How Autonomous Vehicles Will Shape the Future of Surface Transportation

Hearing on "How Autonomous Vehicles Will Shape the Future of Surface Transportation" Held by the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, chaired by U.S. Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI) November 19, 2013

Watch the webcast of this hearing Summary of Subject Matter

Summary of the Questioning of the Witnesses (Times are those of the archived webcast)

a. Beginning @ 1:00:45 Chairman Tom Petri (R-WI) asked Administrator Strickland about a side issue: NHTSA's statutory authority to issue regulations concerning portable electronic devices that are brought into a car. Please listen to Administrator Strickland's response. He seems to say that NHTSA is about to issue a ban on “non-built-in” electronic devices in cars. Maybe I'm just super sensitive about this because I spent more than 15 years of my life overseeing the development of “non-built-in” “turn-by-turn” GPS navigation systems. These systems, in particular CoPilot|Live, are substantially better and safer than any of the built-in turn-by-turn navigation system. CoPilot performs better, has more intuitive graphics designed specifically so that the information can be consumed by a very short glance. Once CoPilot is launched, which can be done even before one sits down behind the wheel, there is nothing else for the user to do except conveniently absorb desired information. Never being lost, as well as, always having a perspective on the road ahead deliver substantial anxiety relief to the driver, which contributes to safety. On top of the dash is the right place for these devices because even during a quick glance, one's peripheral vision remains on the road ahead. Automatic delivery of real-time traffic, weather and other navigation-based services using conventional cellular “V2I” wireless communications, which CoPilot has been doing for years, further reduce fatigue and the stress of driving. To have the public sector summarily destroy this innovative business seems unconscionable. I should also point out that I no longer have any financial interest in CoPilot or any other portable in-car device.

Chairman Petri's question seems to suggest that this impending regulation has been prompted by the "automotive industry" that wants to regain the "carPhone" by banning the iPhone. Could it also be trying to make sure that Google’s Self-Driving technology doesn't evolve into the "iPhone8" (which might have a stereo camera, links to other deployable radars and imaging systems as well as the real-time in-car throttle, brake and steering control algorithms that could covert a conventional car into an instant “Level-3 driverless car”? Hmmm…? MobilEye now sells its lane and obstacle/pedestrian detection system for under $850. in quantity. Auto manufacturers may well lose their monopoly on built-in lane keeping and crash avoidance systems just as they lost their monopoly on the carPhone years ago. Remember, once upon a time, carPhones were large, clunky and had to be built-in, then what???

b. Beginning @ 1:04:22 Administrator Strickland responds: "The goal for us ultimately, in the fight against distracted driving, is... a technological breakthrough being able to identify the driver from the passenger, having the driver interlock their device to allow a safe display while letting the passengers play any games they want". Wow!!! One would have hoped that his "ultimately in the fight against distracted driving" would be the development of Level 3 SmartDrivingCar technologies that would allow the driver to do the same things as the other passengers in the car. Since the driver doesn’t need to do what the passenger can do all the time, it sure would be nice if he/she could do it some of the time. Such a concept was completely absent in this hearing. The focus was on a near term automation concept that requires the driver to remain vigilant all of the time (Level 2) or a futuristic far-out concept of a driverless car (Level 4). No hint at Level 3, where the driver might be able to relax some of the time. As I will point out later, Level 3 may be the only Level that is attractive to the consuming public. People who buy cars like to drive (at least some of the time). So Level 4 is not compelling. Safety has never really sold cars, otherwise we would all be driving Volvos. Safety is neutral to most because most believe they are good drivers and better than most. So Level 2 is uninteresting. People want to "text" and are suckers to being distracted. If offered a technology that would allow them to text, even just some of the time, even only when the system said its OK, my hunch is that they would rush to the showroom and buy it because they would benefit from this feature essentially every time they drove their Level 3 car. The positive reinforcement of the pleasure of the “text” would be as strong as that delivered by the Corinthian Leather every time you gets behind the wheel; or the fine audio every time the music is played; or the rush every time you really step on the gas. Unfortunately, Level 3 was not on Strickland's radar screen nor on any of the witness'.

c. Beginning @ 1:05:05 Chairman Petri asks Mr. Robinson (GM) about improved lane marking and why they are important. The response is that the vision systems need these. He goes on to say, if there are no lane markings then (@1:06:05) "that's why the driver is so important at all times". Hmmm...Is Mr. Robinson suggesting that a human driver can invent lane markings when none exists? I hope not. I know I can’t. Lane and road edge markings are a necessary element of roadways irrespective of who or what is doing the driving. Requiring the driver to take over when no lane markings exist is simply shifting the responsibility from one entity to another. It is not necessarily adding improved capabilities. Vanity aside, the driver may well be more clueless in locating the lane than the sensors. In fact, better paint and better road edge markings may enhance human driver performance more than current image processing systems. We need to seriously assess where/when the driver is an asset or a liability. In places and at time when the driver is a liability we should allow/encourage Level 3.

d. Beginning @ 1:08:10 Mr. Albio Sires (D, NJ) appropriately suggests that NYC would be a very hard place for these systems (unless one created a properly constrained environment. An “auto-free” pedestrian- friendly 42nd Street might be such a place if the driverless vehicles are also low speed (under 25 mph)) He raised proper concerns about being tracked (another reason why V2V may be DoA). He also asks Mr. Steudle (ASHTO) how much retrofitting of the highways is going to be required. His answer was all about what V2V needs. One can only imply that vehicle automation’s needs are very little (paint (good lane and road edge markings) and

legible signs each of which also enhances conventional driving). This was not said. I imply it here. At the end, Mr. Sires asks a very good question about the impact on jobs. The witnesses seem ill prepared to offer a good answer.

e. Beginning @ 1:12:00 Mr. Reid Ribble (R, WI) asks really good and probing questions about the possible sharing of the 5.9 GHz bandwidth with WiFi. For example, he asks He does not get a good answer.

f. Beginning @ 1:22:30 Mr. Richard Hanna (R, NY) started with a Basic Question: “What are the incentives for a consumer to spend more money on a car that they need to be equally as alert in as a conventional car?” None of the witnesses answered the question! None of them offered up the concept that a Level 3 car would deliver real value by allowing the driver to be less attentive. No witness went there. Moreover, no witness suggested that the safety benefits of even “always-on” Level 2 may be so great that insurance rebates would make up the cost of the Level-2 collision avoidance feature. The concept that the cost of {a Level 2 car + insurance} may be less than the cost of a {conventional car + insurance} was NOT mentioned. Instead, Dr. Schank offered up "the car parks itself as a value". Congressman Hanna didn't buy it.

g. Beginning @ 1:27:45 Mr. Steve Cohen (D, TN) asked a simple question about how does the car know about parking regulations. This elicited a response that the car could go home and park itself to which Congressman Cohen implied that "...it mitigates itself against saving fuel..". True and not pretty! My view is that Levels 1-2 benefit safety a great deal, deliver only marginal personal good (some relief of driver anxiety and workload, and some additional travel enjoyment) and are neutral on societal good (reduction of energy, environment and congestion). Level 3 adds more safety and really helps personal utility, but that may lead to more sub-urban sprawl. Level 4, in my opinion has so little consumer appeal over that it will not be a consumer success relative to a Level 3 vehicle. It has no incremental safety enhancement (Level 3 already takes the driver out of the loop). Its ability to go park itself adds little marginal personal value. Where it does it exacerbates energy, environment and congestion. However, Level 4 in a commercial fleet context has the opportunity to drastically change the economics of ride-sharing; accordingly, the business of public transportation/mobility. It can offer mobility on demand, 7x24x365, thus alleviating the need to own one's own personal vehicle. The operation and management of such a fleet of vehicles in a way that accommodates and encourages ride-sharing will make mobility more affordable. It will drastically reduce energy and pollution, and eliminate congestion. The issue of parking (the temporary storage of an empty car) will no longer be a concern of the chauffeured public. These advances will require no substantial change in the roadway infrastructure other than a little paint and filled potholes.

h. Beginning @ 1:33:14 Mr. Rodney Davis (R, IL) brought up the issue of the three (3) Tesla car fires (2 in US, 1 in Mexico) to which Mr. Strickland responded that NHTSA has initiated an investigation. Tesla is cooperating. We should closely watch how this investigation evolves. We should all learn from this experience. We are going to go through it at some time because SmartDriving technologies will not eliminate all accidents. We will need to properly understand and respond the first few; else, we will not advance any farther. With respect to these technologies, Congressman Davis’ concerns were focused on rural areas. Unfortunately, no one mentioned that these technologies might well deliver their earliest benefits in the rural areas. Many accidents in rural areas are caused by road departures and animal strikes. Lane Centering can eliminate road departures (where good paint exists) and sensors may well be able to more reliably detect animals earlier, thus avoiding some strikes. Some will still occur where Physics doesn't afford a collision-avoiding maneuver and there is no prospect that all wild animals will have A2I (Animal-to-Infrastructure) ;-)

i. Beginning @ 1:39:00 Mrs. Ann Kirkpatrick (D, NV) described how Nevada has been a leader in this field and "... appreciates that the government has taken an interest in this technology…” and asked… “what should be included in the next transportation legislation?". The response was more research. No one said: "more paint", even though Nissan has publicly stated that better lane markings and road edge delineations are their top request. Mr. Robinson of GM repeated a similar request in his prepared statement. I guess that paint is so cheap and easy it falls through the crack of major legislation.

j. Beginning @ 1:43:30 Mr. Roger Williams (R, TX) begins by informing the witnesses that "#1, I'm from Texas. #2, I'm a car dealer..." Also, he states @ 1:44:00 "Tesla has a checkered history in Texas." Also @1:44:53 he "...appreciates (GM's) comments about let the market work, make what the customers want, and the dealers want to sell and work against frivolous litigation." @ 1:44:00 he asks about insurance. None of the respondents suggested that the improved safety means that expected liabilities will decrease so that insurance savings will pay for part if not all of the technology. Then @ 1:46:00 he states: "...Dr. Shank...I would just say this to you, $100, 000. is a lot of money for one car. The car business is a volume business.... That's a scary number. You'll have to work on that. the other thing ... in Texas, ... in all seriousness...something like this is going to have to pull a horse trailer...and I was not happy with your testimony when you talked about it might put fewer vehicles on the road. That is not what Mr. Robinson and I want to hear, I think, when you are in the business...Cost is going to be important, how we are going to insure it,... and I do think that this will actually add jobs. "

k. Beginning @ 1:48:00 Chairman Tom Petri (R-WI) " for the commercial trucking industry... clearly this will make it easy for drivers...will this alleviate hours-of-service regulations...if the concern is safety and fatigue and the technology can reduce stress on the driver and have the driver less than full time driving … would

that provide an opportunity for us to modify the hours-of-service regulations? Can we have our cake and eat it too... have greater safety and greater productivity. We can have zero fatalities by just banning cars and trucks... That's not the way to do it!" Hmmm. Great comment, but all the witnesses punted! Strickland to the FMCA and others said nothing. This is the tangible benefit of Level 3 in commercial vehicles but no one picked up on it. The word Google was finally uttered at 2:01:40.

l. Beginning @ 1:56:10 Ranking Member Eleanor Norton (D-DC). The word Google was finally uttered at 2:01:40. Then @ 2:06:00 Congresswoman Norton gave possibly the best advice:" Build the car, then we'll learn what we have to do to regulate it!" I agree. How much damage could we possibly do anyway. It is good that we didn’t mandate airbags in 1908, else we would have never had a Model T Ford.

Ended @ 2:06:30 Back to SmartDrivingCars Alain