, you know, this is the space
race of our industry basically. There are a number of
technologies that are coming together, and very interestingly,
a number of those technology leads come out of the United
States. And, you know, the sensor technology, the AI and
machine learning technology that's necessary to take advantage
of this, the very sophisticated digital 3-dimensional LIDAR
maps that are running in the background and supporting this
software, these are all areas where we have the edge.
Senator Wicker. We're ahead of Germany, United Kingdom, and
South Korea, and China in the basic regard.
Mr. Clarke. Yes, sir, in the basics, we are.
Senator Wicker. And that's a good thing.
Mr. Clarke. It is. What we need to do is to continue to
press forward with the integration of these into real
platforms, putting them into real service so that we can
collect the data to allow us to do the analytics to bring
forward the right type of regulations and applications.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wicker. And I would agree.
I think in terms of the transformative effects and impacts of
this technology, the closest thing in recent memory would be
the Internet. I just think this is going to transform the way
we do things. And I would concur with the statement that has
been made about truckers. Just anecdotally, trucking companies
in my state cannot find enough drivers, and there is a real
shortage out there.
So thank you, Senator Wicker.
Next up is Senator Young.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman. Well, I've really
enjoyed this conversation. It's very important to my home State
of Indiana, where we have a robust logistics industry, and a
very serious shortage of truck drivers to keep that industry
going. So I think we might have a big part of the solution
being presented today.
So in 2015, there were over 35,000 lives taken for one
reason or another on our Nation's highways. Over 800 of those
fatalities were on highways in my home State of Indiana. NHTSA
estimates that as many as 94 percent of crashes can be
attributed to human driver error, so you can see the potential
AVs bring simply in terms of lives saved. So another big
benefit to Hoosiers.
That's not the complete story. AVs could change the lives
of individuals who today rely on friends, family, and others to
drive themselves around, to drive them around our communities.
You think of the blind, the disabled, the elderly, and others
who could have a far greater quality of life when AVs allow
them to become more independent, but also more integrated into
the day-to-day lives of our communities.
The National Council on Disability noted in a previous
hearing that we held that automated vehicles hold great promise
to advance social inclusion by offering people with
disabilities independent mobility to get to schools, jobs, and
all places that Americans go each day. To get to a point where
AVs can provide such a societal benefit, Congress will have to
allow the technology to advance for both vehicles below 10,000
pounds and most likely for vehicles above 10,000 pounds. I'm
afraid if we bifurcate the regulatory environments for small
and large vehicles, we're going to delay these life-saving and
life-changing benefits that AV technology can bring to all
Americans.
Mr. Spear, regarding the threat of AI or automation
becoming net job losses for our economy, you predicted that
truckers will be more like airline pilots. That's sort of a
compelling thought. I think it offers promise to our future
truck drivers or operators to work in a profession where they
add more value or earn higher wages, and so forth, at least as
you've styled it.
Could you expand on that? Because I think the popular
perception is that when you get on a commercial airline, the
pilot is controlling the plane the entire time, and we know
that's not the case. So what would the role of the trucker be
as we look into the future?
Mr. Spear. I think it would be very similar. I know this
plays a little bit off of Mr. Hall's testimony, too, because we
share that concern. What many people don't see are the pickups,
the deliveries, the navigating of the cityscapes. There is some
really complex maneuvering with this equipment that takes a lot
of talent behind the wheel to make that happen. And with all
the variables that they're dealing with, they're not automated,
they're not Level 5.
So unless we're going to remove all human error from all
vehicles on the road, you're going to need drivers in the seat
handling 80,000-pound vehicles, in our opinion. Very similar
concept to airline pilots. It's the takeoffs, the taxiways, the
landings, they're all handled by the pilot in control. It's
really the long haul, and where that automatic pilot comes on
where you see some of the values of that technology take over.
The pilot is always there, can take over if conditions arise
that warrant that. The same stands true for drivers and trucks.
Senator Young. And I haven't heard the airline industry
discuss eliminating pilots and going fully automated.
Mr. Spear. And they could right now. I don't want to put in
a plug for my former employer, but working with Honeywell for 8
years, you all fly, there are pilots in the cockpit----
Senator Young. Right.
Mr. Spear.--those cockpits, the automation that's in these
planes can take off, fly, and land all on their own.
Senator Young. And over the years, I would say we've had an
increase in the number of pilots. And so our airline industry
used to involve more pilot sort of intervention along the way.
I would also indicate we saw an increase, at least for a period
of time, in membership in their unions as well. So that's
notable.
What is--could you discuss platooning? Because I'm not
entirely sure what the role of the operator would be in the
platooning process.
Mr. Spear. Well, the platooning, it would involve a concept
where a driver would be in the lead truck, and that pursuant
trucks would follow possibly without a driver eventually, but
up to two, three trailer trucks would follow the lead driver
and they would be connected. Right now that's being tested, as
I said earlier, through Bluetooth technology. It's why we feel
the 5.9 would be a much greater platform, better platform, to
connect vehicles because then you can include connecting cars.
And so the accident that Ms. Hersman put up on the slide there,
if you have cars and trucks talking to one another, you really
start to mitigate risk.
Senator Young. Well, this strikes me as really meaningful
work as you think about the future of trucking, and one where
we might attract more people into the labor market. So thank
you so much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Young.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and
Senator Peters for your work on the legislation that raises
some of the issues that bring us here today.
I think we need rules and regulations in this area, rules
that will guarantee safety. I was deeply disappointed by the
guidance issued yesterday by NHTSA, which struck me as anemic,
in effect, a giveaway to the industry, and it could result in
lives lost unless we have enforceable rules and regulations
that protect the traveling public, not just the folks who may
be behind the wheel, but also passengers in vehicles out on the
roads today. And driving continues to be one of the deadliest
activities, as you observed, Ms. Hersman, and thank you for all
your work in this area.
The reason the framework issued yesterday concerned me so
greatly is that it depends on voluntary self-assessments by the
industry as opposed to mandatory rules. It was termed by one
report ``even less burdensome,'' quote, ``even less
burdensome,'' than the voluntary one issued under the Obama
administration. And the net effect would be to leave
enforcement virtually toothless.
So I am putting to you the question, to all of the
witnesses here today, Isn't it necessary to have mandatory
rules and regulations enforced by the government, by the
Department of Transportation, or some enforcer to protect the
traveling public?
Mr. Hall. Well, I think it's absolutely true. There has to
be--we've seen too many examples of--and that's one of our
concerns, is whether or not there is going to be the kind of
oversight that's necessary to protect the American public. I
mean, we have seen too many cases, where, for example, in the
case of Volkswagen, where everyone assumed that they were doing
the right things. And while it's a different issue with
emissions, it is still the same issue that if a company is
allowed to produce vehicles, whether it is automobiles or, in
particular, when it's 80,000-pound rigs, then there must be
oversight. And that's why I think it's premature to think that
these commercial vehicles should be included at this time.
That is not to say that--and you know I want to--I am
hopeful that we're all willing to guarantee that we're going to
protect all those drivers' jobs, but we're certainly open to
talking about anything that improves safety. But I am concerned
when I know about the issues that have happened where the
driver was killed that we just saw a report yesterday about,
when Uber spent lots of money in the City of Pittsburgh in
making sure that they measured down to the centimeter every
street in that city, but yet one of the vehicles went the wrong
way down a one-way street. That is--you know, on a one-way
street, maybe there's a way to control that.
We've got to be--we've got to have more thought, not that
there's not going to be a time, as I have listened here and
agreed with some of my colleagues here, I understand that we
are going to see some changes, but there has to be a lot more
work done----
Senator Blumenthal. Does anyone on this panel think that
the NHTSA guidance offers an adequate basis to go forward?
Mr. Spear. I wouldn't say, Senator, that it's an end-all,
you know, issuance of guidance. I think we're heading down the
path where you're going to have that framework.
Senator Blumenthal. It's hardly a robust first step. Would
you agree?
Mr. Spear. I would say that it is a first step, and that's
better than nothing.
Senator Blumenthal. But it ought to be a lot more robust?
Mr. Spear. It will be a lot more. We are going to have a
framework. We are moving in that direction. But I think at the
same time, the only reason we're having this discussion today
is because innovation is driving this outcome, not regulations.
So----
Senator Blumenthal. The rules are as important as the
technology, would you agree?
Mr. Spear. I agree. And I think it's getting the Federal
Government on a good foundation to where it has great
understanding and visibility where this technology is going to
take us. You know, in my testimony, we advocate a Federal
role----
Senator Blumenthal. And the rules have to be enforceable.
Mr. Spear. Absolutely.
Senator Blumenthal. And they should be enforced.
Mr. Spear. And I think that's the direction we're going,
and that's why we believe trucks need to be part of it, but
right----
Senator Blumenthal. But the rules have to keep pace with
the technology, correct?
Mr. Spear. I think eventually they will, but, yes, you're
correct.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, the ``eventually'' part is what
concerns me because in the meantime, there will be a lot more
deaths and injuries if the rules and enforceability of those
rules fail to keep pace, correct?
Mr. Spear. And I also think the same is true if you get the
rules wrong. I think excluding the commercial industry would be
a very big detriment to safety. I think inclusivity and getting
this right from the start--we all share the road, and I think
having a Federal role, sole authority, overseeing it, not a
patchwork of state laws, that deals with all motors on the
road, motors on the road, commercial or passenger, would be the
best approach.
Senator Blumenthal. But relying on voluntary self-
assessments and foregoing public oversight and enforcement I
think is a mistake that would discredit the goal that we share
of making technology available and accessible to as many people
as possible and increasing safety through the use of
technology. I think that revisiting this guidance is something
that has to be done, and I hope it will be done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Lee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to all of you who have joined us today as witnesses.
As we consider the issue of autonomous vehicles this month,
it's becoming more and more clear that the future of American
transportation is inextricably intertwined with the advent of
automated technology, and I think it's therefore really
important that we think about this issue a lot and we move
forward with it with an eye toward advancing it and allowing it
to be developed.
Automation is inevitable, and I think it would be neither
wise nor appropriate nor necessary for Congress to stifle the
advancement of this technology. At issue in this debate is not
whether Congress should restrict or block or slow down the
development of this technology, but it's, rather, how Congress
can best establish a regulatory framework, one that encourages
and facilitates the development of life-saving technology,
technology that will make the American people safer and more
productive.
The research and development of autonomous commercial motor
vehicles is, I think, critical to this type of innovation, and
should, therefore, be included in any legislation that we put
forward this month.
Now, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of
Labor Statistics, trucking transportation occupations account
for more work-related fatalities than perhaps any other
profession. And it's my understanding that 87 percent of truck-
related collisions are caused by human error, not because
people who are driving them are bad; they are, to the contrary,
well trained and everything. But human beings make mistakes,
and human error can inevitably lead to fatalities.
So I have a question. I'll start with Ms. Hersman. Given
that trucks are involved in a disproportionate share of fatal
vehicle crashes, wouldn't automated trucking technology make
sense and have the potential to have kind of an outsized
benefit for American drivers?
Ms. Hersman. Yes, technology has the potential to be that
game changer when it comes to reducing fatalities. There is
technology available today that we see can do this. Rear-end
collisions are a great example, three times more fatal if
you're involved in a rear-end collision with a truck, with a
commercial vehicle, than a passenger car. We can all understand
the physics of that. Automatic emergency braking, vehicle-to-
vehicle technology can help with that. Automated vehicles are
an extension of some of those technologies.
Senator Lee. So in light of that fact, why would it make
sense for us to put them on two different tracks, one in which
we facilitate and promote and allow for the development in the
case of passenger vehicles, but not in the area of commercial
vehicles?
Ms. Hersman. We don't think it does make sense because in
situations where we have put passenger cars on a fast track and
we haven't addressed commercial vehicles, electronic stability
control is a good example. After there were some issues with
rollovers involving Ford Explorers' Bridgestone/Firestone
tires, this Committee required that electronic stability
control be mandated on passenger vehicles. That occurred in the
2012 model year. We're looking at not having that on commercial
vehicles for many more years. That doesn't make sense. We need
one level of safety for everyone who's on the roadways.
Senator Lee. Colonel Hernandez, the House's autonomous
vehicle legislation is clearly limited to addressing vehicle
design standards that will be administered by NHTSA, just as
they've always done for both cars and for CMVs. I realize
there's a lot of interest and debate over the ultimate
operations of autonomous CMVs, but the current bills simply
don't address that, and they're assuring everyone's safety
during R&D. That being said, Colonel, would there be any reason
to delay the fundamental safety framework for automated CMV
design?
Colonel Hernandez. No, not at all. I think that we already
saw a live example in Colorado where it's jumped out in front.
And it would be a lot better for us in the enforcement
community to be able to be united and ahead of it as it relates
to commercial motor vehicles.
You know, we have many questions that are the same in the
enforcement community, such as how to investigate a crash. And
that--the advantage for us to understand how these technologies
work, and work with the industry to learn how to better and
reasonably regulate and enforce laws will have a much better
advantage than separating the two, in my opinion.
Senator Lee. It sounds like a considerable public safety
gain. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lee.
And I would point out for those who think that the NHTSA
guidance isn't strong enough, that would argue to me for why we
ought to have all these covered by the legislation.
Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For all of the witnesses, just please answer yes or no. Do
you believe that this Committee, as it actively works on
legislation to promote the deployment of autonomous vehicles,
that we should also create policies to help those working
Americans who will lose their jobs because of these emerging
technologies?
Colonel Hernandez.
Colonel Hernandez. Yes, I believe that should be
considered.
Mr. Clarke. Yes.
Ms. Hersman. Yes.
Mr. Spear. No.
Senator Markey. Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Yes, except that hopefully we're going to have a
situation where we're not going to lose jobs, as I have
listened to various speakers talk about here today.
Senator Markey. There is always destruction. You know, when
they invented the ``talkies,'' all the piano players in the
silent movie theaters all lost their jobs. OK? So you just
think time moves on and you have to just make sure that you've
got a plan in place to ensure that that kind of protection is
there.
These vehicles are obviously already computers on wheels,
and they're going to continue to accelerate in that direction
as the technology deploys. But obviously there are going to be
vast opportunities for cyber threats to be launched against
these vehicles since they'll just be computers for all intents
and purposes.
Mr. Hall, do you believe that we should proactively develop
robust mandatory regulations so that these vehicles are
protected against cyber attacks as they are moving down the
streets of our country?
Mr. Hall. Oh, I absolutely do, and that's one of the
biggest concerns that I have. As I said earlier, the Teamsters
union has worked with companies and industries around all over
this country on innovation and to make companies more
competitive. But in this case, and particularly the case of the
cybersecurity, it is terrifying to me to think that we've got
tractor-trailers rolling down the road that can be hacked, and
to say that they can't be in today's world--and that's one of
the things that I think there has to be more--there has to be
more information, more studies, to ensure that we're not going
to have that issue because, you know, no one thought we would
have the credit card issue we've had in the past week where
millions of people's information has been--has been made--or
become public. We didn't think----
Senator Markey. I agree with you 100 percent, but, in fact,
we were warned about all these things, that they can happen.
It's not so Equifax didn't know that it could happen. It's not
as though the auto industry right now doesn't know that these
vehicles can be hacked. It's all there, and I think the
warnings are there. And I agree with you, Mr. Hall, we need
those.
Do you agree with that, Mr. Spear, that we need mandatory
robust protections that are built in as rules of the road going
forward?
Mr. Spear. I think that's where we're headed. As we just
got done discussing with Senator Blumenthal, I think the
guidance, in his opinion, may be deficient, but it's a first
step toward something much more robust. This legislation that
you're now considering is a remarkable significant step toward
formalizing the Federal role. So I think that's exactly where
we're headed, and we know this is reality, it's not just cars
and trucks, it's across the board.
Senator Markey. I appreciate it. And that's why I've
introduced the legislation the SPY Car Act, that directs NHTSA
to establish cybersecurity protections for all vehicles. I've
introduced that with Senator Blumenthal and others on the
Committee. And I just think that we should be considering that
at the same time we're talking about this new era unfolding.
And, finally, on the issue of privacy, obviously, since
they are computers on wheels, there's going to be a vast amount
of information about all Americans that's going to be gathered
as they are moving around this country. Do you think that we
should be ensuring that this information which is gathered by
the auto companies or by others about all of our individual
habits, where we go, what we do, all the information that can
be gathered as these computers are being used, that they should
be able to be reused and resold as information without the
permission of the family?
Colonel Hernandez.
Colonel Hernandez. You know, I really don't know that I'm
qualified to answer that question. I think that perhaps that
information may be out there with cell phones and others now,
but I think that that's something that perhaps----
Senator Markey. OK.
Colonel Hernandez. Yes. Yes.
Senator Markey. Do you have a view, Mr. Hall, whether or
not we should be providing privacy protections for people to
make sure that information is protected?
Mr. Hall. Well, I do think that. I mean, I think there's no
question that we continue to see--I mean, we're talking about
protecting people's privacy involves a lot of things including
getting involved in their--when you're talking about getting
into someone's personal life, you're talking about their
personal finances, you're talking about a lot of issues that we
have seen just recently that is major problems that we have to
protect against.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Gardner.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the witnesses today.
Colonel Hernandez, welcome to the Committee. I know you've
served Colorado State Patrol over 30 years, and we're grateful
for your service and leadership, so thank you.
Colonel Hernandez. Thank you very much.
Senator Gardner. Thank you. Colonel Hernandez, I don't know
if you've marked the calendar yet or not, but February 19 is an
important day in Colorado. It's Presidents' Day. It's a Monday.
It's also a great ski weekend. Monday night, you know what
happens, everybody is coming back to the airport, they're
coming back home, they're going back to the Front Range. How
many new tunnels through the Eisenhower Tunnel do you think it
would take for us to adequately provide capacity for the number
of vehicles that we'd see? You don't have to answer that
question.
Colonel Hernandez: Yes, it would take many new tunnels.
Senator Gardner. Many, many tunnels. And we're just simply
not going to do it. I mean, do you see autonomous vehicle
technology, vehicle-to-vehicle technology, as a way to manage
traffic through those chokepoints like that Presidents' Day ski
traffic through the Eisenhower Tunnel?
Colonel Hernandez. I believe that it might be the only way
to manage that type of traffic.
Senator Gardner. I agree with you, too. And I also want to
commend you and your leadership again and talk about some of
the toughest things that we've seen over the past several
years. Trooper Cody Donahue was killed on I-25 by a vehicle
that didn't move over when he was assisting another crash on
the side of the road. Vehicle-to-vehicle technology, autonomous
vehicles, could be used to assist in this type of a situation
perhaps to avoid that type of accident. Could it be used that
way?
Colonel Hernandez. Absolutely. The technology is there to
be able to do that, and I believe that in that case, very
hard--hard on the agency and hard on me and hard on the family.
And it could have been avoided. And I think that through this
technology, it absolutely could have been avoided because there
was a prior crash. And so often these are secondary crashes.
And that takes the lives of many people, is that secondary
crash. And I think that's one of the huge advantages to this
type of technology both in cars and commercial vehicles.
Senator Gardner. Yes. And so I think one of the challenges
we have is not just, you know, whether we get there, if we get
there, but it's how we do it in a way that manages safety, how
we do it in a way that answers a very uncertain question for
people of this country. One out of every 20 jobs in Colorado is
a truck-driving job.
And I grew up in a small town in the Eastern Plains of
Colorado, and we have a lot of truck drivers there. And one of
them came up to me one day and said, ``Did you see the truck
delivery from Ft. Collins to Colorado Springs?'' that you
talked about in your opening comments. And I said, ``Yes.
Wasn't it great?'' And his response to me, a gentleman I've
known my entire life said, ``Yes. What's going to happen to
me?'' He's a truck driver.
And I think we, as policymakers, we, in industry, we have
to figure out how we're going to be able to answer that
question of, What's going to happen to them? Because the answer
isn't going to be, well, there are going to be fewer jobs and
fewer opportunities; the answer is always, with the innovations
that we have been able to achieve in this country, we're going
to have progress, innovation, and more jobs than we've ever had
before.
But we've got to be able to figure out how to say that in a
way that is helping people see that, understand that, and know
that they're going to be OK, because until we can answer that
question, ``You know what? You're going to be OK, and here's
how,'' there is going to be an uncertainty, and it's going to
be an unsettling part of people's lives and families.
So we need help in being able to answer that question
because the answer isn't, ``There is going to be less,'' the
answer is, ``There is going to be more, and we're going to
create more jobs as a result.'' The secondary impacts are going
to be phenomenal, but how do we make sure that we can
articulate it to a very uncertain American populace going
forward? I'm excited about the future that we have here.
Mr. Spear, one of the questions I have for you, though, is
yesterday I had a hearing with the National Laboratory system,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, it's in Denver, and some
of the other laboratory systems around the country, and we
talked about the 11 million miles of high resolution data that
fleet partners across the country have been able to help work
with them and provide them.
How do we get the information we need using some of the
national assets we have, like the labs and others, to really
move forward on a system of autonomous vehicles and the
information, the safety information, we need to make this work?
Mr. Spear. Well, I alluded to it a bit in my testimony, and
I used FCC as a primary example. It's not just DOT and NHTSA,
it's FCC, it's DHS on cyber, it's also EPA on emissions. There
are a whole host of benefactor agencies at the Federal level
that really need to be more squarely at the table on this, labs
included. We work a lot with DoD, not just on cyber, but
logistics and testing. There are a lot of good things that can
be done on military bases to advance this technology as they
can in states and localities where they have proving grounds.
So we don't discriminate between either one of them, but we
welcome everybody to the table because I think the more
inclusivity that you have, the more robust this platform is
going to be and easier to understand, not only from a
legislative point of view, but from a regulatory point of view.
So I think the inclusivity of the labs and the agencies,
not just DOT, need to be squarely at the table and drive the
outcome, and if the legislation can speak to that, I think that
would be a very good thing.
Senator Gardner. Yes. Well, thank you very much for all of
your time and testimony today.
Colonel Hernandez, again thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
Senator Cortez Masto.
STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you
to the panelists. Very engaging important discussion today.
So, Mr. Spear, let me start with you and make sure I
understand what I'm hearing today, is that you would be
comfortable if we passed Federal legislation that only went to
a Level 2 authority. In other words, what I mean by that is it
limited any type of future technology for specifically to
driver-assisted technology Level 2, and we didn't open the door
to a Level 5, a driverless technology, for commercial trucks.
Is that correct?
Mr. Spear. Well, Senator, let me stipulate that I'm not
suggesting the Committee, you know, earmark at the Level 2 or
3. That's the reality of where we see things for the
foreseeable future, driver-assist; not Level 5, driverless. So
if that's acceptable, that reality, that, to us, is not a
threat not only to driver displacement, but it's actually a
catalyst to a lot of beneficial things, to safety,
productivity.
But Levels 2 and 3 are really where we see the technology
for the foreseeable future. If the legislation speaks to that,
I mean, that's a decision you all make, but we just don't
believe displacement or Level 5, no steering wheel, no pedals,
is in the foreseeable future. So that's kind of the world and
the perspective that we're approaching this.
Senator Cortez Masto. So if we were to limit it to Level 2
and Level 3 because you don't see that in the foreseeable
future as driverless, and we want to make sure that we're
addressing that worker displacement, but also the cybersecurity
issues that we all have concerns about and understanding it, as
well as addressing the safety on the roads, you would be
comfortable with that Federal legislation.
Mr. Spear. Absolutely.
Senator Cortez Masto. And, Mr. Hall, would you be
comfortable with that Federal legislation if we were to limit
it, particularly when it comes to commercial trucks, to just
driver-assisted technology and understanding the evolution of
that driver-assisted technology for commercial trucks?
Mr. Hall. Well, I certainly would be. I would be happy to
see that type of limitation on it. But by the same token, I
also think that we have to address the many safety concerns
before we make any of these changes.
Senator Cortez Masto. And so when you talk about the many
safety concerns, that is including the worker safety concerns
as well as the discussion we've had today, correct?
Mr. Hall. Correct.
Senator Cortez Masto. OK. So let me just say this is an
important discussion, and I think for all of us, the challenge
is going to be how we balance the emergence of this new
technology that, Mr. Spear, you said is happening, there's a
demand for it, and it is going to happen whether we are part of
this discussion or not. And then how we balance that with
worker protections and worker placement because the last thing
that--I can't speak for all of my colleagues, but I would
imagine is that worker displacement. I mean, it would harm our
economy, it would harm our workers, it would harm our jobs.
That's not what we're trying to do here. So there has to be a
balance that we find. And that's what I'm hoping everybody will
come to the table and help us at a Federal level find that
balance to work together to have not only the ability to
embrace this new technology, but address the worker issue and
worker displacement to make sure that does not happen. So do
you think there is an ability to work together to do that, Mr.
Hall and Mr. Spear?
Mr. Hall. Absolutely. I think there's an ability to do
that.
Mr. Spear. Yes, I do.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you. And so the
reason why I am really excited and interested in this space is
because there is a lot of work that is happening in Nevada
right now, as you well know, with this new technology both for
autonomous vehicles as well as for driver-assisted trucks. I
think it is the future and we need to embrace it, but we need
to put those guardrails in place for protections that we've all
talked about today.
I know just in Nevada, the Regional Transportation
Commission of Washoe County right now is currently testing and
taking data on autonomous bus that will move many of my
constituents back and forth throughout the region. And anyone
that's followed this issue knows that autonomous vehicles and
the future of transportation relies on technology and
connectivity. That's why I am excited to be able to be
introducing legislation to promote smart cities and
communities.
My bill will ensure that the Federal Government provides
the seed money for public-private partnerships to implement
integrated transportation systems in cities and rural
communities throughout the country. My colleague, Senator Burr,
is lead sponsor on this. I'm very excited to work with him.
That is our future, the Internet connectivity of things, and I
want to make sure we're in that space of that innovation.
I think we can address the security issues, Ms. Hersman,
that you've talked about, and the safety on our roads, Mr.
Hernandez, as well, but at the same time, make sure we're
training that workforce for the future, we're involving them in
this discussion when we're talking about the new technology.
So thank you for the conversations today. I really
appreciate it.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Inhofe.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The reason you're experiencing some redundance in the
questions that are coming is that we have about 50 percent of
the members of this Committee are also on the Committee called
the Environment and Public Works Committee, and so we find
ourselves having to go back and forth, and it's very difficult.
The question that was asked--and, Mr. Clarke, let me first
of all say how much we enjoy you as citizens of my city of
Tulsa. And I've been in your operation many times, and it's a
great benefit to us, and I appreciate your presence and all the
contributions you've made to our local communities very much.
When you were asked by Senator Wicker some things I think
are kind of interesting, that is, where are we--now, if it's a
difficult question to answer, I'll only ask you and not the
rest of you, but the rest of you, there's an assumption by the
American people that we're always number one, we're always the
first there, and I know I served as Ranking Member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
We know that there are many countries out there that are
developing missile technology and other things that we're
really not always number one. But in this, this is something
that's new, and I'd like to know if it's--I think it's
appropriate to ask each one of you, where are we right now in
terms of other countries? We've heard Germany, Japan, China,
other countries that are advancing. Where are we in the midst
right now?
You've already answered that, Mr. Clarke, but some of the
rest of you.
Ms. Hersman. When it comes to fatalities, we're trailing.
The rest of the industrialized countries have made more
progress in the last 2 decades----
Senator Inhofe. No, no, I'm talking about this technology,
the subject of this meeting today, where we are.
Ms. Hersman. Right. So the other countries have made more
progress, and some of that is because they have embraced
technology. So things like automatic emergency braking, not
required here on trucks. Looking at that in Europe, so they
have that in Europe. When we look at automated enforcement,
again, other countries are embracing some of these technologies
at a more rapid clip than the United States.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Anybody else, any thoughts on that?
That explains the European. And anything else? I'd like to know
because we get asked these questions. What are the other
countries doing?
Mr. Spear. Well, we do benchmarks, Senator, with what our
colleagues in Europe are doing. We think the proving grounds
and the development at the local and state level here in the
United States is a bit more advanced. And I think that's in
large part to the environment. We're seeing multiple states and
communities stepping up to really attract innovators to their
state and cities.
So I think smart cities were mentioned as well. We're
creating those environments where technology can be tested in a
safe way. That's a good thing. And I think those things, those
investments, are going to accelerate the adoption of the
technology.
Senator Inhofe. That's fine. I understand that. Now, when
Senator Markey asked the question, it was kind of presumed that
this mass exodus of jobs in America, and so it's a difficult
question for you just to answer yes or no to. So I guess I
would like to have a comment from each one of you because I've
heard from this Committee that there are some arguments that
we're actually going to be employing more people, we're getting
into other technology. But how do you see us? And when this
washes out, are we going to have the massive job declines that
were kind of assumed in the question that was asked you? Would
you comment to that?
Colonel Hernandez. I think I struggled with that
straightforward question just because I start thinking about
the number of lives that we've lost on our roadways and our
highways and how to reduce that. And then just that I'm not the
subject matter expert on that key point, but primarily driven
by our goal to get to zero and what that will look like.
I will tell you from a law enforcement perspective, I've
been involved for 30 years, like the Senator said, and every
time we get more technology, it seems--it definitely seems to
take more people than less to manage those technology systems.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Any other comments on that?
Mr. Spear?
Mr. Spear. I would say that, you know, the type of job
description that we're going to see in the next 20 years for
drivers and technicians is arguably going to make, you know,
these employees more marketable. They're going to be better
skilled. They're going to be better trained. Employers are
going to be investing a lot more in their capabilities to make
certain that this equipment is up and running and done in a
safe way. So we're already facing a shortage. The reason I
answered no to that is because we simply don't believe that
this is a displacement issue.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Yes. Well, from your perspective, the
last thing I wanted to ask is, do you believe that heavy trucks
should be included in the drafting of the legislation?
Mr. Spear. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Does anyone not believe that, that want
to speak out on that issue?
Mr. Hall. I don't believe that it should be part of this
current legislation because--and I don't want to oversimplify
this, but, you know, all the discussion has been about
passenger vehicles, and I think we have to recognize that there
is a vast difference between a 4,000-pound car and an 80,000-
pound vehicle.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, you made that point, and I appreciate
that very much. Do the other three of you somewhat agree with--
mostly agree with Mr. Spear?
[No audible response.]
Senator Inhofe. Yes. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Hassan.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
to you and Senator Peters for all your work on this issue.
And thank you to the panelists for being here today.
There is no doubt that automated vehicles have tremendous
potential to save lives and reduce the nearly 4,000 deaths
caused by large truck accidents each year and the over 30,000
annual vehicle fatalities on our nation's highways. But what's
less clear to me, and I think what you're hearing some
questions about, is how we can guard against potential harms of
this technology from in- and out-of-state actors who are
looking to harm us. I don't want to trade one set of harms for
another.
And I will tell you, I spent some of my homework period
visiting summer camps in New Hampshire, and I was visiting one
a couple of weeks ago, and it was for a group of adolescents.
And they wanted to know what a Senator does. And I talked a
little bit about the work of this Committee and said that this
Committee had jurisdiction over automated vehicles, for
instance, some legislation around it, and described what the
future technology looks like. And within seconds there were
kids, 13, 14 years old, raising their hands going, ``Do you
know how easy it would be to hack those?'' And since they're
the digital natives among us, I tend to listen to young people
when they talk to us about technology.
So I am very concerned that we're all assuming that there
are going to be levels of cybersecurity built into this
technology when, to Senator Markey's point, we've seen in all
various industry sectors that sometimes we think about
cybersecurity after the harm is done. And given the lives at
stake and the potential of out-of-state actors who want to use
vehicles now for a different purpose, I am very concerned that
we get the cybersecurity right at the frontend and not wait for
something bad to happen.
We also know that there are critical thinking components to
operating a vehicle that I'm not sure translate to automated
machinery just yet, which I think is why we're seeing the
different levels of automation described in this legislation.
But to all of you, if trucks are added to this bill, what
more could be done beyond the bill to guard against potential
cybersecurity risks of automation?
Colonel Hernandez. I'm not a cybersecurity expert, but I
would just say that it makes a lot more sense to me to make
sure that it's incorporated so that autonomous vehicles are
secure, whether it's a car or a commercial vehicle.
Senator Hassan. Thank you.
Mr. Clarke.
Mr. Clarke. Actually, Senator, a great question and great
topic. It is--this whole issue around cybersecurity is an
immediate issue and it is an issue now in our industry. Both
Navistar as well as all of my competitors and the people in the
industry currently have some number of connected vehicles.
Probably in the neighborhood of 40 percent of the vehicles that
are on the road today are connected telematically. And we do
different things. We offer services. We provide updates to some
of the control software. So this is an immediate need for us
today.
I would say the recognition of these needs has energized
our industry to work together like few things that I have seen.
We are committed to get it right, and we will not go to market
nor test without the proper--without the proper safeguards. We
welcome the oversight of the regulatory bodies in that
particular space. We would say it is a rapidly changing area.
We don't believe that the right thing is to mandate the
technology, but certainly we stand ready and willing to
participate in the regulatory process to provide the right
safeguards.
Senator Hassan. Well, and because my time is running low,
I'll ask the rest of the group to address it, but just would it
make sense to have a set of standards that everybody had to
meet in place?
Ms. Hersman?
Mr. Spear. Senator, I think that's what we're trying to
work toward even without legislation. The commercial sector as
well as the automotive ISAC, which is up and running for a
couple years now, really developing protocols that are seamless
across both autos and commercial vehicles, and I think it
really, you know, speaks to why trucks being part of this
legislation is important, so that you get that seamless
protocol.
Senator Hassan. Ms. Hersman?
Ms. Hersman. I would say there were earlier questions about
the voluntary nature of what's going on now. This is exactly
why this body needs to get involved. If we don't like what's
happening out there, it's because people don't feel like they
have the authority or the direction. And I think it's really
important for you all to set at least some of those high bars,
set that floor and say where you want folks to go. They can
figure out how to do it. But we don't have anything now. And so
it is a bit of the Wild West out there, and there needs to be a
sheriff. And I think the opportunity to do that is through
having these conversations and this legislation, not putting it
off.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. And with the Chair's indulgence,
Mr. Hall, quickly.
Mr. Hall. Absolutely I think there needs to be regulations,
and I think there needs to be strong regulation, because while
there are certainly reputable companies, including people who
are represented here in this hearing today, there are bad
actors out there, and we have repeatedly seen that, where, you
know, with the Volkswagen scandal. If that happens with
cybersecurity, we have got a huge problem. And I guess the
thing that I see is perhaps, as they say in West Virginia,
we've got to make sure we're not getting the cart before the
horse.
Senator Hassan. Yes.
Mr. Hall. We need to ensure the stability and safety of
these vehicles before we start rolling them out and approving
legislation to put them on the road.
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you.
And thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I'll put some
questions into the record about workforce training. Thanks.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
Senator Capito.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
the hearing. I haven't been in the entire time, but you've got
a great panel because you've got two West Virginians on the
panel, Ms. Hersman and Mr. Hall.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. So I know we're in good hands.
I just recently returned from a trip to Israel, and when
the question was asked, ``What countries are really at the
cutting edge?'' they talked a lot in Israel about self-driving
and automated vehicles, and I think they have--they have a very
small, very flat country as well, but I think they're really
working on the technologies there. So I wanted to bring that
up.
I have a question, and it may be that I'm off kind of on
how these things really work. So, Mr. Clarke, this is directed
at you. We live in a state that has spotty connectivity, even
on our main arteries, through even our wireless on our
interstates, you know, it cuts in and out. And I have some
concerns that if we move forward on this or as the technology
moves forward, how much connectivity in all the different areas
plays into being able to run this efficiently and safely. Could
you speak to that, please?
Mr. Clarke. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for the question. The
basic autonomous system on a vehicle is intended to, in fact,
drive in a very autonomous way. It does not have to be a
connected vehicle to be an autonomous vehicle. It operates with
a very detailed 3D map. It's looking and comparing using
cameras and LIDAR detectors and making constant comparisons to
what's in its memory, looking for things that aren't there, and
then making decisions, are those objects moving or are those
objects fixed? And then what decisions should be taken, not the
least of which is, ``I think I don't understand, I'm just going
to pull over.''
And so even in a non-connected environment, the vehicles
can operate autonomously. Their safety efficacy is
significantly enhanced when they do operate in a connected
fashion, either connected to other vehicles or connected to
portions of the infrastructure, or, in many cases, for our
testing purposes, connected back to us, so that we can collect
that data that can be used by regulators and analyzed for
future purposes.
Senator Capito. Well, you mentioned in your previous
question that 40 percent of your trucks were connected
telematically. What is--when you say ``telematically,'' what
are we----
Mr. Clarke. Yes. So I'd like you think about it that the
truck itself has a cell phone, you know, and like every couple
of seconds, it's sending us a message on the condition of all
the mechanical systems on the vehicle.
Senator Capito. OK. So through the wireless.
Mr. Clarke. Yes.
Senator Capito. Yes. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Hall, on the concerns about the workforce impacts,
obviously in West Virginia, we have a lot of trucker drivers.
It's a great occupation. I notice as we're looking at the
different levels, in the, I don't know, Level 1 to Level 4,
there is somebody in the car that's being--or in the truck. But
I started thinking, so why is Mr. Hall worried about if you're
going to have a Teamster in the truck anyway? Do you envision
that it's a lower paying, lower type job, it doesn't have maybe
the same beginning salaries that somebody who's a member of the
Teamsters might have? I mean, is that your concern? Because it
looks as though, at least from the very beginning, and except
in very urban situations, there is somebody in the vehicle.
Mr. Hall. Well, that's obviously one of my concerns. I
mean, first, yes, we don't want to see--just, you know, it has
been mentioned here today that some comparison to we still have
pilots in airplanes even though they're very much automated.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Hall. And so certainly it's a concern of ours because
people make a good living doing that. But also our concern is
the safety of the drivers as well as the general public in
saying that it shouldn't be--we don't believe that you should
just include 80,000-pound trucks without further study. I mean,
I don't think you can say because we've been talking about
automobiles that then it just makes sense.
I mean, it's no more than--you know, I bought my grandson a
BB gun, but I don't think that means that I should give him a
high-powered rifle because he's learned to shoot a BB gun. We
need to make sure that we're taking the time to look at some of
the aspects that are so much different about trucks than they
are automobiles.
But you are right. I mean, one of my concerns is that there
be regulations so that we don't have those bad actors who--I
mean, most of the companies that we deal with are up front and
do the right thing. We don't want bad actors who are putting
people on the road at the low end, the lowest cost, at the risk
of safety for the general public.
Senator Capito. OK. You know, it's hard to imagine living
in the terrain that we live in that an autonomous vehicle--
there are certain places I am not getting in an autonomous
vehicle to go up to my house, I can tell you that. It's a
pretty windy, windy road. So there are lots of areas where this
is not going to work.
But, Ms. Hersman, let's just take I-81. I don't know what
the percentage of truck traffic is on that piece of highway,
but it's enormous. How do you see this technology evolving in
terms of safety on a very crowded highway like that that's
pretty high speed?
Ms. Hersman. So I think that's a great example because
that's exactly the kind of corridor where I think this
technology could work the best: very predictable, repeatable,
you've got good coverage, you've mapped it out, it's not
unknown. And those are the kinds of spaces where I think
vehicles can talk to each other. It's a very controlled
environment. You've got widely spaced lanes. You've got
shoulders where people can pull over. That environment I think
is probably one of the spaces where we're talking about using
technology like this first.
It could control speeds. I'm sure if you drive on 81, there
are some speed racers on that road. In addition to it being a
truck alley, there are a lot of people moving really quickly.
We can look at a lot of safety issues that can be addressed
through this technology, traffic flow management, but safety is
the first and most important thing.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Capito.
Senator Duckworth.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to quickly recognize our two Illinois natives.
So good panel. Ms. Hersman and Mr. Clarke, welcome to the
panel.
And just briefly touching on what Mr. Hall just said, I
think the name ``Captain Sully Sullenberger'' and the ``Miracle
on the Hudson'' is a great example of the importance of a human
being decisionmaker at the controls of any type of large
vehicle.
With the advent of Level 3, 4, and 5 technologies, I think
we face a truly game-changing opportunity and associated
challenges as well. You know, in my own lifetime, there have
been few technologies with more potential to improve the
mobility and independence for individuals with disabilities
than autonomous vehicles. It would be freeing for those with
visual impairments, for those that are unable to drive, to be
able to actually leave their homes and gain mobility. Clearly,
the potential to greatly reduce the 30,000 annual roadway
fatalities is also truly exciting. I do know that we should
expect growing pains and unintended consequences.
What I'd like to focus my discussion on is on how
autonomous vehicles would challenge our existing transportation
infrastructure and what that means for our local municipalities
and states, and also the future of labor.
So, Mr. Clarke, what existing and future infrastructure
considerations should manufacturers take into account when
designing vehicles at Level 3 and above?
Mr. Clarke. Yes. That's a great question, Senator, and it
certainly reflects your understanding that commercial vehicles
actually operate in a system or an environment that includes
the infrastructure, things such as not just the highways, but
entrants and exits, you know, toll plazas, even something as
simple as, where can a vehicle pull over during an application?
What's exciting about this opportunity is that we can
concurrently discover, as we're validating the technologies,
those cost effective or the most cost-effective methods to get
at what will ultimately be some infrastructure needs. As the
point has already been made, autonomous vehicles, even the most
sophisticated, if everything were perfect, are probably just
not suited to some roads in America or some circumstances, but,
you know, they are suited to a number of other places as well.
Things like, you know, we've already talked about vehicle-to-
vehicle communications, but we can talk about vehicle-to-
infrastructure communication where the road itself--OK?--and
its condition can talk to the vehicle for incidents that maybe
are miles and miles in advance.
And last but not least, look, these technologies, you would
only think of deploying these technologies in the immediate
term in a place where the vehicle always has available to it
the ability to pull itself over and stop, which kind of
dictates it's riding in the right-hand lane. And so now we have
to reassess the capacity of, you know, that particular
thoroughfare because all of the trucks will be in the right-
hand lane. They will be traffic and speed controlled, but it
always needs the ability to pull itself off. Or in the case of
platooning, which we talked about previously, ``decel'' lanes
on freeways or limited access highways may need to be extended
so that entire pelotons of vehicles could pull over and still
leave room for passenger vehicles to navigate their way off the
highway as well.
And then last but not least, another very simple example
would be the vehicle needs to be driven once it gets off the
highway, and perhaps at that point in time, there will be the
need for marshalling areas or cross-docking facilities or the
ability to pull the vehicle over very close to an entrance or
an exit to make the right inspections, to create the right
certifications, so that we know that the vehicle is capable of
performing the next challenge, so to speak, in its task.
So the opportunity to bring this technology in a very
controlled manner for the purpose of developing data that will
fuel regulations and infrastructure research is the exact
opportunity we look forward to. I think I speak for our entire
industry.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. And I think it's important to
talk about the point beyond getting off of the interstate, off
of the major roadways as well, because in many of our
municipalities, the roads through cities and towns into the
industrial areas, into those loading docks, are, you know,
1960s and 1970s era, very narrow. There is simply--there is
nothing to replace a human being to negotiate through those.
And, Ms. Hersman, I think everyone agrees that the safety
potential of AV technology is enormous. And from a safety
perspective, could you speak to this infrastructure challenge
for states and municipalities in terms of accommodating future
AV technologies?
Ms. Hersman. I think on this issue it's really important
for states and municipalities, oversight agencies, licensing
agencies, all of them need to have a seat at the table. When we
look at what's happening now, it's happening in controlled
environments. They need to be notified of testing that's going
on in their states so they know how to respond. But there may
also be changes in design that we need to do going forward.
We talked about V2I, vehicle-to-infrastructure. We have a
lot of grade crossings in Illinois. That's a great opportunity
to kind of connect industries. And so how do we keep from
having grade crossing fatalities? Likewise, we've seen
pedestrian and cyclist fatalities going up very significantly.
How do we ensure that we're thinking about all road users and
not just--we're talking about trucks and cars today, but there
are a lot of other fatalities that occur on our roadways.
I think states and municipalities have to be at the table,
whether we're talking about lane markings and how we have
systems that interact with each other, or about the rules of
the road that we set.
No one has really talked about consumer education. One of
the biggest challenges that we have is, how do people
understand how these vehicles are behaving? Whether it's a
large truck or whether it's a car, really important to bring
people in the loop, and I think the state and local leaders
have a role in that.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
this hearing.
I wanted to ask Mr. Clarke, you know, obviously the
SuperTruck program, which is both about moving forward, you
know, more from an efficiency perspective. I know PACCAR, in
our state, was awarded one of the DOE for developing more fuel-
efficient engines. How do you see these two things working
together in the challenges we face on competitiveness of moving
U.S. products and keeping costs down? How is increasing fuel
efficiency and automation going hand-in-hand?
Mr. Clarke. Yes, Senator, thank you so much. Boy, I
couldn't have asked for a better setup. You know, all of the
major truck manufacturers in America participated in the DOE
SuperTruck program. And as a program itself, the SuperTruck
program, how it was managed, it was managed in an outstanding
way that created the very technologies that we're putting on
our vehicles today to improve not only their efficiency and
operation and how clean they are in the environment, OK, but it
really gave us a test bed to test many of these connected
technologies and many of the--well, for instance, many of these
ADAS technologies that, you know, are, in fact, the basis of
autonomous vehicles going forward.
So, for instance, in our SuperTruck program, we had such a
successful experience with collision mitigation and avoidance
that in the middle of the program, we decided to put it on our
brand-new tractor, called the LT, and we made it standard. So
collision mitigation is standard. You can delete the option if
you so choose, but surprising to us, the take rate on that has
been 35 percent. And, in fact, those vehicles who are equipped
with collision mitigation and mitigation style braking, already
proven that they would suggest 24 percent reduction in those
type of accidents, the very accidents that it was intended, you
know, to avoid.
So it does--it did give us confidence to move forward with
that technology in a test platform where we could do it outside
of the commercial venue. And I would highlight that the
SuperTrucks were all tested on highways. And so we were able to
test it with--in multiple customer environments all across the
United States, and, again, it gave us this rapid validation and
feedback that let us do something really good, not just
commercially for us, but, you know, we think for the drivers as
well.
Senator Cantwell. Well, it's kind of hand-in-glove, right?
Mr. Clarke. Yes.
Senator Cantwell. I mean, it's not just, you know, are you
going to have automated trucks? It's, what are the efficiencies
you are going to drive into trucks for reducing costs? And when
we see this from the aerospace industry, huge wins in the
marketplace because the customer wants a more fuel-efficient
plane. And I would just assume driving down the cost in these
fuel areas and efficiency areas also give you a more
competitive advantage when you're out there marketing cost of
moving product.
Mr. Clarke. Yes, Senator. This is a--you know, ours is a
highly regulated business environment, you know, that is aimed
at safety, efficiency, and, you know, basically clean products
in the environment. There are no better safety regulators in
the world than NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. We have historically worked together to not
only bring products to the market that improve safety, reduce
operating costs, but create a cleaner environment.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for letting me have another round here. I appreciate your
indulgence.
And again thank you to our witnesses here today.
Ms. Hersman, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety have
expressed concerns to my office about including trucks in this
legislation, and they have recommended several ways that
Congress, the DOT, NHTSA, FMCSA can ensure safety of highly
automated trucks. So they have a little different perspective
or at least are raising a number of I think are important
issues. And I would certainly welcome your thoughts on some of
the issues that they have raised.
The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety believe that
automated trucks that do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards should not be subject to exemptions. Would you
agree with that?
Ms. Hersman. Are you talking about for testing
environments? I think that if we have very specific geofenced
testing environments, we want to think about how we're--what
we're testing, what equipment we're testing. But I do think if
they're operating out on the roads with the public, they need
to be subjected to the same standards as other vehicles out
there.
Senator Peters. So I guess that's in agreement with that
stand.
Ms. Hersman. Yes. But I would say, you know, certainly when
we look at test environments, I mean, we talked about a
situation where we had a unique test, and they created specific
parameters around it. So I would say we have to sometimes put
technologies and systems out there if we're testing them to
understand what it's like in the real world. It's important not
to say we wouldn't want to allow anything, but I think we have
to have major controls around those things.
Senator Peters. Fair enough. Have you considered what would
be an appropriate number of exemptions for highly automated
trucks going forward?
Ms. Hersman. I think that it's possible. I know the
Committee has a number. And I really think you could think
about a pro rata share based on the number of vehicles that are
out there, passenger vehicles versus commercial vehicles. I
think certainly it's in the purview of the Committee to put
that out there. But what we're talking about as far as fully
automated vehicles, we're just not seeing those numbers now.
Senator Peters. Well, under current law, current law allows
2,500. Would 2,500 be sufficient for trucks? And I guess my
understanding is there are about 300,000 produced in the
country versus 17 million automobiles. Is 2,500 sufficient?
Ms. Hersman. I'm not sure that 2,500 is the right number. I
might defer to some of my colleagues who have more real
experience with respect to putting vehicles out on the roads.
But I think it's really important for this Committee to engage
in this issue and set some guidelines and some escalation for
how that could occur in a thoughtful way because right now
there are none.
Senator Peters. Right. We allow the 2,500 under current,
but if we change that, we obviously need some thoughtful
consideration of that, and get some data and evidence to
determine that. I appreciate that answer.
The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety also believe that
automated trucks must have an operator with a valid commercial
driver's license while in the vehicle at all times, and are
advocating for the Secretary to issue a standard for driver
engagement. Does the National Safety Council have
recommendations for ensuring that an operator is behind the
wheel?
Ms. Hersman. So I would say--you're asking me about other
folks' recommendations? I can absolutely share with you what
some of our recommendations are.
Senator Peters. Is that one of your recommendations?
Ms. Hersman. I think for us, we do feel, depending on the
level of automation, there absolutely needs to be a qualified
driver behind the wheel. And one of the things that we haven't
talked about that this issue goes to, that the Advocates are
raising, is I know we talked about displacement and training
programs, but I think what we really need to talk about are
training programs going forward, making sure that there are
opportunities for people to be qualified on advanced
technologies.
I held a commercial driver's license. There are
endorsements for those licenses, whether it's air brakes,
school bus, passenger endorsements. I think it's important for
us to think through technology as we advance. How do we train
and qualify people for advanced technology? Because these
systems are going to be complex and it's going to require a
different set of skills.
Senator Peters. Well, that's actually related to I think my
next question, so I think you're ahead of it, because the
Advocates raise concerns about driver training, as you just
expressed, and they believe that drivers operating a highly
automated truck must have additional endorsement on their CDL
to ensure that they have been properly trained to monitor and
understand the operating design domain of the vehicle, and if
need be, take over the control of that highly automated truck.
They believe this training should include a minimum number of
hours behind the wheel, and it sounds as if that's the
direction that you're going to. That's something we need to
think through.
Ms. Hersman. I absolutely think as long as human beings are
engaged, we have to make sure that we do it safely. I know
everyone is talking about Levels 2, 3, 4, 5, but I would posit
that one of the most dangerous environments are when a human
being and the vehicle are sharing control. And how we handle
those handoffs and how we structure the notifications, the
warnings, and the training are very important. This is where
we've seen in the aviation industry mode confusion,
overreliance on automation. These are really important
conversations for us to have, even about Levels 2 and 3, before
we get to 4 and 5. It's going to be a very messy environment,
and we need to talk about those things.
Senator Peters. Yes, absolutely. I agree.
And just one final point, Mr. Chairman.
They are also suggesting that motor carriers using highly
automated trucks should be required to apply for additional
operating authority. Has the National Safety Council--have you
considered that issue?
Ms. Hersman. I think it's important that they apply for
operating authority as they're required to do so today. I think
it's really important for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration to identify what that means. And they need to be
part of the conversation with respect to vehicle standards that
NHTSA is responsible for, but operations are completely within
their purview. And I think, as we're saying, it's a new world
out there. Everybody has got to come along and identify what
that means.
Senator Peters. Right. Well, I appreciate those answers.
And it's clear we need to do a whole lot more thinking about
this. And I appreciate your response. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Peters.
And again thanks to our panel today. It has been great
conversation and discussion, and I think it has shed a lot of
light on important issues as we try and shape our bill, and
we've been working, as I said, Senator Peters and I, and
Senator Nelson and others on this Committee, for some time and
trying to craft a bill that really does enable the technology
to move forward and with maximum emphasis on safety. And so
we're trying to figure out how to thread that needle.
I would argue that it makes sense not to have two safety
standards out there, one for trucks and one for automobiles,
and that as we think about these things, we want to make sure
that we're providing the safest environment for all motorists
on the highways, but that's a point that we continue to talk
about in terms of the final bill that we end up filing. So
we've got a draft out there. I know many of you have looked at
it, and we welcome your thoughts and your input and certainly
the testimony this morning and the responses to the questions
have been very, very helpful in that regard.
And I would simply say for members of the Committee who
have questions for the record, to submit those. And if we could
have all of you respond within a two-week time period, it would
be very appreciated. And we'll make all that part of the
hearing record. So thank you again for being here.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Op-Ed Contributor--September 12, 2017/05:00 am
Self-Driving Truck Technology Is the Answer to Safer Roads
Gary Shapiro
Over a century ago, trains moved freight across our Nation. When
technology changed and cabooses no longer played a role in train
safety, railmen fought for laws to require cabooses to be manned with
unnecessary workers. This blip in our history of fully embracing
innovation is instructive for our current debates over the shift to
self-driving vehicles--technology that will save millions of lives and
empower the elderly and people with disabilities.
Today, trains and trucks compete to move freight. But trucking is
one of the most dangerous jobs in America. In 2015, 745 drivers died on
the road. This is roughly one-quarter of all workplace fatalities--more
than any other industry. It comes as no surprise, then, that the
trucking industry has struggled to hire drivers in recent years. The
American Trucking Association says there were 48,000 fewer drivers than
available jobs in 2015. And for qualified, active drivers, this means
longer and more frequent trips to fill the gaps.
Self-driving trucks will transform American commerce while
dramatically improving road safety, They will revolutionize
transportation--and also make it less expensive--letting companies send
goods over long distances without worrying about whether a driver has
the stamina for yet another marathon drive.
This week, the Senate Commerce Committee is hearing arguments on
including self-driving trucks in self-driving legislation. It's a tough
question: There's no denying that in the long term, self-driving trucks
will change the role and responsibilities of truck drivers. However,
this will be a generational shift, not an abrupt displacement of
drivers, and in fact, will likely improve conditions for them.
Simply resisting self-driving trucks to protect existing jobs
overlooks big problems the trucking industry now faces. And self-
driving trucks will reduce human error, increasing safety both for
drivers and for the millions of Americans with whom they share the
Nation's highways.
Safety issues aside, keeping self-driving trucks off the road in an
effort to keep drivers employed obscures the deeper problem. Innovation
will always disrupt the job market. Trying to stop the tide of
technology never works, and the time and energy spent resisting it is a
Sisyphean challenge. A wiser effort is to adapt. In nature and in
business, the winners are not the strongest or fastest, but the
quickest to adapt to change. Self-driving vehicles will create new
industries and new kinds of jobs. We'll need auto workers who know how
to repair these new vehicles. We'll need tech workers to develop and
update the software that powers these cars. We'll need construction
workers to help prepare our infrastructure for the changes that self-
driving technology will bring.
The good news is that we're already ahead of the curve. It will be
several years--maybe decades--before we have the right legal and
physical framework for total adoption to occur. We can--and must--use
this time to prepare.
This means staying technology-neutral--allowing all forms and
models of a technology to emerge unhindered. Effective implementation,
however, will require candid policy discussions. Government needs to
act to ensure that legacy interests, including the different regulatory
schemes for commercial and personal vehicles, do not wind up creating a
patchwork of rules that delay the benefits of self-driving vehicles--
benefits that include a potential
30,000 American lives saved each year.
It also means that the public and private sectors must work
together to create the necessary physical framework--and that means
helping workers get the right skills to get the job done. We must focus
on technical skills and develop apprentice programs. We must invest in
STEM education from an early age to prepare the next generation to take
the jobs of the future. We must also help those who are already in the
workforce transition smoothly, teaching them how to navigate new
technologies as older ones begin to retire.
Self-driving vehicles are an exciting inevitability. Education--not
protection--is the most effective way to deal with disruption. And in
many industries, we should embrace technology to improve working
conditions and make jobs easier.
Let's get to work laying down the necessary systems and structures
so that this technology can emerge without delay. With the right laws
and the right strategies, our roads will be safer, our transportation
less expensive and our workforce stronger because of it.
Gary Shapiro is President and CEO of the Consumer Technology
Association. the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,200
consumer technology companies, and author of the New York Times best-
selling books, ``Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the
World's Most Successful Businesses'' and ``The Comeback' How Innovation
Will Restore the American Dream.''
______
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
September 12, 2017
Hon. John Thune, Chairman,
Hon. Bill Nelson, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson:
Thank you for convening tomorrow's important hearing,
``Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and our Nation's
Highways.'' We are pleased that the Committee is considering the role
of autonomous commercial motor vehicles (ACMVs) and urge you to adopt a
strong regulatory framework for their development and deployment. We
respectfully request that this letter be included in the hearing
record.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) supports the
development of automated vehicle technology because it has the
potential to significantly reduce crashes, including those involving
large trucks and buses. Advancing proven technological solutions is
especially critical given that truck crashes have skyrocketed in recent
years. In 2015, 4,067 people were killed in crashes involving large
trucks. This is an increase of more than 4 percent from the previous
year and a 20 percent increase from 2009. Additionally, in 2015,
116,000 people were injured in crashes involving large trucks. This is
the highest number of injuries since 2004. Since 2009 there has been a
57 percent increase in the number of people injured in large truck
crashes. Moreover, in fatal two-vehicle crashes between a large truck
and a passenger motor vehicle, 97 percent of the fatalities were
occupants of the passenger vehicle. It is clear that this is a serious
and growing public health problem that merits urgent attention.
While Advocates sees great potential for fully autonomous vehicles,
including CMVs, to be the catalyst for meaningful and lasting
reductions in deaths and injuries, in the interim there are many
effective technologies that could be implemented immediately. In 2015,
Advocates filed a petition with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) seeking the issuance of a rule to require
forward collision avoidance and mitigation braking systems (F-CAM),
also known as automatic emergency braking (AEB), on trucks and buses
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more. The
agency granted the petition in October of that year but, nearly two
years later, no further regulatory action has been taken despite
studies showing the potential to significantly reduce crashes, deaths
and injuries. The agency should be required to expeditiously issue this
rule.
Additionally, Advocates has consistently supported the use of speed
limiting devices for CMVs because high speed crashes involving CMVs are
far more deadly than those that occur at lower speeds. As such,
Advocates filed comments with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) and NHTSA urging that the devices, already
installed on most CMVs, be turned on and set at a safe speed. These
technologies are readily available and could be saving lives now if
they were standard on every truck. Again, this is another truck safety
rule that is needlessly languishing at the DOT. Both AEB and speed
limiter technologies are already required as mandatory equipment on
commercial vehicles in Europe. In fact, speed limiting technology has
been required in the European Union for over two decades and AEB since
2012. The European Union is far ahead in providing a safer operating
environment for CMVs, while the U.S. lags behind as deaths in truck-
involved crashes skyrocket.
The emergence of experimental ACMVs and their interactions for the
foreseeable future with conventional motor vehicles demand an enhanced
level of Federal and state oversight to ensure public safety. It is
imperative that CMVs be regulated. If not, the development and
deployment of ACMVs will be subject to the ineffective and
unenforceable voluntary guidelines developed by NHTSA for new vehicles.
Moreover, the FMCSA has not even issued voluntary guidelines for the
operating rules to govern the safety of ACMVs once on the road. The
lack of proper oversight clearly will have a negative impact on public
safety. Some experts predict that automated technology will be placed
in commercial vehicles before light passenger vehicles. The potential
for an 80,000 pound truck using unregulated and inadequately tested
technology on public roads is a very real and dangerous scenario if
these vehicles are only subject to voluntary guidelines. In addition,
automated passenger carrying commercial motor vehicles that have the
potential to carry as many as 53 passengers will need additional
comprehensive safeguards that will be unique to this mode of travel.
In order to minimize major threats to the public and ensure that
ACMVs are developed and deployed safely, they must be subject to the
following essential provisions:
Each manufacturer of an ACMV must be required to submit a
detailed safety assessment report that details the safety
performance of automated driving systems and automated
vehicles. Manufacturers should be required to promptly report
to NHTSA all fatal, injury and property damage only crashes
involving ACMVs.
ACMVs that do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) should not be sold and they should not be
subject to exemptions. Sales of CMVs in the United States do
not nearly equal passenger vehicle sales and therefore
exempting large numbers of CMVs from FMVSS is unnecessary for
the development of ACMVs and will result in a potentially
significant and unnecessary threat to public safety.
NHTSA must require that manufacturers of ACMVs meet a
``functional safety standard'' to guarantee the safety of
ACMVs. This is a well-known process by which a product is
tested to ensure that, as a whole, it will function safely and
will prevent or mitigate defects or misuse which could lead to
unsafe conditions.
Any safety defect involving the ACMV must be remedied before
the ACMV is permitted to return to operation. The potential for
defects to infect an entire fleet is heightened with AV
technology. Therefore, manufacturers should be required to
promptly determine if a defect affects an entire fleet. Those
defects that are fleet-wide should result in an immediate
suspension of operation of the entire fleet until the defect is
remedied.
ACMVs must be required to meet a minimum cybersecurity
standard that should be issued by the Secretary within 3 years
of enactment of the legislation.
The Secretary should be required to establish a database for
ACMVs that includes such information as the vehicle's
identification number; manufacturer, make, model and trim
information; the level of automation of each automated driving
system with which the vehicle is equipped; the operational
design domain of each automated driving system with which the
vehicle is equipped; and the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard or standards, if any, from which the vehicle has been
exempted.
In the near term, rulemakings should be considered for
elements of ACMVs that may require performance standards
including human machine interface, sensors and actuators and
the need for software and cybersecurity standards. Standards
for ACMVs should be required to be issued by specific deadlines
set by Congress and before there is large scale deployment.
Manufacturers of ACMVs should be required to have in place a
privacy plan before an ACMV is sold.
For the foreseeable future, regardless of their level of
automation, ACMVs must have an operator with a valid commercial
driver's license in the vehicle at all times. Drivers will need
to be alert to monitor not only the standard operations of the
truck but also the automated system. Therefore, the Secretary
must issue a standard for driver engagement. In addition,
critical safety regulations administered by FMCSA such as those
that apply to driver hours-of-service, licensing requirements,
entry level training and medical qualifications must not be
weakened.
Motor carriers using ACMVs should be required to apply for
additional operating authority.
Drivers operating an ACMV must have an additional
endorsement on their CDL to ensure they have been properly
trained to monitor and understand the operating design domain
of the vehicle and, if need be, to operate an ACMV. This
training should include a minimum number of hours of the
behind-the-wheel training.
FMCSA must consider the additional measures that will be
needed to ensure that ACMVs respond to state and local law
enforcement authorities and requirements, and what measures
must be taken to properly evaluate an ACMV during roadside
inspections. In particular, the safety impacts on passenger
vehicle traffic of several large ACMVs platooning on roads and
highways should be assessed.
NHTSA should be given imminent hazard authority to protect
against potentially widespread catastrophic defects with ACMVs,
and criminal penalties to ensure manufacturers do not willfully
and knowingly put defective ACMVs into the marketplace.
NHTSA and FMCSA must be given additional resources, funding
and personnel, in order to meet demands being placed on the
agency due to the advent of AV technology.
Without these necessary safety protections, truck drivers and those
with whom they share the road are at risk. Advocates has always been a
champion for technology and the advent of AV technology is no
different. However, allowing technology to be deployed without adequate
testing, oversight, and safety standards is a direct threat to the
motoring public which is exacerbated by the sheer size and weights of
large commercial motor vehicles. We look forward to working with the
Committee to address these important issues and advance legislation
that provides for the safe development and deployment of lifesaving
technologies.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Gillan,
President Affairs.
Catherine Chase,
Vice President of Governmental.
______
Transportation for America
September 12, 2017
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:
Thank you for holding this important hearing on Transportation
Innovation: Automated Trucks and our Nation's Highways. As Congress and
the administration develop Federal automated vehicle (AV) policy, it is
critically important for this Committee to thoroughly understand how to
balance the long-term safety benefits with the short-term challenges of
testing and deployment. Today's hearing focuses particularly on safety
in the trucking industry, but this issue does not exist in a vacuum and
it is important to include all commercial and non-commercial automated
vehicles in any conversation about Federal AV policy.
Transportation for America (T4A) is an alliance of elected,
business and civic leaders seeking smart, homegrown and locally driven
transportation solutions. One of our initiatives, the Smart Cities
Collaborative, is a learning and support network providing direct
technical assistance to 16 leading edge cities advancing smart urban
mobility strategies. We are working with cities as they develop model
policies and launch pilot projects to test and learn about automated
vehicles, shared mobility and data analytics.
We are writing today to express our concerns with the Senate
discussion draft of the American Vision for Safer Transportation
Through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START) Act.
Along with the 16 cities of our Smart Cities Collaborative, T4A
supports the deployment of automated vehicles and is pleased to see
Congress supporting the effort of automakers to test and improve this
technology. The best way to do this is to ensure that the testing is
done with full transparency and in cooperation with the cities and
states that own and manage the roads on which AVs are operating.
Unfortunately, the staff discussion draft circulated last Friday fails
to do that. It leaves cities and states out of the conversation and
jeopardizes the safety of millions of Americans by allowing the
vehicles to operate with little accountability or oversight.
Currently, state and local governments have the authority to manage
the operation of vehicles on their streets. This allows them to address
concerns such as noise, congestion or safety. When it comes to
automated vehicles, cities and states want to be able to manage their
presence on their roads in the same way they manage all other vehicles,
commercial and non-commercial, in order to ensure the safety of
everyone using their system.
The Senate discussion draft requires a Safety Evaluation Report
(SER) from manufacturers that have introduced a highly automated
vehicle into interstate commerce. They are required to submit
information on vehicle safety, compliance with applicable laws,
cybersecurity and crashworthiness.
The SER serves as the framework for pre-empting local and state
authorities. All states and local governments are prohibited from
enacting or enforcing any laws related to any of the SER subject areas.
None of us want to see a patchwork of regulations that stifle
innovation, but the unified Federal framework in this case is a
poisoned chalice: it provides almost zero mechanism for state or local
governments to collaborate with those companies or hold them
accountable for the safety of their vehicles or technology. The
discussion draft strips these governments of the authority to manage
the vehicles on their roadways and leaves them without the tools to
deal with the problems that will surely arise during the testing and
deployment of automated vehicles.
We are also interested in seeing a Federal framework that allows
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the
Federal Government to ensure the vehicles are safe for deployment. On
its face, the safety report is a step in the right direction for
managing these vehicles on our roads, but in reality it's just an
exercise: it prevents the Secretary of Transportation from taking any
action based on a review of that SER data. If the safety report showed
that a particular fleet of AVs was frequently blowing through red
lights, even the Secretary of Transportation would have no recourse to
require changes or to pull the cars from the road.
The result of this framework is that no one--federal agents, state
or local governments--has authority over these vehicles on the road
other than the manufacturers.
We have already seen automated vehicles struggle in cities like San
Francisco, CA and Pittsburgh, PA with serious safety issues. This new
technology is exciting and poised to have dramatic impacts on the
safety of our streets in the long-term, but in the short-term, we need
to give our cities and states--where these vehicles are operating--the
authority to ensure that they're operating safely and following all
local traffic laws, and we need to give the Secretary of Transportation
the authority to determine when a vehicle poses a threat to the
American public and respond.
Automated vehicle technology has the potential to provide
aggregated information about how people and goods move through our
streets, but without access to these data, city and state governments
will be blind to the impacts of emerging transportation technologies.
The SER provides additional data for local governments to view but
with a few restrictions. The report allows for the redaction of trade
secrets or confidential business information but the imprecise
definition makes it unclear how much information will be hidden from
public view. This provides only an impression of transparency while
giving manufacturers a free pass to keep their operations a secret. The
limited information provided to local governments is not adequate to
inform them fully of what's happening on their roads and make the
appropriate changes to guarantee the safety and smooth introduction of
this technology. For example, if a certain type of LIDAR system is
incapable of reading a stop sign if vandalized with graffiti or
confused by bike lanes if painted a certain shade of green, there is
nothing that encourages or requires those testing AVs to share that
information with those most able to address the problem.
Understanding vehicle movement at the corridor level provides
immense value for governments and citizens, and automated vehicles
provide a new for communities to know what's happening on their roads.
Data on vehicle collisions and near misses allows cities to proactively
redesign dangerous intersections and corridors to ensure safety for all
street users. Real-time data on vehicle speeds, travel times and
volumes has the potential to inform speed limits, manage congestion,
uncover patterns of excessive speeds, evaluate the success of street
redesign projects and ultimately improve productivity and quality of
life. We need to ensure cities get the data they need to safety bring
these vehicles onto their streets and eliminate any restrictions on
what manufacturers can hide from them and the public.
Cities have long been the source of innovation in transportation
policy and practice. With active deployments in cities such as
Pittsburgh, PA, Tempe, AZ, and Boston, MA, cities continue to drive
automated vehicle innovation and testing. These deployments are
conducted in close partnership with automakers and private mobility
providers allowing them leverage their respective knowledge and
experience to understand the impacts of these technologies. Further,
state departments of transportation manage the bulk of our
transportation program. But in spite of the wealth of information
cities and states have to share in order to assist with deployment, the
discussion draft fails to require any inclusion of state or local
representatives on a new Federal Highly Automated Vehicles Technical
Safety Committee.
All of these issues are exacerbated by the discussion draft's
provision to allow up to 50,000 vehicles per manufacturer to be
deployed overnight, with up to 100,000 over three years. We have
already heard from Colonel Scott G. Hernandez, Chief of the Colorado
State Patrol, on the time, expense and labor required to test just one
truck in Colorado--even with the assets of robust data sharing, and
communication and collaboration between the public and private sectors.
We're concerned about the ability to run even a second test of these
vehicles, let alone hundreds and thousands of them at once.
Protecting public safety is the fundamental role of government, but
this discussion draft would set up a system that prevents federal,
state and local authorities from supporting safe conditions for the
testing and deployment of automated vehicles. It does not encourage the
needed cooperation and transparency between the public and private
sectors. It is hard to imagine how the deployment of AVs could be
promoted effectively by hiding AV safety performance from the public
and preventing the managers of our roadways and public safety officers
from having a role in managing them.
We encourage the Committee to make changes to address the concerns
and to hold a hearing with city and state partners to receive their
input.
If you have any questions or need more information, you can contact
our Director of Smart Cities, Russ Brooks at [email protected]
or (612) 460-8181.
Sincerely,
Beth Osborne,
Interim Director,
Transportation for America.
______
Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association
Chicago, IL, September 12, 2017
VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
Chairman John Thune,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Bill Nelson,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: AV START Act--Staff Discussion Draft
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson,
The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) applauds the
hard work of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation in developing the American Vision for Safer
Transportation through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies Act
(AV START Act). We support the creation of a Federal regulatory
structure to ensure that the inevitable deployment of highly automated
vehicles is implemented safely and reliably, and we appreciate your
willingness to consider the input of the heavy-duty truck and engine
manufacturers that is reflected in the staff discussion draft of the
bill. The AV START Act addresses critical aspects of the automated
vehicle technologies that are emerging in passenger cars and heavy-duty
commercial vehicles--technologies that show great promise in our common
goal of improving motor vehicle safety.
EMA represents the world's leading manufacturers of commercial
motor vehicles (greater than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating,
or GVWR). EMA member companies design and produce medium- and heavy-
duty vehicles that are highly customized to perform a wide variety of
commercial functions, including line-haul trucking, regional trucking,
package delivery, refuse hauling, and construction.
EMA members have a long history of being at the forefront of
developing and deploying advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) that
utilize automation technologies to assist the driver in maintaining
control of the vehicle and avoiding a crash. The automation
technologies utilized in ADAS, such as anti-lock braking, electronic
stability control, automatic emergency braking, and adaptive cruise
control, serve as the building blocks for the highly automated driving
systems that are addressed in the AV START Act. Existing and future
automated vehicle technologies show great promise in minimizing the
human error that leads to a vast majority of motor vehicle crashes,
including those involving heavy-duty trucks. Reducing the potential
error of the driver of an 80,000 pound over-the-road tractor-
semitrailer combination vehicle is why EMA members are developing and
deploying automated vehicle technologies.
It is very important to note that the role of the commercial
vehicle operator is much more expansive than that of a passenger car
driver. A commercial vehicle operator is the face of their trucking
business employer; conducts critical pre-trip vehicle inspections;
ensures that the correct cargo is loaded and secured; manages and
reports on the logistics of delivering the freight; and guards the
vehicle and freight against theft. Accordingly, we anticipate that
heavy duty commercial vehicles will always require an operator, albeit
one assisted by automation.
The AV START Act would establish a sound regulatory structure for
the design and manufacture of highly automated vehicles under the
purview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Like passenger car manufacturers, EMA members have been certifying
vehicles to comply with NHTSA's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSSs) since soon after the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act was enacted in 1966. That longstanding nationwide framework
provides heavy-duty manufacturers the regulatory certainty needed to
efficiently supply compliant vehicles to their interstate fleet
customers. Accordingly, we urge the Committee to maintain the Federal
regulatory framework in the AV START Act for the design, construction
and performance of highly automated vehicles, as exists with NHTSA's
current FMVSSs. To maintain NHTSA's broad regulatory authority over the
automation technologies in heavy-duty vehicles, the AV START Act also
should keep commercial vehicles (over 10,000 pounds GVWR) in the
definition of Highly Automated Vehicle.
As proposed, the AV START Act would limit pre-production testing of
highly automated vehicles to only manufacturers. However, each heavy-
duty truck is highly customized by the manufacturer to meet the needs
of the commercial customer's particular trucking operation, and the
process of developing and deploying new technologies in that business-
to-business relationship requires that the manufacturer provide
prototype vehicles for fleet customers to assess in real-world
operation. In other words, a commercial fleet customer will not invest
in a new technology before a thorough evaluation of a prototype vehicle
to ensure the technology will function as expected--and return a
profit. Such real-world prototype evaluation is performed by the fleet
customer in close coordination with the truck manufacturer.
Accordingly, the AV START Act should allow commercial vehicle fleets to
test and evaluate highly automated heavy-duty vehicles along with the
manufacturer.
Since heavy-duty vehicles are developed, sold and operated in a
commercial environment, we hope to be able to constructively engage
with the NHTSA working group envisioned in the AV START Act to be
responsible for automated driving education efforts. However, we
believe that education efforts for the commercial vehicle sector are
best addressed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
under its existing authority to regulate commercial driver licensing
and training.
We look forward to continuing to work with the Commerce Committee
on the AV START Act--legislation that is crucial to the safe and
efficient deployment of automated vehicle technologies in commercial
motor vehicles. If you have any questions, or if there is any
additional information we could provide, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (312) 929-1972, or [email protected].
Very truly yours,
Timothy Blubaugh,
Executive Vice President.
cc: Cherilyn Pascoe (Cherilyn [email protected])
______
Statement of Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
The promise of ``self-driving'' vehicles to improve road safety and
mobility continues to generate debate about what the appropriate
regulatory frame work for the testing and deployment of such vehicles.
As automation of driving functions increases, some motor vehicle laws
and regulations will need to be changed to accommodate the testing and
deployment of self-driving vehicles. The Property Casualty Insurers
Association (PCI) is pleased that the Committee continues to work
diligently to address policy issues related to the testing and
deployment of automated vehicles.
PCI is composed of nearly 1,000 member companies, representing the
broadest cross section of insurers of any national trade association.
PCI members write $202 billion in annual premium, 35 percent of the
Nation's property casualty insurance. That figure includes more than 46
percent of the commercial auto insurance premium written in the United
States.
The increasing automation of the driving function is likely to
bring significant change to the auto insurance industry. To adapt to
these changes and support innovation in transportation, insurers will
need to have access to data and information regarding vehicles with
automated driving systems whether they are used for commercial or
personal purposes. It is critical for insurers developing historical
loss data and pricing for new insurance products in an evolving
marketplace to have the ability to identify not only which vehicles
have automated driving technology but also the type of technology used
by each vehicle.
Additionally, insurers need to have reasonable access to data for
claims handling purposes. In many auto accidents, apportionment of
liability is likely to hinge upon whether a human driver or the vehicle
itself was in control and what actions either the driver or the vehicle
did or did not take immediately prior to the loss event.
Neither HR 3388, the SELF DRIVE Act that recently passed the House,
nor draft legislation currently under development in the Senate address
these data access issues directly. PCI strongly urges policymakers to
ensure access to data for insurers in Federal law. Doing so is
essential for prompt claims handling and could potentially avoid many
liability disputes that could delay compensation to accident victims.
While cybersecurity is a critical concern for automated vehicles, it is
important that cybersecurity requirements do not block access to
vehicle data by third parties, such as insurers.
Testing requirements, guidelines and standards for use on public
roads should set clear expectations for the public and provide clear
compliance direction for technology developers and manufacturers.
Modifications to existing auto safety laws and motor vehicle safety
standards must be rare, and limited to only the highest levels (i.e.,
fully autonomous) of automated driving, and should clearly define the
levels of automation to which the modification applies. Vehicles with
automated driving systems will share the road and occasionally collide
with human driven vehicles for many years to come. As such, PCI
believes that exemptions to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) should not be permitted for crash protection standards. Clear
and effectively enforced auto safety laws and vehicle standards can
save lives on our roads today and, when applied to automated driving
systems, foster public confidence that will ultimately determine if the
technology realizes its potential.
Insurers have valuable contributions to make to any advisory
council that will make recommendations on automated vehicle policy,
when the committees charge will involve cybersecurity, data sharing and
safety. We recommend that insurer representation be specifically
provided for in any such advisory committee being created. PCI is eager
to participate on these advisory groups and work with all stake holders
to establish a framework for sharing information that protects vehicle
user privacy and the intellectual property rights of the manufacturers.
Automated driving technology holds great promise for the future,
and implementing clear policies that ensure that insurers have access
to vehicle data on reasonable terms to efficiently handle claims,
develop products and underwriting methods to support these innovations
are an essential first step toward that future. PCI and its members
look forward to working with legislators and regulators at the Federal
and state level to establish a sound regulatory framework for automated
driving.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. David L. Strickland, Esq., Counsel, Self-
Driving Coalition for Safer Streets; and Partner, Venable LLP
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, on behalf of the Self-
Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, I am honored to submit this
written statement discussing the future of transportation innovation,
including fully self-driving commercial vehicles.
The Coalition, which was founded in April of last year by Ford
Motor Company, Lyft, Uber, the Volvo Car Group, and Waymo (formerly
Google's self-driving car project), is focused on enabling the
development and deployment of Level 4 and Level 5 fully self-driving
vehicles, including light passenger vehicles and heavy duty trucks.
This cross-section of companies demonstrates the widespread
interest in developing self-driving technology across different
industry sectors--including technology, automotive, ridesharing, and
commercial trucking. Despite their different backgrounds, the companies
came together to form the Coalition because of their commitment to
bring the tremendous potential safety benefits of self-driving vehicles
to consumers in the safest and swiftest manner possible. As examples of
their efforts, Waymo completed the world's first fully driverless ride
on public roads in Austin in October 2015 and has now driven more than
3 million miles on public roads, mostly on city streets; Lyft has set
itself a public goal that half the rides on its platform will be in a
self-driving vehicles by 2021; Ford intends to have a fully self-
driving vehicle ``for commercial application in mobility services in
2021; and Uber already is providing rides using its self-driving
vehicles (with an operator behind the wheel) in Tempe, Arizona and
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
stands at the intersection of the digital economy, the Internet of
things, and, most importantly, consumer safety. This is a critical
moment for the Committee as it wrestles with questions that will impact
the future of transportation safety, mobility, and innovation for
decades to come. On behalf of the Coalition, I thank the Committee
Members and their staff for working with a wide array of automated
vehicle technology stakeholders over the past several months to try to
develop self-driving vehicle legislation. Over the course of this
period, you have engaged in a thoughtful discussion over how to safely
deploy self-driving technology, and we are grateful for the opportunity
to provide input.
The Coalition believes fully self-driving vehicles, whether light
duty passenger or medium-to-heavy duty commercial vehicles, will play a
key role in making our roads safer,improving mobility and maintaining
U.S. leadership on innovation. Self-driving vehicles offer an
opportunity to significantly increase safety, reduce congestion, and
transform how people, goods, and services get from point A to B. Self-
driving vehicles also hold the promise to enhance mobility for the
disabled and elderly and improve transportation access and access to
goods and services for underserved communities.
Ultimately, safety is the driving force behind deploying self-
driving technology. Although it has been often cited, it still bears
repeating that 35,092 Americans died in motor vehicle crashes and 2.44
million were injured in 2015, and tragically, these numbers are
growing. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (``NHTSA'')
estimates a 10.4 percent increase in roadway fatalities in the first
half of 2016. Since 94 percent of all crashes are the result of a human
decision, fully self-driving vehicles are very likely to significantly
reduce fatal traffic crashes because they remove human error from the
driving process entirely.
The same holds true in the trucking space. A staggering 87 percent
of truck-related crashes are caused by human errors.\1\ Trucks are
involved in a disproportionate share of crash fatalities, where trucks
represent only 1 percent of registered vehicles and less than 6 percent
of all miles traveled but are involved in almost 9 percent of all crash
fatalities.\2\ This translates to somebody dying in a crash involving a
freight truck every three hours. Unfortunately, the trend is worsening.
4,311 large trucks and buses were involved in fatal crashes in 2015, an
8-percent increase from 2014.\3\ In fact, the number of large trucks
and buses in fatal crashes has increased by 26 percent from its low in
2009. 87,000 large trucks were involved in injury crashes in 2015, a
number similar to 2014, and the number of buses involved in fatal
crashes increased by 11 percent. According to the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (``FMCSA''), in 2015, 33 percent of the fatal
crashes involving large trucks involved at least one driver-related
factor for the truck driver--including speeding, distraction/
inattention, and impairment (fatigue, alcohol, illness, etc.), and 57
percent of fatal crashes involving trucks had at least one driver-
related factor for the passenger vehicle driver.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/research-and-analysis/
large-truck-crash-causation-stu
dy-analysis-brief (Table 1).
\2\ For statistics on the number of vehicles and vehicle
registrations, see https://www
.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/
national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html; https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2014/mv9.cfm. For
information on the breakdown of trucking-related injuries and
fatalities, see https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/812246.
\3\ See https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-
truck-and-bus-crash-facts-
2015.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important that we not simply cite these statistics as mere
talking points. The context of the Committee's inquiry into trucking at
this hearing goes beyond exploring the landscape of self-driving
technology at an introductory level. The Committee is delving deeper
into specific issues related to the longer-term application of self-
driving technology and automation to trucks and heavy duty vehicles. We
encourage the Committee to consider the grave toll that these thousands
of fatalities and millions of injuries are having on American society,
and how that trend will worsen if higher levels of automated driving
technology are prohibited from being responsibly deployed across the
transportation landscape in a timely manner. As NHTSA stated in its
Federal Automated Vehicle Policy (``FAVP'') last year, ``whether
through technology that corrects for human mistakes, or through
technology that takes over the full driving responsibility, automated
driving innovations could dramatically decrease the number of crashes
tied to human choices and behavior.'' \5\ In its new policy document,
NHTSA reiterates this finding, noting that ``NHTSA believes that
Automated Driving Systems (ADSs), including those contemplating no
driver at all, have the potential to significantly improve roadway
safety in the United States.'' \6\ This point is just as true for
trucks as it is with passenger vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Dep't of Transportation, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy
(2016), at 5.
\6\ U.S. Dep't of Transportation, Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A
Vision for Safety (2017), at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, we urge the Committee to consider the productivity and
efficiency improvements that will result from the deployment of self-
driving technology. Approximately 25 percent of today's nonrecurring
congestion is attributable to incidents ranging from a flat tire to an
overturned hazardous material truck.\7\ Our already overburdened
highway infrastructure will be even further strained by freight
shipments that will grow another 24 percent by 2025 and 45 percent by
2040.\8\ Yet 15-25 percent of truck miles driven are empty and more
than a third of the non-empty miles are underutilized.\9\ Automated
trucks can break the ``vicious cycle'' of worsening congestion,
restrained productivity, and lives lost in congestion-related crashes
by driving in off-peak times and increasing the utilization rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/aboutus/opstory.htm.
\8\ See https://www.epa.gov/smartway/why-freight-matters-supply-
chain-sustainability.
\9\ See http://business.edf.org/projects/green-freight-facts-
figures/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's oversight and jurisdiction covers all motor vehicles,
whether light vehicles or heavier vehicles, including those weighing
over 10,000 pounds.\10\ As such, the Department of Transportation's
policy statement and framework for automated vehicles, both the in
original version released in September 2016 and the recently revised
document released just yesterday, explicitly make clear that the
guidance covers all motor vehicles.\11\ We do not feel that the Senate
or Congress should deviate from that approach and establish a
distinction. Congress should continue to encourage NHTSA to leverage
its resources, expertise and learnings across all vehicle and equipment
types in order to fulfill the Agency's safety mission. Placing medium
and heavy duty vehicles, such as trucks, on a separate track would
establish a dangerous precedent that would only create confusion,
uncertainty, and potentially jeopardize the full safety benefits that
self-driving vehicles can potentially provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NHTSA's regulatory authority over motor vehicles makes no
exception for commercial vehicles. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30111. NHTSA has
issued standards on such subjects as heavy vehicle brakes and tires,
bus emergency exits, and motorcoach seat belts. FMCSA's authority over
commercial vehicle safety does not conflict with, but instead
complements, NHTSA's authority. 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 30103(a) and
31136(a).
\11\ U.S. Dep't of Transportation, Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A
Vision for Safety (2017), at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in light of this Committee's consideration of a new
discussion draft of legislation that would address automated vehicle
issues, I would like to take this opportunity to provide feedback on
some of the key elements that the Coalition believes are necessary to
construct a robust, fair, and efficacious legislative framework for
automated vehicles.
1. Clarifying the appropriate Federal and state roles and
responsibilities when it comes to fully self-driving vehicles.
The Federal Government should retain the authority to
promulgate and enforce nationally uniform motor vehicle safety
standards applicable to all vehicle types, regardless of the
weight or type of motor vehicle. We do not believe self-driving
vehicles present a reason to deviate from that well established
precedent. States should be discouraged from creating a
patchwork of inconsistent laws and regulations relating to such
standards that have the potential to stifle this emerging
industry. Any bill should clearly delineate that the states
should continue to retain their traditional role in
establishing and maintaining the rules of the road, vehicle
registration, traffic enforcement, and with respect to
insurance, while making clear that it is the Federal
Government's exclusive authority to set standards related to
the safety, performance, and design of fully self-driving
vehicles.
2. Expanding NHTSA's current exemption authority to permit new
safety features unique to fully self-driving vehicles. Today,
Level 4 and Level 5 fully self-driving vehicles are subject to
all of the criteria in the Federal safety standards, even
though certain decades-old provisions were clearly designed
with a human driver in mind. Under today's rules, NHTSA can
exempt a maximum of 2,500 vehicles from a manufacturer's fleet
for up to 2 years so long as an applicant demonstrates that its
vehicles provide a level of safety at least equal to current
motor vehicle safety standards. We do not propose any change to
the standard of equivalent safety. However, the numerical and
temporal limitations on exemptions under current law present a
concrete obstacle to achievement of the goal of rapid, safe and
robust deployment necessary to attain the safety and mobility
benefits we believe fully self-driving vehicles promise.
Congress should increase the exempted fleet size and extend the
exemption period to advance consumer acceptance and to promote
self-driving technology's safety, accessibility, and mobility
benefits. Congress also should be mindful to extend such
additional flexibility to both traditional OEMs and other
developers of self-driving technology. The Coalition sees
expanded exemption authority not as a replacement for industry-
wide standards, but rather as as a necessary short-term measure
to deploy safety innovations pending the completion of extended
rulemakings.
3. Encourage USDOT modes, including NHTSA and FMCSA, to
appropriately review and address existing Federal regulations,
as needed, to ensure that vehicles without human drivers or
human driver controls continue to be permissible, to ensure the
safety and mobility benefits described.
4. Ensure Consistency Between the Proposed Draft and USDOT's
Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety,
particularly on categories of safety processes to be considered
by AV companies.
I want to thank the Committee for its leadership on these important
issues. The Coalition looks forward to serving as a resource concerning
both technical and policy questions and working with you to make fully
self-driving vehicles a reality.
______
Prepared Statement of Eric Meyhofer, Head of Advanced Technologies
Group (ATG), Uber Technologies, Inc.
Hon. John Thune, Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson, Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to provide written testimony on self-
driving vehicles and, more specifically, the significant safety
advantages regarding self-driving commercial motor vehicles on our
highways.
Self-driving trucks can lead to significant and outsized safety
gains for all road users. Therefore, the Committee should not delay in
establishing a safety-oriented regulatory environment for all vehicles
that will encourage ongoing investments in the research and development
of these technologies.
In 2015, Uber launched our Advanced Technologies Group (ATG) which
focuses on developing both self-driving cars and Class 8 freight
trucks. In our trucking efforts, we are driven by the vision of self-
driving trucks becoming the safest and most efficient way to move
freight. We are also motivated by the knowledge that technology has
long been the driver of transportation safety gains. Forward collision
warning and crash imminent braking systems in heavy trucks are already
estimated to reduce fatalities by 24 percent and decrease injuries by
25 percent.\1\ New technologies such as lane keeping assistance and
adaptive cruise control features have begun to have significant impacts
as well. Put simply, full self-driving systems are the logical next
step in the decades-long evolution of technology driven safety
improvements in trucking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA, UMTRI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-driving trucks will lead to many benefits not just for the
trucking industry but also for the public at large. First and most
critically, these trucks will be involved in fewer crashes, especially
tragic fatal ones. That is good news for everyone because approximately
3 in 4 fatal truck crashes involve a collision with another vehicle,\2\
and over 80 percent of deaths are those of people that were outside the
truck.\3\ Truck drivers will also benefit enormously, as theirs is the
single deadliest profession in absolute numbers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FMCSA
\3\ NHTSA
\4\ BLS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, self-driving trucks will reduce gridlock due to fewer
crashes and from the increased ability to use off-peak times, such as
driving safely in the middle of the night. In turn, this will improve
the utilization rates of trucks, cut overall shipping times and make
the national freight network more efficient. As a result, there will
also be less fuel waste and fewer harmful pollutant emissions. Taken
together, and in light of the central role that trucking plays in the
national economy,\5\ self-driving trucks could one day help support
broader economic growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Over 70 percent of the goods all Americans use every day are
moved by truck. (ATA)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These ultimate benefits are well-known and understood by experts,
but before they are realized, we must first build and iterate on the
technology. The Uber ATG team is hard at work doing just that. Although
we have engaged in limited trucking pilots, we have not yet developed
self-driving trucks that are capable of sustained operation without a
driver behind traditional driving controls. However, we believe that
achieving such capabilities for ramp-to-ramp driving on interstate
highways is one of the best near-term opportunities for any self-
driving vehicle, not just trucks.
The autonomous vehicle industry is still in the early stages, but
Uber believes this is the right time for Congress to act. We look
forward to continuing to work with the Committee to shape legislation
that will establish a smart, safe, and responsible regulatory
framework. Your work on these issues today will help encourage
strategic, long-term innovation in this space.
Self-driving trucks on interstates offer outsized safety gains for all
of us who share the road and significantly advance the
development of the entire autonomous vehicle ecosystem because:
1. Automated high-speed highway driving offers great potential
safety benefits (especially since trucks are disproportionately
represented in fatal crashes) yet presents a more
straightforward engineering challenge.
2. Trucks on interstates offer unique opportunities for rapid
learning and safety gains for all self-driving vehicles. The
technical learning from self-driving trucks helps accelerate
the development of all vehicles with self-driving technologies
because trucks more frequently face the challenging highway
scenarios that any self-driving vehicle needs to overcome.
3. The trucking industry long ago established best practices in
fleet management and complex transportation networks that are
crucial for the development of many self-driving efforts.
Automating trucks on interstates provides an excellent near-term safety
opportunity.
Freight trucks are disproportionately involved in serious crashes:
combination trucks are only 1 percent of registered vehicles and drive
less than 6 percent of all miles traveled, but are involved in almost
10 percent of all crash fatalities.\6\ This translates to someone dying
in a crash involving a freight truck every three hours. And while 87
percent of truck-related crashes are caused by human errors,\7\ it also
bears noting that many of these errors are those of other motorists
engaging in risky behavior around large trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ US DOT, FHWA, FMCSA, NHTSA
\7\ FMCSA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-driving trucks will mitigate and prevent crashes caused not
only by truck drivers, but also by drivers in other vehicles. That is
because self-driving technologies do more than just avoid the unsafe
behaviors, distractions and fatigue of a truck driver. They also enable
a self-driving truck to ``see'' in all directions at once, react
faster, and even predict cut-offs and other movements of neighboring
vehicles. In other words, the same factors that result in trucks being
disproportionately represented in serious crashes could also result in
disproportionate safety gains in the automation of trucks relative to
other vehicles.
This places trucks on freeways at the forefront of our ability to
begin realizing the safety potential of all self-driving vehicles.
Because of the high-speed environment and the difference in the mass of
trucks versus cars, crashes with heavy trucks tend to be much more
serious than those involving just cars. Yet the interstate highway
environment also offers a somewhat easier engineering challenge for our
team to solve in the near term. On the highway, the flow of traffic is
predictable, the lanes are wide and there are few or no cross streets.
Pedestrians, bicycles and other vulnerable road users are a rare
occurrence, and there are no traffic lights and sharp turns to
navigate. Moreover, it is relatively straightforward and cost-effective
to create and maintain maps of the few hundred miles of interstate
lanes on which the first self-driving trucks will drive.
Because self-driving trucks can lead to such significant and
outsized safety gains for all road users sooner rather than later, we
should not delay in establishing a safety-oriented regulatory
environment that will encourage ongoing investments in the research and
development of these technologies.
Research and development of self-driving trucks enables rapid
improvement in the safety of all self-driving vehicles, not
just trucks.
At Uber ATG, our self-driving trucks and cars will be different
products with different customers and business opportunities. However,
the engineering team developing the core technology is the same.
Furthermore, the majority of the hardware and software powering our
self-driving efforts is also used across both vehicle platforms. This
is no accident--last year, we expanded our self-driving efforts to
include trucks precisely because we saw a great opportunity for cars
and trucks to learn from one another and improve in tandem, thereby
accelerating our ability to capture the safety potential of self-
driving vehicles.
During these early days of the self-driving industry, vehicles with
the new technologies will be deployed in an overwhelmingly human-
centric driving environment. The challenging high-speed scenarios
encountered more frequently by self-driving trucks on interstate
highways will also need to be mastered by all autonomous vehicles. Our
engineers will efficiently and quickly leverage the highway safety
learning of self-driving trucks to realize even greater safety gains
with our self-driving cars, benefitting all road users.
Self-driving trucks and self-driving cars are part of the same
transportation ecosystem, as are all traditional vehicles of all sizes.
A decision to pass legislation that only provides regulatory certainty
for some motor vehicles while leaving others in an uncertain status
would have the practical consequence of delaying the development of the
technology for the vehicles not covered by the legislation. Businesses,
especially in the trucking industry, operate on long lead-times and
require clarity with respect to regulatory matters. In addition,
because the roads and basic technologies are shared, such a delay in
establishing basic safety and vehicle design standards for self-driving
trucks would directly delay and impede the development of all
autonomous vehicles for highway driving and, ultimately, slow progress
on road safety for all Americans.
Professional fleet operations and maintenance are the norm in the
trucking industry.
As has been widely noted, including in Uber's June 13, 2017 written
testimony for this Committee, most technology companies and OEMs are
investing in a fleet model when it comes to their self-driving efforts.
That approach holds the key to faster and safer development of these
technologies. The fleet model makes self-driving technology more cost
effective, provides for shared learning and improvement of all vehicles
in the fleet, greatly improves overall efficiencies in the deployment
and routing of automated vehicles and--most importantly--ensures that
the vehicles are deployed in the safest manner possible and only in the
conditions that they are able to safely operate in.
We are excited that Uber will be at the forefront of this
transition in passenger vehicle use from the traditional manufacturer-
sold, owner-operated model to the shared fleets that self-driving cars
will need. But while ride-sharing services like ours are a relatively
new option for the mass mobility of people in cities, the trucking
industry has depended on fleets and advanced network management to get
goods across great distances for many decades. As such, the large cadre
of professional truck drivers, safety-oriented fleet maintenance and
management, and advanced supply chain operations mean that long-haul
trucking is an ideal setting for self-driving technologies.\8\ Given
that the vast majority of research and development work in all self-
driving vehicles for the foreseeable future will be based on the fleet
model, we should not delay in implementing a regulatory safety
framework that would foster great innovation in the one industry with
the longest-established best practices in fleet based transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We note, also, that the business-to-business nature in the
development of self-driving trucks will further promote safety-first
efforts. Large shippers that need to move valuable goods across the
country and the motor carriers they rely upon for freight transport
will demand tangible and measurable safety improvements over
traditional driving. They will not adopt self-driving technology simply
because they are ``gadget enthusiasts'' nor will they be subject to the
same temptations as individual consumers to push the technology to its
limits and potentially misuse it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations
We are encouraged by congressional interest in establishing a clear
role for the Federal Government in the regulation of self-driving
vehicles, starting with a framework for vehicle design standards that
would ensure safety while encouraging further investment in research
and development. We believe it is critical that all vehicles benefit
from the regulatory certainty that comes with Federal legislation. It
is especially important that the trucking industry, which has high
capital expenditures, long lead times, and is dependent upon the smooth
flow of interstate commerce, not be left in limbo while legislation
covering different classes of vehicles moves forward. Such an outcome
would not only be contrary to current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards but also hinder the development of the entire autonomous
vehicle ecosystem.
We therefore recommend that any legislation encompass all self-
driving vehicles, so that they can be subject to the same basic vehicle
design and safety standards. That is the best way for Congress to
encourage today's ongoing safety-first R&D efforts in the self-driving
space. Although this is just the first step, we are very bullish about
the future of trucking, both self-driving and traditional. Earlier this
year Uber announced the launch of Uber Freight, a significant long-term
investment in improving traditional freight efficiency through a more
effective freight brokering approach, with a focus on addressing many
of the pain points for truck drivers today and well into the future.
As Uber continues to expand our self-driving ventures in trucking
and passenger vehicles, we are eager to continue working with Congress
and all other stakeholders in the drive to deploy self-driving vehicles
safely and rapidly. We are committed to building and rolling out the
technology in the safest way, as demonstrated in our close cooperation
with the State of Colorado, including the Colorado State Patrol, before
successfully delivering the world's first shipment by a self-driving
truck in October 2016.
Uber thanks Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, Senator Peters
and all members of the Committee for their continued leadership and
foresight on these issues. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to
share our vision for the future of the entire self-driving ecosystem,
and look forward to working with you all to ensure that we are
maximizing the benefits of this technology for all road users.
______
Embark
September 21, 2017
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and distinguished members of
the Committee, thank you for opportunity to submit written testimony
for the hearing ``Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and our
Nation's Highways.'' Embark Trucks, Inc. (Embark) is a San Francisco-
based developer of software that powers automated driving systems for
trucks. Embark's aim is to develop a self-driving system that can pilot
a truck, without a human occupant, from exit to exit on long haul
highway routes.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide the perspective of our
company from the front lines of the nascent automated vehicle industry
given the vast amount of speculation, hype, and misconception that has
permeated this topic in recent years, especially with respect to
commercial vehicles. From concerns at the dawn of the industrial
revolution to President Johnson's National Commission on Technology,
Automation, and Economic Progress in the 1960s, the debate on
automation and fears of the disruption it may cause is not a new topic.
This is not to minimize such concerns, rather to point out that
innovation, progress, and growth often come at the cost of disrupting
business as usual. How we as a country support and empower the
individuals and businesses affected by such disruption is a worthy
topic of discussion, but we sincerely hope that the path of simple
obstruction is not an option.
This testimony will cover these four topics for the Committee:
(1) Why trucking is now seen as a leading application for
automation, attracting interest from major companies, startups,
and foreign governments.
(2) How self-driving technology will be introduced to the trucking
industry
(3) What the impacts of truck automation will be for the industry
and American economy
(4) Why automated vehicle legislation should include all vehicles
Why Trucks
Within the automated vehicle industry, heavy duty commercial
vehicles have recently emerged as a likely early use case for high
automation. Sessions on automated trucks at annual conferences have
grown from nearly empty to standing room only. Startups have been
joined by large companies like Waymo and Tesla in exploring how
automated driving technology can be applied to commercial vehicles.
Governments from the United Kingdom and Netherlands to China are
investing in automated truck research. While self-driving passenger
vehicles might best capture our imagination given America's love affair
with the car, the potential benefits to commercial trucking actually
create a clearer case for on-highway truck automation.
On a technical level, the many hours a long-haul truck spends on
multi-lane, limited access highways and interstates is an ideal first
environment for automation. A driverless truck restricted to highway
environments would not have to contend with pedestrians, cyclists,
intersections, or traffic lights. For automated systems that require
detailed 3D maps, maintaining maps of 48,000 miles of interstate is
more attainable and lower cost than mapping all 2.6 million miles of
paved roads in the U.S.\1\ From the business case perspective, the
trucking industry has a clear financial incentive to adopt new methods
of improving productivity and safety while reducing costs. While
passenger vehicle decisions can be made for a variety of reasons--
convenience, comfort, brand loyalty--the pragmatism of the trucking
industry means if something new can be proven to improve efficiency or
reduce crashes, fleets will pay attention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While there are over 2.6 million miles of paved roads in the
United States, only about 228,000 miles are part of the National
Highway System, and less than 48,000 miles--or about 1.8 percent--are
interstate per Federal Highway Administration--Highway Statistics 2013
Table HM-12 and Table HM-15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Automation Will Be Deployed
As many stated during the Commerce Committee's September 13th
hearing on the topic, truck automation will not happen overnight. Today
we are seeing the maturing of commercially available level 1 automation
technology in trucking with adaptive cruise control systems.
Capabilities of these types of driver-assistive systems will continue
to increase in the future. At Embark, our goal lies beyond driver
assistive, to design a system that is capable of operating from exit to
exit without a human in the cab. However, this does not mean
``professional driver'' will cease to be a viable profession in a
matter of years, despite much of the sensationalism around this issue.
Early driverless systems will aim to tackle the ``low hanging
fruit'' of freight trucking: long, simple stretches of interstate
outside of dangerous weather conditions and with non-hazardous cargo.
Even on relatively simple routes, there are many complex logistical and
operational issues that will need to be overcome in cooperation with
regulators, law enforcement, and other stakeholders. Each fleet or
shipper will have to evaluate the technology and decide if it is the
right fit for their needs, and if so, what portion. It is likely that
some portions of long, predictable truck runs become automated while
other portions are kept manual to deal with last minute changes in
dispatching, capacity, or complex weather. Experienced drivers may
prefer local or regional routes that use their technical driving skills
in urban environments and allow them to sleep in their own bed every
night. The bottom line is that automation will not be everywhere, all
at once. But automated trucks are coming, and over time will
significantly improve the freight trucking landscape.
Impacts of Freight Trucking Automation
So what will the impacts be, and what's at stake? Freight trucking
is a $726 billion industry that moves over 70 percent of the Nation's
freight.\2\ The industry is the circulatory system of the American
economy, and its health and efficiency touch virtually every other
industry and consumer. Every product we buy or export includes some
cost of moving it. Thousands of fleets and owner-operators operate
under tight timelines and tighter margins, bringing us the things we
need each day to run our businesses, care for the sick, and live our
lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ American Trucking Associations (http://www.trucking.org/
News_and_Information_Reports
_Industry_Data.aspx)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First and foremost, automation holds the key for turning the tide
in the struggle for safer roads. Embark is a proud member of the Road
to Zero Coalition, and we firmly believe that deploying highly
automated driving systems for both cars and trucks is the only way to
truly get to a future of zero road fatalities when 87 percent of large
truck crashes \3\ and 94 percent of all vehicle crashes \4\ are due to
human error. NHTSA has estimated the total value of societal harm from
motor vehicle crashes in 2010 was $836 billion, including $242 billion
in pure economic costs--$784 for every person living in the United
States and 1.6 percent of GDP.\5\ Highly automated trucks can eliminate
the dangers of driver distraction and fatigue that are the constant
subject of an ever-evolving regulatory regime. There are certainly many
miles to travel, both literally and figuratively, to bring self-driving
trucks to market. However, simply put, when 11 people per day die in
truck related accidents in the United States, the safety potential from
truck automation is too dramatic and important to delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Large Truck Crash Causation Study, Federal Highway
Administration, July 2007
\4\ Singh, S. Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats. Report No. DOT HS
812 115. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
\5\ NHTSA ``The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle
Crashes 2010 (revised 2015)'' available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic impacts of truck automation are significant and
positive. Much attention has been focused on the first order benefit of
reducing operating costs to move freight. However, while this effect
will alone have the broad impact on the cost of both raw and finished
goods, automation can dramatically reshape what is possible for the
freight trucking industry to accomplish in service of a multitude of
other industries. Imagine the benefits of reducing by several days the
time it takes to move goods across the country because a self-driving
truck can run the majority of a long-haul route free from hours of
service regulations meant to manage human fatigue. Wastage of
perishable goods would be reduced, medical equipment would be delivered
to hospitals faster and cheaper, and business inventory decisions could
be made later with better information. American manufacturing would
have an advantage of a freight system that is safer, cheaper, and more
efficient than other parts of the world.
Furthermore, it is estimated that the relative skill of a driver
can account for a 35 percent difference in fuel efficiency.\6\ Self-
driving trucks can learn to drive a route in a maximally efficient
manner, and do so reliably every time, contributing significantly to
freight trucking efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ American Trucking Associations Technology and Maintenance
Council Recommended Practice 1114A: Driver's Effect on Fuel Economy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a broad economic level, the U.S. is facing slowing growth in
both labor force productivity and size, which will create headwinds for
GDP growth. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that automation
technologies, including heavy truck automation, could improve global
productivity growth by as much as 1.4 percent annually.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ McKinsey Global Institute, ``A Future That Works: Automation,
Employment, and Productivity,'' Jan. 2017. Available at http://
www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/digital-disruption/harnessing-
automation-for-a-future-that-works
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor interests have voiced understandable concern regarding how
automation may affect current and future drivers. The industry is
currently facing a driver shortage as well as a demographic cliff of
older drivers retiring--all at a time when freight tonnage is
forecasted to increase by over 36 percent in the next decade driven by
online retailing and other trends.\8\ Automation can help fill this
gap. In the medium term, as automated long-haul routes are established,
some drivers will be attracted to an expected increased volume of local
and regional routes that include moving freight to staging areas for
automated routes. Such routes would rely more heavily on the skillsets
of experienced drivers to navigate complicated non-highway roads while
providing a higher quality of life by allowing them to stay close to
home. It is important to note that automation will not be everywhere,
all at once. Development of self--driving systems will take years,
while deployment will occur in specific use cases, on specific routes.
A deliberate pace of deployment will allow working collaboratively with
the driver community to address any job displacement from long-haul
routes and augment training to allow drivers to take advantage of new
types of jobs created by truck automation--while still ensuring the
broad economic benefits of truck automation. We firmly believe, based
on our in-depth understanding of self-driving truck technology, that
everyone employed in the trucking industry today will be able to retire
in the trucking industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ATA Freight Transportation Forecast 2017 (http://
www.trucking.org/article/ATA-Forecasts-Continued-Growth-for-Trucking-
and-Freight-Economy)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Include Commercial Vehicles in Legislation
At this early but critical stage in the development of a regulatory
regime, we believe it is in the best interest of the Federal
Government, technology developers, and the road-faring public that
Congress includes heavy vehicles in any national framework. From our
perspective, it is important that Congress's work builds on NHTSA's
inclusive approach and avoids creating a bifurcated regulatory
environment for automated vehicle equipment that excludes heavy
vehicles.
We are not alone in believing the first applications of vehicle
automation are best suited for long haul freight trucking, from both a
technical and economic perspective. By excluding heavy vehicles,
Congress risks ignoring the growing industry consensus that early
applications of vehicle automation, including self-driving systems,
will likely include long-haul trucking.
Excluding heavy vehicles from the Senate bill will not prevent the
development of this technology, which will continue under various
state-level regulatory regimes. However, the practical effect will be
to leave the development of this important technology outside of the
emerging Federal regulatory regime intended to promote certain safety,
transparency, and cybersecurity practices while increasing uncertainty
and complexity for technology developers. Meanwhile, international
efforts to develop similar technology w ill continue with full-throated
support from foreign governments. China has recently announced that it
intends to become the world leader in artificial intelligence--the key
to unlocking level 4 and 5 automation--by 2025. This is no idle threat.
Chinese automated truck companies are testing on road today, and the
Chinese government roadmap foresees their core AI industry being worth
$59 billion by 2025, with associated industries including self-driving
being worth a combined $740 billion.\9\ Legislation that only supports
lower levels of automation or certain vehicle types will not allow
America to maintain its current but threatened position as leader on
technologies that will power the global economy in the coming decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Kania, Elsa. ``China's Artificial Intelligence Revolution.''
The Diplomat. July 27, 2017. Available at http://thediplomat.com/2017/
07/chinas-artificial-intelligence-revolution/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certainly additional regulatory and operational issues
specific to commercial vehicles that FMCSA and other relevant agencies
will need to address in consultation with industry as highly automated
trucks are developed. Nothing in the current draft as contemplated by
the Committee would circumvent this important work from proceeding
thoughtfully and with deliberate speed if trucks are included. But from
an equipment perspective, the sensors,processors, and software that
will power automated trucks are not dissimilar from those that will
power automated passenger vehicles. The testing, validation, and
cybersecurity requirements to prove the safety and reliability of
automated driving systems will still need to be of the highest rigor
regardless of vehicle type. Fundamentally, we believe the most sensible
way forward for this and future bills is to continue to build framework
for establishing if an automated vehicle is safe for public roads,
regardless of the size of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Embark thanks Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and the rest
of the Committee on their thoughtful leadership on this issue, and the
opportunity to share our perspective as a leader in commercial vehicle
automation. We are eager to continue to contribute to a clear-eyed
conversation on how best to deploy this technology safely and
efficiently for the benefit of the American public and American
economy.
Respectfully,
Alex Rodrigues,
CEO and Co-founder,
Embark.
Jonathan Morris,
Head of Public Policy,
Embark.
______
Prepared Statement of Truck Safety Coalition
The Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) thanks Members of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for holding this
important hearing, ``Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and
our Nation's Highways.'' We look forward to working with members of the
Committee as well as safety advocates, technology companies, and
leaders in the trucking industry to continue discussing the role of
autonomous technologies in commercial motor vehicles and to develop an
oversight framework that prioritizes safety first.
TSC recognizes the potential safety benefits of autonomous
technologies in trucking, especially at a time when truck crashes
continue to climb. Since 2009, truck crashes have gone up by 45
percent, resulting in a 20 percent increase in truck crash fatalities
and a 57 percent increase in truck crash injuries. To make matters
worse, truck vehicle miles decreased by three percent in that same
time, meaning that the truck crash involvement, truck crash injury, and
truck crash fatality rates have all increased over the past six years.
Current technology
While TSC is excited that autonomous technologies have the
potential to prevent and mitigate thousands of crashes resulting from
human error, we also want to ensure that the process for testing and
developing AV technology in trucks does not jeopardize public safety.
As we continue to figure out the details of the regulatory framework
associated with AV technology, we urge lawmakers to work towards
mandating automatic emergency braking (AEB) and heavy vehicle speed
limiters on all trucks.
Mandating speed limiters be set on all trucks is a commonsense step
to improving truck safety that will produce more net benefits than
costs. Since the 1990s, speed limiter technology has been built into
all truck engine control modules, which eliminates the cost of
installing this life saving technology. Additionally, motor carriers
will see a return on investment by reducing their speed-related, at-
fault crashes--some of the deadliest and costliest types of truck
crashes. In fact, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation found that
speed-related, at-fault truck crashes dropped by 73 percent after
Ontario's truck speed limiter mandate took effect.
Automatic emergency braking is not a new technology either. The
European Union mandated AEB on large trucks back in 2012, requiring all
new trucks to be equipped with it by 2015. Here in the U.S., motor
carriers have been using AEB long enough to establish its effectiveness
and reliability. In fact, one trucking company saw their number of
rear-end collisions decrease by nearly 80 percent from 2003 to 2015
after equipping their fleet with an active system of collision
avoidance and mitigation.
Another large trucking company, performed an internal study over a
30-month period on approximately 12,600 of its trucks to determine the
extent to which a suite of safety technologies (AEB, electronic
stability control (ESC), and lane departure warning) installed on the
trucks in its fleet reduced the frequency of various types of
collisions. The results were clear and compelling: trucks equipped with
the suite of safety systems had a lower crash rate and frequency of
engagement in risky driving behavior compared to vehicles without such
systems; these trucks exhibited a 71 percent reduction in rear-end
collisions and a 63 percent decrease in unsafe following behaviors.
We urge members of the Committee to look at the drastic reductions
in truck crash fatalities in the European Union, which requires both
speed limiters and automatic emergency braking. Listen to the CEOs of
successful companies who will attest to the safety and cost benefits of
equipping their trucks with these technologies. Meet with the survivors
and families of victims of truck crashes that could have been prevented
had these technologies been mandated.
Speed limiters and automatic emergency braking serve as building
blocks to achieving a fully autonomous truck, and, more importantly,
can improve safety today, rather than several years from now.
AV Technology
The deployment of autonomous technology in trucking is both
inevitable and fast approaching. Yet, the rapidity of the technological
advancements in trucking does not absolve the Department of
Transportation of its responsibility to promote safety across an
industry that engages in Interstate commerce on publicly funded roads.
The DOT must go beyond a weak voluntary agreement and develop a
regulatory framework that protects public safety without stymying
innovation.
As we approach a future where driver-assisted and autonomous
commercial motor vehicles will be operating alongside driver-operated
vehicles, it will become increasingly important for the Federal
Government to ensure that the test to determine the efficacy of AV
technology as well as the technology itself are standardized. Failure
to create agreed upon methods and metrics to determine success could
result in trucks operating with unreliable and unsafe technologies and
testing that does not accurately assess whether a technology will
perform as it is intended. This creates two potential problems: (1) a
technology intended to make our roads safer will instead diminish road
safety, and (2) the public's confidence in this technology will erode,
making it more difficult to roll out on a large scale.
No exemptions for trucks
The Truck Safety Coalition supports several recommendations that we
believe will make sure that the rollout of AV technology in trucks is
both safe and smooth:
There should be no exemption for commercial motor vehicles from
Federal legislation regarding the development and deployment of
autonomous vehicle technology. Although trucks and cars should face
different performance and testing standards, Federal oversight for
trucks is critical.
Manufacturers of AV Technology Requirements
AV systems must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards without any exemptions
AV systems must meet or exceed a ``functional safety
standard'' as to be determined by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHSTA)
AV systems must meet or exceed a minimum cybersecurity
standard as to be issued by the Secretary within 3 years of
enactment of this legislation
Submit a detailed report that analyzes the safety
performance of automated driving systems and automated vehicles
Remove from operation any autonomous commercial motor
vehicle with a defect
Determine whether a defect affects one vehicle or if the
defect is fleet-wide
Report all fatal, injury and property damage only crashes
involving driver-assisted and autonomous trucks to NHTSA
Establish a privacy plan
Motor Carrier Requirements
Apply for additional operation authority
An operator with a valid commercial driver's license must be
in the autonomous commercial motor vehicle at all times
The operator shall have an additional endorsement on
his CDL denoting that he has been adequately trained to
manage the AV technologies in the truck
Secretary of Transportation Requirements
Establish a database for autonomous commercial vehicles.
Information should include:
Vehicle's identification number
Manufacturer, make, model and trim information
Level of automation and operational design domain of
each of the vehicle's automated driving systems
Any exemptions from Federal motor vehicle safety
standards granted to the vehicle
Promulgate a regulation on driver engagement
Determine any additional enforcement measures pertaining to
AV technology that state and local law enforcement should
consider during road side inspections
Request and direct additional resources to NHTSA and the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to develop
regulations and execute enforcement efforts relating to AV
technology.
We strongly believe that AV technology has the potential to
eliminate many preventable injuries and needless deaths, but policy-
makers must proceed prudently. Policy-makers should look to ensure that
we are proceeding safely in our pursuit of achieving safe and reliable
AV technology in trucks. We hope to work with members of the Committee
as well as other interests to determine the benchmarks of adequate
testing, the extent of Federal oversight, and the details of safety
standards as we work towards realizing driver assisted and autonomous
trucks that reduce crashes, prevent injuries, and save lives.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to
Colonel Scott G. Hernandez
Question. Mr. Clarke noted in his testimony, that he sees drivers
becoming ``more like airline pilots'', and keeping an eye on the fleet
and managing various aspects of the trucking experience. While I'm
pleased to see that he and other truck manufacturing companies see
truck drivers staying in their jobs in a slightly different role, I do
want to address the larger issue of employment in this workforce. New
Hampshire is home to over 27,000 people who work in the trucking
industry. What kinds of job training and re-training should be
available to these workers? What is the role of industry in helping us
alleviate these challenges?
Answer. While I appreciate the question, the issue is outside my
area of expertise and I would defer to the other expert witnesses on
the panel.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to
Troy Clarke
Question. Mr. Clarke, thank you for your testimony. You note in
your testimony, that you see drivers becoming ``more like airline
pilots'', and keeping an eye on the fleet and managing various aspects
of the trucking experience. While I'm pleased to see that you and other
truck manufacturing companies see truck drivers staying in their jobs
in a slightly different role, I do want to address the larger issue of
employment in this workforce. New Hampshire is home to over 27,000
people who work in the trucking industry. What kinds of job training
and re-training should be available to these workers? What is the role
of industry in helping us alleviate these challenges?
Answer. The industry is already experiencing a driver shortage and
as the American Trucking Association pointed out in their testimony, we
are expecting that shortage to grow to 1 million drivers over the next
decade. Our industry is focused on driver assisted technology that will
help attract new, younger drivers to this noble profession. My
customers continue to express their views that they still see a driver
in the seat of a truck, not the elimination. Regarding training
programs, manufacturers are focused on how do we train drivers to use
this technology and receive the benefits. I believe that we need
training classes, whether through the established CDL process or other
formal training, that ensures that drivers are well equipped to handle
this technology in the safest way possible.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Deborah A.P. Hersman
Distracted Driving. While I was at the hearing there was
significant discussion about the ongoing need to reduce crashes caused
by distracted drivers. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
data show that almost 3,500 people were killed in distraction-related
crashes in 2015--an increase of almost 300 from 2014. I included a
provision in the FAST Act to help more states qualify for Federal
grants to fight distracted driving, but there is still more to be done.
Technology like emergency braking and lane departure warnings can help
reduce distraction-related crashes, but the technology is only deployed
in about ten percent of trucks.
Question. Ms. Hersman, what can be done to increase the deployment
of these technologies in large trucks?
Answer. If we want to see greater penetration of life-saving
technology, we can pursue regulations to require a standard for new
manufacture and/or retrofit, we can encourage or incentivize all
commercial motor vehicle manufacturers to offer AEB as a voluntary
standard, and we can educate operators on the benefits and the return
on investment for the technology so they will elect to purchase only
vehicles with this technology.
NSC recognizes that mandating or regulating safety standards in the
U.S. has not been as prevalent as it once was due to industry
opposition and the lengthy process for finalizing rules, but we are
falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to embracing
technology and adopting standards. The European Union required all new
trucks and buses sold after November 1, 2015 to be equipped with
advanced emergency braking systems and lane departure warning systems.
While these technologies are often available as options--safety should
not be dependent on the operator upgrading their option package--these
lifesaving technologies protect not just the commercial driver, but the
travelling public since 90 percent of fatalities involving large
commercial vehicles are the occupants of passenger cars.
We applaud the voluntary commitment made in March of 2016 by 20
automakers to include automatic emergency braking (AEB) on all personal
vehicles sold in the U.S. by 2022. Toyota has already committed to beat
this date and install the technology by 2018. This model can be
replicated in the commercial motor vehicle industry. As we learned at
the hearing, my fellow witness from Navistar stated that they already
offer AEB as standard on their truck tractors, but not everyone keeps
it as an option. This model can be replicated for other technologies as
well, like lane departure warning and blind spot monitoring.
We appreciate your leadership on distracted driving and your
efforts to engage your colleagues on this important issue--the public
looks to legislators and policymakers to set the standards for
acceptable behavior and passing strong laws sends a message that
distracted driving is not acceptable. The National Safety Council
supports your efforts. Additionally, NSC works with businesses to
eliminate the use of mobile devices behind the wheel. Some of our
member companies have instituted complete cell phone bans--hand-held
AND hands-free--and we encourage all businesses to evaluate such an
option.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to
Deborah A.P. Hersman
Question. Mr. Clarke noted in his testimony, that he sees drivers
becoming ``more like airline pilots'', and keeping an eye on the fleet
and managing various aspects of the trucking experience. While I'm
pleased to see that he and other truck manufacturing companies see
truck drivers staying in their jobs in a slightly different role, I do
want to address the larger issue of employment in this workforce. New
Hampshire is home to over 27,000 people who work in the trucking
industry. What kinds of job training and re-training should be
available to these workers? What is the role of industry in helping us
alleviate these challenges?
Answer. The National Safety Council is committed to eliminating
preventable deaths at work, in homes and communities and on the road.
Unfortunately, the transportation sector is one of the deadliest
occupations. Motor vehicle crashes are also the leading cause of ALL
workplace deaths. It is important to recognize that moving these jobs
from the cab of a truck to a control room could would result in greater
safety on-the-job for these professionals.
Thinking about the driving task, I do not believe that truck
drivers will be forced out of their jobs for the foreseeable future.
Commercial interstate driving along long stretches of controlled-access
highways may be the first sector to see level 4 or 5 trucks, but we
must recognize that some real-time monitoring will be required--whether
in cab or from a remote location. The monitoring, much like controlling
air traffic or operating a drone, will require qualified and trained
professionals. Additionally, when an automated vehicle exits highly
controlled environments to navigate city streets and make deliveries,
it is likely that drivers will be necessary even on basic routes for
the near term. Additionally, the driver plays other important roles,
like verifying the safety of the vehicle before a trip, monitoring
changing conditions and safely securing a load--these functions cannot
be done by a machine today.
As the trucking industry evolves, some new jobs will be created to
help monitor fleet operations and ensure proper vehicle maintenance.
These jobs and perhaps others that we cannot conceive of today, will
likely require a higher level of technical skills. In order to ensure a
smooth transition for these workers, Congress, states and industry
should ensure technical training is widely available, with a special
emphasis on reaching existing truck drivers. State and local programs
already exist that may be good models to consider. Finally, our junior
colleges and technical schools could play an important role in
providing STEM education and targeted training needed to fill these new
roles. Creating high-paying, rewarding and safe jobs is something
everyone can get behind.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Chris Spear
Question. Workforce issues are important to the truck drivers, who
keep our economy moving, and to the companies that rely on their
skilled labor to deliver goods. What steps should Congress take to
address the impacts that automated technologies will have on the
trucking industry?
Answer. Thank you for your question, Senator Nelson. It is
important to remember that one of the main impacts automated technology
will have on the trucking industry and its drivers is the reduction of
crashes. These technologies are also expected to bring benefits to the
trucking industry in productivity, efficiency, and driver health and
wellness. Congress should encourage the development of this technology
and establish a clear leadership role for the Federal Government in
automated truck policy which, where necessary, exercises Federal
preemption to ensure that there is no conflict between Federal and
state regulations. It is critically important to provide certainty to
the developers of automated truck technology that there will not be a
disparate set of state laws, now or in the future, that unnecessarily
impedes the ability of a company to test and operate vehicles with
their technology across state lines and in interstate commerce. This
will allow more on-road data to be collected more quickly, which will
lead to improved system design and better information for making both
regulatory and business decisions, including gaining a better
understanding of how automated technologies will affect the role of the
driver in real-world applications. Expanding the number and duration of
exemptions that NHTSA is authorized to allow from current standards
that prevent new safety technology from being put on the road will also
help in this regard. Congress could also direct FMCSA to review Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and see what might be changed to
account for the new driving environment with automated technology where
the driver may be in the seat but not operating the controls. A better
understanding of how these technologies may benefit the public along
with consideration of how regulations can be changed to take advantage
of the capabilities that this new technology provides will lead to
better policy decisions and the development of a regulatory framework
that help to realize these benefits. Perhaps there can be changes made
in hours of service that would improve productivity without reducing
safety? How should speeds be managed with connected and automated
technology? These are questions that could be answered as we gather
data from real-world testing and operation of vehicles with automated
technology.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Chris Spear
Human Trafficking. I introduced the Combatting Human Trafficking in
Commercial Vehicles Act with Chairman Thune to give truckers more tools
to recognize and report human trafficking which passed the Senate on
September 14. This bill increases coordination of human trafficking
prevention efforts within the Department of Transportation, gives the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration new authority to work with
drivers on education and outreach efforts, and promotes commercial
driver's license training. Truckers are on the front lines in the
battle against human trafficking and we must support them.
Question. Mr. Spear, what steps has the American Trucking
Associations and its members taken to help drivers combat human
trafficking?
Answer. Thank you for the question Senator Klobuchar, and for your
efforts to bring greater attention to the horrific crime of human
trafficking. Let me begin by acknowledging your legislative initiative,
the Combatting Human Trafficking in Vehicles Act. I believe that your
bill, once enacted, will take an important step forward in improving
the Federal coordination of anti-human trafficking efforts, as well as
amplifying the outreach, education and reporting efforts against human
trafficking. It will be a vital tool in efforts to combat this
horrendous crime, a fight that we are all in together. The trucking
industry, legislators, law enforcement and the general public, must
work hand in glove to bring an end to human trafficking.
ATA and its members have long worked with the industry and our
drivers to combat human trafficking. Our drivers are the eyes and ears
of the Nation's highways, and are on the front lines of this fight,
identifying, reporting and prevent human trafficking. ATA serves on the
board of Truckers Against Trafficking, supporting their efforts on
education, information sharing, and amplifying resources to fight human
trafficking. Additionally, ATA's America's Road Team Captains, made up
of a small group of professional truck drivers who share superior
driving skills, remarkable safety records and a strong desire to spread
the word about safety on the highway, travel the country educating the
general public on important trucking safety issues, and also the
realities of human trafficking and how to report it effectively.
Many of ATA's members are also actively involved in the Department
of Homeland Security's Blue Campaign. Furthermore, numerous ATA
members, as well as our federation of 50 state trucking associations,
have made tremendous efforts to increase driver education and training
on how to identify and prevent human trafficking. And finally, in
recognizing the need for greater collaboration between the trucking
industry and law enforcement, ATA intends to convene a summit of
interested parties on November 30th to discuss issues including human
trafficking, and how we can work more closely together to prevent this
terrible crime. These are just some of the efforts ATA and the trucking
industry are taking to combat human trafficking, and we look forward to
continuing to work closely with you and your colleagues, law
enforcement and the good people of our Nation to bring an end to human
trafficking.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to
Chris Spear
Question. Mr. Clarke noted in his testimony, that he sees drivers
becoming ``more like airline pilots'', and keeping an eye on the fleet
and managing various aspects of the trucking experience. While I'm
pleased to see that he and other truck manufacturing companies see
truck drivers staying in their jobs in a slightly different role, I do
want to address the larger issue of employment in this workforce. New
Hampshire is home to over 27,000 people who work in the trucking
industry. What kinds of job training and re-training should be
available to these workers? What is the role of industry in helping us
alleviate these challenges?
Answer. Thank you for your question, Senator Hassan. Because of the
complexity and diversity of the trucking industry, we expect the driver
will retain an important role in trucking for a long time to come, with
automated truck technology applied to improve safety and productivity.
In fact, the trucking industry is currently facing a shortage of
drivers, particularly for long-distance drivers, around 50,000. If
these trends continue, the shortage could hit over 150,000 in a decade,
with projections are that we'll need to hire about 890,000 truck
drivers over the next 10 years. As an industry, we are working hard to
recruit new drivers and retain the excellent drivers we have now.
However, we do not dismiss the importance of considering the potential
impact on the workforce and the need to develop programs that will help
prepare workers with the skills needed for the jobs of the future. We
believe that the application of automated technology in trucking will
center on solutions in which there remains a role for drivers, rather
than a driverless approach. In addition to monitoring the automated
driving systems and manually driving in the cityscape and at loading
docks, drivers will retain their current responsibilities for securing
the cargo, particularly hazardous cargo, as well as for customer
interaction with the shipper and receiver. Trucking companies will
train their employees to operate equipment with the new technology and
likely promote the availability of the advanced technology on their
trucks to attract new and younger workers to the industry. The American
Transportation Research Institute, the not-for-profit research arm of
the trucking industry, recently released a report on how autonomous
technologies will impact the trucking industry. That assessment found
that highly automated trucks will likely draw new, younger drivers into
the trucking industry by better meeting the job expectations of
millennial workers. Additionally, these new technologies are expected
to make drivers safer and more productive, making truck driving a more
attractive career choice, and attracting new people to our industry.
Affected stakeholders from industry, labor and government should
embrace this coming innovation and work together to prepare the
workforce to operate with the new technology. This issue is not unique
to the trucking industry, but applies to drivers of other commercial
and non-commercial vehicles as well as other industries where new
technologies are being introduced that will change the roles and duties
of the workforce. By giving the trucking industry access to the same
preemptions that the autos receive in the Senate Commerce AV START Act
we can address these concerns now and develop the kind of training and
retraining programs that insure that safe vehicle operators remain
behind the steering wheel of all commercial vehicles.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Ken Hall
Question. Workforce issues are important to the truck drivers, who
keep our economy moving, and to the companies that rely on their
skilled labor to deliver goods. What steps should Congress take to
address the impacts that automated technologies will have on the
trucking industry?
Answer. Senator Nelson, the first step Congress should take is to
study this technology in greater detail. No two pieces of automation
technology are exactly the same, so we should not assume that their
impacts on workers will be the same either. Congress should explore in
depth what type of technology will be deployed first, and then create
policies to address the threats each one poses.
In our estimation, downward pressure on wages and the erosion of
basic working conditions and safety may be the most significant impact
drivers feel from this technology. Anything that undercuts the quality
of a truck driver's profession should be a core component of what
Congress Studies. Any policy prescriptions stemming from that
examination must ensure this profession remains a good, middle-class
Sustaining job.
Throughout this process, Congress must also keep in mind that the
biggest threat to workers from Self-driving vehicles may not be job
losses. Drivers who are never in danger of being laid off may have as
much to fear from this technology as anyone. They could face lower
wages, a reduction in benefits, fundamental changes to their work
Schedules, or a longer work day, If a driver is only performing half of
the driving duties he or she once was, or those duties have changed
companies may try to change the Current wage rates. Companies may also
immediately decide to reclassify drivers as ``operators' or ``monitors'
to avoid paying them on a driver's pay-scale.
When examining all the impacts this technology will have on
workers, we should also look past traditional paycheck issues and
examine the other ways it will impact a driver's workday. The health
and Safety of Workers is a key component of this technology that has
largely been ignored. A driver in the cab of an automated truck will
have LiDAR, Sonar, and radar sent through their bodies in massive
quantities. That exposure could last for days on end, and from far more
heavy duty sensors than what will be found in automated passenger cars.
What steps is industry taking to examine the physical effects the
technology may have on the human body? Being able to get through the
workday safely is a core issue facing the driving workforce, so these
types of issues should be treated as ``workforce issues''.
We will work actively with the Committee to identify other issues
that will impact workers. From worker privacy concerns, to the need for
expanded driver training on new vehicles, to worker liability in the
case of a crash, there is a long list of topics that must be examined.
Each one poses its own challenge to the driving workforce, and each
must be scrutinized in detail so that we can create policies to address
them before, not after, this technology is rolled out.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to
Ken Hall
Question. Mr. Clarke noted in his testimony, that he sees drivers
becoming ``more like airline pilots'', and keeping an eye on the fleet
and managing various aspects of the trucking experience. While I'm
pleased to see that he and other truck manufacturing companies see
truck drivers staying in their jobs in a slightly different role, I do
want to address the larger issue of employment in this workforce. New
Hampshire is home to over 27,000 people who work in the trucking
industry. What kinds of job training and re-training should be
available to these workers? What is the role of industry in helping us
alleviate these challenges?
Answer. Senator Hassan, while I'm also pleased to hear manufactures
say there will be a continued role for a driver, they can be of
immediate help by explaining what exactly that new role will be. They
allude to these other responsibilities a driver will have when in the
truck, without ever going into any detail.
The examples they give, like fleet management or dispatching, are
not particularly realistic. Drivers in big fleets don't tend to have
much familiarity with that side of the business, and assigning these
jobs to a driver wouldn't fit into the structure of most large
companies. If those are indeed the new job functions that a driver will
be performing, industry must make crystal clear what the new
expectations of their employees are and provide in depth training. They
must also convey to Congress and Safety regulators how a driver would
be able to actively monitor the truck's self-driving technology while
also performing those new job tasks. Airline pilots are constantly
monitoring autopilot technology even when a plane is ``flying itself''.
We need to make sure that a driver is able to do the same. They can't
be overloaded with these new responsibilities in a way that could
compromise the safety of the vehicle's operation.
What's more, if those manufactures are wrong, and drivers are not
needed in the future, there are massive hurdles that you should be
conscious of when it comes to retraining people in this profession. The
nature of a truck driver's job usually has them out on the road all
day, or for multiple days on end. That makes retraining difficult.
There aren't usually a significant number of drivers in one centralized
location throughout the day who can be pulled into a classroom or other
workshop setting for instruction.
To address this, employees must be given days or weeks off, with
pay, to complete any comprehensive retraining. As I'm sure you would
agree, we cannot accept a situation where millions of drivers are
expected to be retrained on their own dime, or after they've already
been kicked to the curb. It will likely be incumbent on Congress to
compel companies to share in this sacrifice and look out for your
constituents. Our experience shows that companies are unlikely to do
this voluntarily without being compelled to do so.