COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
joint with the
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING
STATE CAPITOL HARRISBURG, PA
NORTH OFFICE BUILDING HEARING ROOM 1
TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2 017 9:30 A.M.
PRESENTATION ON HIGHLY AUTOMATED VEHICLES (HAV) TESTING LEGISLATION
HOUSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN TAYLOR, MAJORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE ROSEMARY BROWN HONORABLE LYNDA SCHLEGEL CULVER HONORABLE MINDY FEE HONORABLE KATE HARPER HONORABLE JOHN LAWRENCE HONORABLE JIM MARSHALL HONORABLE MICHAEL PEIFER HONORABLE MARGUERITE QUINN HONORABLE MICHAEL REESE HONORABLE GREG ROTHMAN HONORABLE WILLIAM KELLER, DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN HONORABLE MARIA DONATUCCI HONORABLE WILLIAM KORTZ HONORABLE ROB MATZIE HONORABLE ED NEILSON HONORABLE PERRY WARREN 2
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN C. RAFFERTY, MAJORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE CAMERA BARTOLOTTA HONORABLE MARIO M. SCAVELLO HONORABLE PATRICK J. STEFANO HONORABLE RANDY VULAKOVICH HONORABLE JOHN P. SABATINA, JR., DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN HONORABLE JAMES R. BREWSTER
Pennsylvania House of Representatives Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 3
HOUSE COMMITTEE STAFF PRESENT: ERIC BUGAILE MAJORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GREG ROTHMAN MAJORITY RESEARCH ANALYST NANCY COLE MAJORITY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
MEREDITH BIGGICA DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KYLE WAGONSELLER DEMOCRATIC RESEARCH ANALYST
SENATE COMMITTEE STAFF PRESENT: NOLAN RITCHIE MAJORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CECILIA BOYER MAJORITY SECRETARY 4
I N D E X
TESTIFIERS
~k ~k ~k
NAME PAGE
RAJ RAJKUMAR PROFESSOR, ELECTRICAL & COMPUTER ENGINEERING DEPT., ROBOTICS INSTITUTE, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY...... 11
BEN HUSCH DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES...... 25
KURT MYERS DEPUTY SECRETARY, DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVICES, ACCOMPANIED BY JASON SHARP, ESQ. EXECUTIVE DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL; AND MARK KOPKO MANAGER OF ADVANCE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY, PA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION...... 48
EDWARD HOKE DIRECTOR OF PATROL, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE...... 58
SHARI SHAPIRO SENIOR MANAGER OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE, UBER...... 82
CHAN LIEU POLICY ADVISOR, SELF-DRIVING COALITION FOR SAFER STREETS...... 87
JEFFREY PERRY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, GENERAL MOTORS...... 91
DAMON SHELBY PORTER DIRECTOR OF STATE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, GLOBAL AUTOMAKERS...... 95 5
I N D E X
TESTIFIERS (Cont’d)
~k k k
NAME PAGE
WAYNE WEIKEL SENIOR DIRECTOR OF STATE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS...... 101
SAMUEL MARSHALL PRESIDENT AND CEO, INSURANCE FEDERATION OF PENNSYLVANIA...... 120
SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY
~k ~k ~k
(See submitted written testimony and handouts online.) 6
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 ~k ~k ~k
3 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Good morning,
4 ladies and gentlemen. I didn’t bring my gavel so don’t
5 make me go get it. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
6 Call to order the first joint hearing of the 2017/2018
7 session of the Senate and House Transportation Committees.
8 The four Chairs welcome you. Senator Sabatina will be with
9 us very shortly.
10 Chairman Taylor and Democratic Chair Keller and
11 I, John Rafferty, welcome you to today’s hearing. It’s a
12 quite lengthy agenda. As always, w e ’ll continue to try to
13 be on time.
14 If you feel like you would like to have got
15 something in and we didn’t give you the time, you can
16 submit it to writing through the four Chairs’ offices, and
17 if there’s questions that the Members didn’t get to, they
18 can submit them to us and we will get them to the
19 respective testifiers and they can submit their testimony.
20 The purpose of today’s hearing it to collect
21 feedback on the HAV testing in Pennsylvania with a focus on
22 Senate Bill 427. Senator Vulakovich is the prime sponsor
23 of that bill. We’ve been working very closely with the
24 City of Pittsburgh with some of this technology in their
25 region. They’ve been at the forefront. And w e ’d like to 7
1 thank the City of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University
2 for showcasing the HAVs outside on North Street until one
3 o ’clock today. Carnegie Mellon and Penn State University
4 also have tables here in the hallway outside showcasing the
5 HAV vehicles.
6 Note there’s additional written testimony
7 provided today by the National Highway Traffic Safety
8 Administration, Pennsylvania AAA Federation, Ford Motor
9 Company, and George Mason University. Pittsburgh was
10 unable to be with us today, but again, we appreciate the
11 city’s cooperation in this regard on the HAV vehicles.
12 Pennsylvania is considered a national and
13 international leader in HAV technology due to the
14 significant advancements particularly in the Pittsburgh
15 region. So commend western PA for their leadership.
16 This is a hearing. There’ll be no action items
17 taken. Members will be in and out all day. There are a
18 bunch of other Committee meetings. In fact, at 11:30 this
19 morning there are a number of us here on the panel who will
20 leave to attend the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting,
21 myself included, and will return for the balance of the
22 hearing. So thank you for your cooperation and your
23 patience.
24 The Chair recognizes Senator Taylor -- I ’m sorry,
25 Representative Taylor. You know, I demoted you there. I 8
1 demoted you.
2 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning,
3 everyone. Thank you, Senator Rafferty. We're glad to be
4 here with you and your Senate colleagues.
5 This is an issue that we've been exposed to a
6 little bit last session. In the House we had
7 Representative Marshall's bill. We've all been in various
8 phases of watching testing and being at CMU over the years.
9 I think it's now time for Pennsylvania to get down to
10 business to get some clear guidelines of what we can and
11 can't do.
12 On our Committee, to show you how we're always
13 trying to catch up with the times in terms of Committee
14 structure, we don't have a Subcommittee on this technology.
15 If we did, our colleague, Representative Rothman, would be
16 that guy. He's got a particular interest, and I'm sure
17 you'll hear from him in a variety of ways with some
18 questions as we move forward. He's going to be one of the
19 Members we rely on on this issue.
20 But with that, Senator, thanks.
21 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
22 Chairman.
23 Chairman Keller.
24 HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you,
25 Senator. I also want to thank you for having this hearing. 9
1 You know, the purpose of hearings are to educate the
2 Members, and for one, I ’m one Member that really has to be
3 educated on this. This new technology I think it’s the
4 future in transportation, and I ’m very glad w e ’re here
5 today. And hopefully, w e ’ll learn a lot today from this
6 hearing. Thank you.
7 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: A few
8 comments. The prime sponsor of Senate Bill 427, Senator
9 Vulakovich.
10 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: I think just glad to be here
11 today to learn a little bit to get the discussion further
12 along, move it further along. We got a bill out there,
13 myself and Representative Marshall. W e ’ll work together on
14 this piece of legislation. It’s very important for the
15 future. And w e ’ll see where we can come together.
16 So with that, because of limited time, you know,
17 Mr. Chairman, we have to leave maybe before it’s over and
18 the House has session at 11:00. So I ’m going to save my
19 remarks for later on. Thank you.
20 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: The Chair
21 thanks the Senator.
22 Before we begin, we will bring up a number of
23 people together for panel discussions. You make sure you
24 hit the button. The green light goes on your microphone.
25 That way everybody’s happy we can hear you. And before we 10
1 begin though with that, we're going to ask the Members to
2 introduce themselves. I'll begin with Representative
3 Harper if you would, please.
4 REPRESENTATIVE HARPER: Representative Harper,
5 61st District, Montgomery County.
6 REPRESENTATIVE FEE: Representative Mindy Fee,
7 37th District, northern Lancaster County.
8 REPRESENTATIVE CULVER: Representative Lynda
9 Culver, Northumberland and Snyder Counties.
10 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: Representative Mike Reese,
11 59th Legislative District, including portions of
12 Westmoreland and Somerset Counties.
13 REPRESENTATIVE MARSHALL: Representative Jim
14 Marshall, 14th District, Beaver and Butler Counties.
15 REPRESENTATIVE MATZIE: Rob Matzie, 16th
16 District, Beaver and Allegheny County.
17 REPRESENTATIVE KORTZ: Good morning.
18 Representative Bill Kortz, 38th District, Allegheny County.
19 REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Good morning. Maria
20 Donatucci, 185th District, Philadelphia and Delaware
21 Counties.
22 HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN KELLER: Good morning.
23 Bill Keller. I represent the 184th District in south
24 Philadelphia.
25 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Chairman John 11
1 Taylor, Philadelphia.
2 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Chairman John
3 Rafferty, 44th Senatorial District.
4 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Senator Randy Vulakovich,
5 Allegheny County, which includes the City of Pittsburgh.
6 REPRESENTATIVE ROTHMAN: Representative Greg
7 Rothman, the 87th District, Cumberland County.
8 SENATOR STEFANO: Senator Pat Stefano, 32nd
9 District, Fayette, Somerset, and Westmoreland Counties.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Good morning.
11 Representative Rosemary Brown, 189th District, Monroe and
12 Pike Counties.
13 REPRESENTATIVE WARREN: Hi. Representative Perry
14 Warren, 31st District, Bucks County.
15 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you all
16 very much. Our first testifier is Dr. -- if I
17 mispronounce, please let me know -- Raj Rajkumar. Did I do
18 it right, Doctor?
19 DR. RAJKUMAR: Yes.
20 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you.
21 Please. The doctor is a Professor of Electrical and
22 Computer Engineering Department of Robotics Institute,
23 Carnegie Mellon. Thank you, Doctor. If you will.
24 DR. RAJKUMAR: Chairman Rafferty, Chairman
25 Taylor, Chairman Keller, and respected Members of the joint 12
1 Committee, it is an honor to be here to give you my
2 testimony.
3 Automobiles are an integral part of our society
4 and economy. Highly automated vehicle technologies are
5 expected to yield major societal benefits. About 42,000
6 people died from automotive crashes in the U.S. last year
7 with 94 percent of these crashes attributable to human
8 error. If vehicles drive themselves, they will not be
9 distracted, and the number of crashes, injuries, and
10 fatalities is expected to drop dramatically.
11 Secondly, the average American commutes to and
12 from work 51 minutes every workday, and we are simply stuck
13 in traffic for about 35 hours per year on the average. If
14 our vehicles can be self-driving, we can enjoy the benefits
15 of a virtual chauffeur and be productive during our
16 journeys.
17 The elderly often living alone, when they lose
18 their driver’s licenses also lose their mobility options,
19 independence, and their quality of life. There are also
20 1.5 million legally blind and more than 5 million
21 physically disabled people in the U.S. who cannot drive.
22 These highly disadvantaged groups will benefit
23 significantly from being able to travel independently.
24 Some of these benefits are many years away.
25 However, highly automated vehicles will reduce the 13
1 intensity of crashes and their negative outcomes sooner
2 than many of us think.
3 Carnegie Mellon University has been a birthplace
4 of highly automated vehicles with work on campus dating
5 back to the early 1980s. CMU and Pittsburgh have occupied
6 a special place on the stage since then. Our team from CMU
7 won the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge. This global
8 competition required vehicles without anybody in them to
9 travel 60 miles in fewer than six hours interacting with
10 other fully autonomous and human-driven vehicles while
11 following the rules of the road.
12 CMU has been working with General Motors R&D for
13 the past 17 years on making vehicles smarter and more than
14 10 years on vehicle automation. Google's project on self
15 driving vehicles literally started when they hired a key
16 person from our CMU team and some experts from other teams.
17 Delphi, a global tier 1 automotive supplier
18 acquired a Pittsburgh startup county I founded named
19 Ottomatika, which developed AI software for self-driving
20 vehicles. Ottomatika continues to operate in Pittsburgh.
21 Uber came to Pittsburgh after recruiting
22 extensively at CMU and made Pittsburgh the first national
23 testbed for self-driving shared vehicles.
24 Ford recently announced up to a billion dollars
25 in investments in Pittsburgh's Argo AI, founded by a CMU 14
1 alumnus and an ex-employee.
2 Also, thanks to a proposal from CMU, there is now
3 a Smart Belt Coalition that has brought together the States
4 of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania with the goal of
5 facilitating and deploying connected and automated vehicles
6 that work seamlessly across State borders. Our collective
7 mission is to change the longstanding narrative of a Rust
8 Belt and transform our region into a Smart Belt.
9 We at CMU are also proposing a new center of
10 excellence called CADRE, Connected and Automated Driving
11 Research and Engineering. This center’s goal is to develop
12 the next generation of highly automated vehicles that use
13 automotive-grade components with the same degree of safety,
14 quality, and reliability that we expect when we buy a car
15 today. Additional research and development, along with
16 extensive testing, are required to reach this goal. A
17 center for the future of work will also study the impact of
18 automation on employment and propose remedies.
19 The Society for Automotive Engineers, SAE in
20 short, has defined five levels of degrees of automation.
21 Level 0 is no automation. A human driver is responsible
22 for all vehicle operations.
23 Level 1 represents some driver assistance.
24 Either acceleration or steering in specific driving
25 contexts is performed by a driver assistant component in 15
1 the car. Cruise control is an example of level 1
2 operations.
3 Level 2 represents partial automation. Both
4 steering and acceleration are performed by the vehicle in
5 specific driving contexts. Adaptive cruise control with
6 lane-keeping on the highway is an example of this
7 particular capabilities. The operator must explicitly
8 intervene when necessary.
9 Level 3 represents conditional automation. This
10 vehicle drives itself completely in specific driving
11 contexts, but a human is expected to intervene when called
12 for. In other words, the human operator must be paying
13 attention and be ready to grab control at any time.
14 Level 4 represents high automation. The vehicle
15 drives itself completely in particular driving contexts
16 even if the human is not paying attention.
17 Level 5 is full automation. The vehicle can
18 drive itself completely from the starting point to the
19 destination on all roads and under all environmental
20 conditions that a normal licensed driver can handle. No
21 human intervention or supervision is required.
22 There are three fundamental considerations for
23 the Legislature. The first is public safety. Driving is a
24 very complex activity where drivers consume and process
25 enormous amounts of sensory information, make decisions, 16
1 and actuate the steering wheel and the pedals. We use
2 experience, common sense, instincts, and planning. But we
3 are also conditioned to be distracted. Technology can make
4 up for more than our distractions but cannot match our
5 other strengths for quite some time to come. The real-
6 world complexity of different weather, lighting, and road
7 conditions, as well as the dynamic chaos of urban traffic,
8 can and does overwhelm today’s technological capabilities.
9 The second is technological innovation. While
10 there is quite some distance to reach full automation, we
11 have come a long way since 2007’s DARPA Urban Challenge.
12 With the breadth and depth of activities at companies and
13 universities like ours and in locations like Pittsburgh,
14 innovation is progressing rapidly. PennDOT, for example,
15 has been a national leader employing smart traffic light
16 technologies out on the capital here and in Pittsburgh.
17 These traffic lights can talk to highly automated
18 vehicles making traversal of accident-prone intersections
19 safer and more reliable. This is referred to as vehicle-
20 to-infrastructure technology, or V2I in short. Just like
21 our phones and laptop computers can talk to each other
22 wirelessly, vehicles can also talk to one another using
23 vehicle-to-vehicle communications, or V2V. Up to 80
24 percent of automotive crashes can be prevented or at least
25 mitigated using this technology. Vehicles would also be 17
1 able to talk to pedestrians, bicyclists, and their
2 smartphones, improving safety for all. PennDOT is at this
3 leading edge. Their continued deployments will make our
4 transportation infrastructure smarter and safer.
5 The third is economic development. The market
6 size for highly automated vehicles is conservatively
7 estimated to be several hundreds of billion dollars per
8 year. Pittsburgh was a birthplace of this technology, and
9 we need to invest in and leverage this innovation culture
10 to continue our renaissance. If the HAV ecosystem is not
11 allowed to develop here in our State, it will happen
12 elsewhere. In fact, Singapore became the first country on
13 the planet to have the public ride self-driven taxis.
14 Highly automated vehicles require myriad
15 components, sensors, computers, and software. These
16 computers need to be built, tested, diagnosed, and
17 repaired, creating many new higher-paying jobs. HAVs can
18 also provide access to transportation to disadvantaged
19 neighborhoods and rural communities, making our
20 Commonwealth's cities smarter and communities more
21 connected to opportunities. Better access to health care
22 and higher safety would also be major benefits.
23 Let me make some recommendations if I may on
24 legislation. First, we need to move in an enabling
25 direction. Pennsylvania laws have enabled us at CMU to 18
1 test our self-driving Cadillac in Pittsburgh, Allegheny
2 County, and in Harrisburg since 2011. It has been legal to
3 do such testing as long as there is a licensed operator in
4 the driver’s seat. Without this framework, our development
5 and testing would have been significantly hampered. Any
6 new legislation that you pass must in the very least not
7 take away this feature.
8 The question for the legislation is which
9 additional new testing and deployment modalities should be
10 permitted. On-road testing under real-world traffic
11 conditions is absolutely essential to gaining experience
12 and fixing problems.
13 Secondly, our Commonwealth institutions like CMU
14 have been globally recognized leaders in HAVs and must
15 continue to be. We can hold back and make testing and
16 eventual deployment onerous or prohibited in our
17 Commonwealth. Unfortunately, this will not stall the
18 technology. There is intense competition from States like
19 California, Nevada, and Michigan. California is actively
20 considering allowing fully automated vehicles without any
21 operator in the driver’s seat. We will merely end up
22 losing jobs and a large market. Conversely, we can move
23 forward, be open to innovation. We must open up new
24 markets, create new jobs, and emerge as winners in the
25 aggregate. 19
1 Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, HAV
2 legislation would benefit tremendously from built-in
3 flexibility. Since the technology is progressing rapidly,
4 we will gain by not cornering ourselves into a rigid and
5 inflexible position. We need to be able to relax
6 constraints when the technology proves itself to be
7 reliable. At the same time, if mishaps and harmful
8 incidents occur more frequently than imagined, we may need
9 to impose some restrictions.
10 The regulatory guidance issued by the U.S.
11 Department of Transportation in 2016 called for the Federal
12 regulatory framework to be updated every year. This was a
13 conscious and deliberate attempt to be responsive to future
14 developments. Similar flexibility here in Pennsylvania
15 will be priceless.
16 In conclusion, HAV technology that our
17 Commonwealth played a major role in creating and nurturing
18 is expected to create big new markets. Any legislation
19 must continue to enable this technology to be tested on
20 public roads. A path can also be laid out for how the
21 technology can be deployed in the due course of time.
22 However, public safety cannot and should not be
23 compromised. Rules, instead of being set in stone, can
24 built in flexibility so that any restrictions can either be
25 relaxed or strengthened as developments warrant. 20
1 I thank you for the opportunity and would be
2 happy to answer any questions.
3 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
4 Doctor. Thank you for that informative report.
5 Questions for the doctor?
6 Senator Vulakovich.
7 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Good morning, Doctor.
8 Where do you think we stand as far as, you know,
9 the area of Pittsburgh, for example, with CMU, the
10 relationship that they have with Uber? Compare it to where
11 they’re at in California. You say they’re already doing
12 the same thing in California?
13 DR. RAJKUMAR: California has been very
14 aggressive I guess because they have Silicon Valley out
15 there. Pretty much all the global carmakers have a
16 physical presence there, so California wants to continue to
17 be perceived and in reality be the leading place for the
18 development of this technology. What we would like to see
19 happen is that Pennsylvania actually keep pace and then
20 enable further testing on our roads so that the technology
21 can actually blossom and we can leverage the benefits of
22 what was created here.
23 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Okay. One other question.
24 Why do you think Uber came here and selected the City of
25 Pittsburgh and to work with CMU? 21
1 DR. RAJKUMAR: My understanding of the history is
2 the following, Senator Vulakovich: Uber at some point in
3 time got worried that Google with all the investment
4 they’ve been making in HAVs could actually get into the
5 car-sharing space, and then they could actually literally
6 eat Uber’s lunch by getting into Uber’s market. So they
7 actually looked around, I believe, to basically look for
8 expertise to develop their own in-house technology,
9 concluded that Pittsburgh’s the place to be thanks to CMU,
10 hired about 42 people, 42 staff members from campus, and
11 that’s how they launched their Advanced Technology Center
12 in Pittsburgh and became -- I guess started the first
13 national testing of autonomous shared vehicles in
14 Pittsburgh.
15 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Okay. Thank you, Mr.
16 Chairman.
17 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: You’re
18 welcome.
19 Representative Rothman.
20 REPRESENTATIVE ROTHMAN: Thank you, Doctor. And
21 we appreciate your testimony.
22 If we had the legislation in place, how far along
23 are we in technology to get to a level 5 automation in
24 Pennsylvania?
25 DR. RAJKUMAR: In my estimate, we are quite a few 22
1 years away. I guess I like to say about 10 years or so.
2 So I think full automation is quite a few years away
3 because driving is perhaps the most complex activity that
4 most adults on the planet engage in. There's a continuous
5 flow of huge volumes of information that we sense, and
6 we're actually processing the information, making
7 decisions, and then using our limbs to turn the steering
8 wheel and such. And then meanwhile, we actually use our
9 intuition, common sense when things happen that we have
10 never, ever seen before. So it’s going to take quite some
11 time for us to teach our computers, program the computers
12 to basically do something similar but at the same time as
13 the level 3, level 4 technologies can actually begin to be
14 deployed in the coming years.
15 We already have high-end cars that can park
16 themselves. We already have capabilities from Tesla and
17 then GM will have a capability called super cruise where
18 the vehicle can drive itself on the highways with a human
19 paying attention. So I think we should be trying to
20 facilitate further deployments like those and accumulate
21 experience so that level 5 will be reached sooner rather
22 than later.
23 REPRESENTATIVE ROTHMAN: Thank you. Just one
24 comment. Earlier in your testimony you talked about 42,000
25 Americans dying. I just did some calculation. Even if you 23
1 use the 94 percent human error, that’s the equivalent of a
2 full 747 falling out of the sky and crashing every other
3 day. And I think that this technology to save lives is
4 huge, too. If that were the case, we would stop all air
5 travel immediately and try to fix it.
6 So thank you for your testimony today.
7 DR. RAJKUMAR: Thank you, sir.
8 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
9 Representative.
10 Chairman Keller.
11 HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you,
12 Mr. Chairman.
13 Doctor, I ’m surprised. I thought to reach level
14 5 it would be more than 10 years, so you’re really on track
15 for that 10-year mark?
16 DR. RAJKUMAR: I do agree, but I think technology
17 has been progressing exponentially in the past several
18 years, so we should basically allow this technology to gain
19 a foothold.
20 I think there are really different degrees of
21 deployment. You can imagine deployment happening in what
22 are called geographically fenced regions where there are no
23 pedestrians or bicyclists and the like. Deployment happens
24 first there, and then maybe in rural areas and then wide-
25 open areas like Arizona, Nevada, and I guess central 24
1 Pennsylvania. And then a later goal would be being able to
2 drive amidst the crazy taxis in downtown Manhattan during
3 peak hour. And then much farther away is basically driving
4 in countries like India and south Asia.
5 HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you.
6 One more question. Because this is all new technology and
7 a new type of vehicle, what type of insurance do you need
8 on the cars while you’re testing them?
9 DR. RAJKUMAR: So right now basically actually we
10 carry our own insurance. So CMU basically -- having been a
11 pioneer in this space, we basically support the development
12 and the testing of the technology.
13 HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN KELLER: You’re self
14 insured?
15 DR. RAJKUMAR: Correct.
16 HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you.
17 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: You’re
19 welcome, Representative.
20 Senator Stefano.
21 SENATOR STEFANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
22 you, Doctor.
23 Based on your levels of automation that you’ve
24 indicated, where do you think you’re currently testing in
25 this 0 to 5? What level are you currently testing in, and 25
1 how long do you think we get to level 5 and beyond?
2 DR. RAJKUMAR: So these are definitions and they
3 can be interpreted differently. Depending upon how you
4 interpret, we are either in level 2 or level 3. I like to
5 say basically with this really very complex, very broad
6 spectrum, you could say we are at level 3.3, for example.
7 SENATOR STEFANO: All right. Thank you. Thank
8 you, Mr. Chairman.
9 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
10 Senator.
11 Any further questions?
12 Thank you, Doctor, for your testimony. We much
13 appreciate it, and have a great day. And thank you for
14 Carnegie Mellon being one of the premier leaders in this
15 field. So thank you.
16 DR. RAJKUMAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Next to
18 testify on a national perspective on HAV testing is Mr. Ben
19 Husch. Ben is a Director of National Resources and
20 Infrastructure Committee, National Conference of State
21 Legislators. Welcome, sir. Please make sure you hit the
22 button. A green light goes on, and w e ’ll be ready to roll.
23 Thank you. The floor is yours, Ben.
24 MR. HUSCH: Chairman Rafferty, Minority Chairman
25 Sabatina, Chairman Taylor, Democratic Chair Keller, and 26
1 Members of both the Senate Transportation Committee and
2 House Transportation Committee. Good morning and thank you
3 for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am Ben
4 Husch with the National Conference of State Legislatures.
5 I serve as the Policy Director for NCSL’s Natural Resources
6 and Infrastructure Committee, which covers State-Federal
7 transportation public policy issues.
8 I ’d like to take just a few minutes to give you
9 an update on what is going on across the country regarding
10 autonomous vehicles. I ’d like to start with a quick
11 overview of what we are seeing in the States. I have
12 limited my written remarks to be cognizant of my allotted
13 time, but NCSL has put together a very detailed database of
14 State Autonomous Vehicle legislation that contains all
15 introduced and all enacted legislation to date that is
16 available at ncsl.org.
17 Currently -- it was advancing without me.
18 Apologies for that. Let’s see if it stays. Currently, 11
19 States and the District of Columbia have passed some type
20 of legislation related to autonomous vehicles -- apologies
21 -- and executive orders have been issued by the Governors
22 of Arizona and Massachusetts. But those numbers don’t
23 accurately represent the State activity. It does not give
24 a full picture of everything going on across the country.
25 There is a lot more activity, as you can see. 27
1 Companies are testing autonomous vehicles across
2 the U.S., including in States where the Legislature has not
3 passed laws. Nevada, Nevada passed its first legislation
4 in 2013, which mandates that companies submit a permit
5 application, a $5 million bond, and proof that their self
6 driving vehicles have completed 10,000 miles of testing
7 before vehicles can be allowed on public roads in the
8 State.
9 During tests, vehicles must be supervised by
10 people sitting in the driver’s seat and passenger seats.
11 Approved vehicles are given a red license plate to show
12 that they are autonomous. Otto, a subsidiary of Uber, last
13 year conducted a media event and demonstration of a truck
14 driving on Interstate 80 that did not have proper
15 permitting and the driver was in the back of the cab.
16 Nevada has no penalties for violators, but because of this
17 incident, the Legislature is currently looking into this
18 issue during the current legislative session.
19 The State has established an autonomous vehicle
20 initiative between the Governor’s Office of Economic
21 Development, Nevada Department of Transportation, the
22 Department of Motor Vehicles, and the University of Nevada
23 Las Vegas.
24 California passed A.V. legislation in 2012. The
25 California Department of Motor Vehicles then issued draft 28
1 regulations in 2015 that would have required a licensed
2 driver behind the wheel at all times in the autonomous
3 vehicle. These draft regulations received significant
4 backlash from the industry that argued the regulations were
5 onerous and created roadblocks to innovation. In October
6 of 2016, the DMV issued a revised draft of regulations that
7 stressed that these are not a formal rulemaking but rather
8 the next step in an iterative process in order to collect
9 feedback that will be used to inform a future rulemaking by
10 the DMV.
11 According to these draft rules, SAE Level 3
12 vehicles would still require the constant presence of a
13 human driver to potentially take control of the vehicle if
14 needed. But vehicles meeting criteria for levels 4 and 5
15 will, in the future, operate driverless. Also in 2016, the
16 California Legislature passed a bill authorizing the Contra
17 Costa Transportation Authority, or CCTA, to test the first
18 fully autonomous vehicle not equipped with a steering
19 wheel, brake pedal, accelerator, or operator on a
20 California public road. This was necessary because there
21 had been testing with autonomous shuttles on private roads,
22 but they wanted to expand where the shuttle could go. The
23 California DMV also recently issued a new set of draft
24 rules in response to this legislation and they remain open
25 for public comments through the end of April. 29
1 Michigan enacted a series of bills related to
2 autonomous vehicles. The bills would ease testing
3 restrictions for testing to take place without the presence
4 of a researcher inside an autonomous test vehicle, although
5 said researcher would have to promptly take control of the
6 vehicle’s movements if necessary or the vehicle would have
7 to be able to stop or slow on its own.
8 Additionally, autonomous vehicles are allowed to
9 be driven on public roads in the State when they become
10 available to the public. The package of bills also allows
11 for truck platooning, which is commercial trucks traveling
12 closely together at electronically coordinated speeds.
13 However, there were some concerns by technology companies
14 that the legislation includes limits to the types of
15 testing such companies can engage in as compared to
16 original equipment manufacturers.
17 Finally, one quick note on Tennessee, in 2015,
18 the Legislature prohibited local governments from banning
19 the use of autonomous vehicles.
20 With regard to State action from the executive
21 branch, Arizona’s Governor Doug Ducey signed an executive
22 order in 2015 directing various agencies to "undertake any
23 necessary steps to support the testing and operation of
24 self-driving vehicles on public roads in Arizona." He also
25 ordered the enabling of pilot programs at selected 30
1 universities and developed rules to be followed by the
2 programs. The order established a Self-Driving Vehicle
3 Oversight Committee within the Governor’s office, and that
4 committee met for the first time in August of 2016.
5 Additionally, Massachusetts Governor Charlie
6 Baker signed an executive order in October 2016, "to
7 promote the testing and deployment of highly automated
8 driving technologies." The order created a working group
9 on HAVs. The group is expected to work with experts on
10 vehicle safety and automation, Members of the Legislature
11 on proposed legislation, and support Memorandums of
12 Understanding and other agreements that A.V. companies will
13 enter with the State DOT, municipalities, and other State
14 agencies.
15 The Mayor of Boston also announced his own
16 executive order that same day that established the Boston
17 Transportation Commission that would lead oversight of
18 autonomous vehicles in the City of Boston.
19 In total, 20 States considered autonomous vehicle
20 legislation in 2016. Thus far in 2017, 28 States have
21 introduced 75 bills. This increased activity was
22 anticipated due to the release of Federal guidance last
23 fall.
24 On September 20, 2016, the National Highway
25 Traffic Safety Administration released the first iteration 31
1 of its Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, or FAVP.
2 Although this version stresses that the policy is an
3 iterative document, with the change in administration, it
4 remains unclear whether the document will be updated
5 annually. Overall, there are four sections of the
6 document, although I ’m only going to touch on Section 2 in
7 my comments, but of course I will be happy to discuss the
8 others if necessary.
9 Starting with Section 2, entitled Model State
10 Policy, or MSP, the guidance presents a roadmap for States
11 to voluntarily use when determining how A.V. testing and
12 possible deployment should be structured in their State.
13 Although nonbinding, NHTSA’s goal was to provide a
14 framework for States to use so that while there may be
15 minor specific differences between States in their testing
16 and deployment requirements, overall structures would be
17 similar. However, I would be remiss if I did not reiterate
18 that this Model State Policy in no way binds a State from
19 implementing an A.V. testing and possible deployment system
20 that best fits its particular needs.
21 The other part of this section that you should be
22 aware of is its discussion on the delineation of Federal
23 versus State authority when it comes to autonomous
24 vehicles. The document describes how the Federal
25 Government is responsible for setting motor vehicle safety 32
1 standards, and therefore, States are currently preempted
2 from issuing any safety standard that regulates performance
3 if that standard is not identical to an existing Federal
4 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard regulating the same aspect of
5 performance.
6 However, States remain the lead regulator when it
7 comes to vehicle use. This incorporates licensing,
8 registration, traffic, law enforcement, safety inspections,
9 insurance and liability just to name a few areas. Further,
10 the document calls on States to consider updating possible
11 gaps in their own regulations that pertain to these areas
12 in order to make the transition from human-driven motor
13 vehicles to fully automated vehicles.
14 I ’d like to close by quickly touching on how NCSL
15 has addressed the issue of A.V.’s. As one of the primary
16 objectives of NCSL is member education, we have over the
17 past year held a number of events looking into different
18 aspects of A.V. technology and how States are addressing
19 the many questions in front of them. And we will continue
20 to make sure that we serve not only as a resource for State
21 legislators and staff but also provide opportunities for
22 them to connect with other States to discuss and learn
23 about this new and exciting technology.
24 Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to
25 speak with you today, and I ’d be happy to answer any 33
1 questions.
2 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thanks, Ben.
3 Real quick question for you. Have any of the States put
4 into law that any of the manufacturers of these cars would
5 contribute to a fund that would educate law enforcement
6 community to this and the first responders and to update
7 statutes within the Legislature to handle these autonomous
8 vehicles.
9 MR. HUSCH: I don’t believe so off the top of my
10 head, but that issue is one that has been discussed at NCSL
11 events, as well as I ’ve participated with other
12 organizations. Specifically, there’s an association, the
13 American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which
14 is the DMV national association. And that is one that they
15 are very focused on. I think to the point, how the
16 public’s acceptance and their knowledge of how these
17 vehicles operate is a very important question, one that we
18 not necessary have seen specific legislation on, but the
19 issue is one that is on many people’s minds.
20 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Yes, State
21 budgets are getting leaner and leaner. It’s something we
22 have to look to. Thank you.
23 Chairman Taylor.
24 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ben, our staff,
25 in conjunction with some of the statistics you’ve provided, 34
1 I don’t know if you saw this chart that has all the really
2 variables of legislation throughout the country, and it
3 looks like Senate Bill 427 checks off almost every box. I
4 mean, have you got a chance to look at 427 and compared to
5 other States to give us a sense of the comprehensiveness of
6 that bill?
7 MR. HUSCH: That’s a great question, and staff
8 did provide me with this beforehand. And yes, I would
9 agree that, you know, in going through 427, not only did I
10 find that it touched on all of the items listed here, but I
11 also went through it just for my own personal understanding
12 of how Senate Bill 427 touched on the different areas of
13 Section 2, the Model State Policy, and there are a number
14 of areas suggested by NHTSA’s guidance that are addressed
15 in the legislation much more so than I have found with
16 other States.
17 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And is there
18 anything that was particularly lacking that you saw?
19 MR. HUSCH: Not to my knowledge. I would say
20 that for a first step -- and the bill is a good first step,
21 but also what I think is important and is in Section 2 of
22 the Model State Policy is Senate Bill 427 establishes an
23 advisory committee that brings in many other aspects of
24 State Government, not only the Legislature but different
25 agencies of the executive branch to review different rules 35
1 and regulations so that in the future, as this technology
2 becomes more developed, as, you know, level, say, 3 and 4
3 and potentially level 5 become available that the State can
4 go back and, you know, look at past legislation and current
5 rules and see what needs to be updated.
6 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
7 Thank you, Chairman.
8 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
9 Representative Taylor.
10 Senator Scavello.
11 SENATOR SCAVELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12 Good morning.
13 MR. HUSCH: Good morning.
14 SENATOR SCAVELLO: How many of the States that
15 you have here that have passed legislation, what is the
16 most amount of vehicles that are on the road in some of
17 those States?
18 MR. HUSCH: I don’t know if I have that
19 information off the top of my head. I can definitely look
20 and get back to you. If I had to take an educated guess, I
21 would probably say California or Nevada.
22 SENATOR SCAVELLO: And any idea of how many -
23 MR. HUSCH: Off the top of my head, I ’m sorry.
24 SENATOR SCAVELLO: So it’s still that early then
25 as far as some of these States that have moved forward 36
1 with -
2 MR. HUSCH: Yes, and I —
3 SENATOR SCAVELLO: — legislation?
4 MR. HUSCH: I think one point that I might make
5 is Tesla’s current vehicles that are for sale, some would
6 consider their autopilot to be level 2. So, you know, I
7 don’t have the knowledge of kind of what State has bought
8 the most Teslas. If I, again, had to fathom a guess, I
9 would say California. So, you know, I think from that I
10 would say California, but I can look into this and get back
11 to you.
12 SENATOR SCAVELLO: All the car manufacturers are
13 looking at this or is it just one or two companies?
14 MR. HUSCH: I would say it’s being looked at by a
15 number of car manufacturers. And not only car
16 manufacturers but also technology companies from Uber and
17 Lyft and those that I ’m probably not even aware of and
18 those that have not even formed yet.
19 SENATOR SCAVELLO: I look at this in the future
20 to address the drunk driving problem, you know, honestly.
21 If this gets perfected, those type of accidents go away.
22 MR. HUSCH: I think the safety benefits are
23 immeasurable.
24 SENATOR SCAVELLO: Yes, safety benefits — thank
25 you very much. Thank you for your time. 37
1 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
2 Senator.
3 Representative Matzie.
4 REPRESENTATIVE MATZIE: Thank you, Senator. And
5 thank you, Ben, for your testimony.
6 You mentioned in your testimony about the Federal
7 automated vehicles policy and that with the change in
8 administration it remains unclear whether the document will
9 be updated. Has there been any indication for Washington
10 at all where they are on highly automated vehicles from a
11 policy perspective.
12 MR. HUSCH: I mean, I would say the FAVP, the
13 first iteration was a great indication of where they are.
14 You know, the career staff that were primarily responsible
15 for writing the document are still in place, but in terms
16 of certain political appointees, Secretary Chao has been
17 confirmed, but I don’t believe there are any other
18 political appointments that have been made. So just in
19 terms of the time that it takes for those appointments to
20 be made and confirmed by the Senate, that may push the
21 timeline back. But I don’t have any personal knowledge of
22 that. That is just something as my own personal opinion.
23 REPRESENTATIVE MATZIE: Sure. Okay. Thank you,
24 Ben, for your work at NCSL.
25 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 38
1 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
2 Representative.
3 Senator Vulakovich.
4 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 When we put the piece of legislation together, we
6 wanted to bring everybody to the table and try to come up
7 with the best at least initial piece of legislation that we
8 could, but you always have to keep your eyes open and keep
9 your ears in tune because there’s always someone out there
10 that can think of something that we did not think of even
11 when you have the best people around the table. So we want
12 to know that everybody -- to let you know that that’s out
13 there on both sides, whether it’s in the House or the
14 Senate. W e ’ll work together on this issue.
15 It’s new. You know, at one time I guess when we
16 had planes flying in the air, we were worried about
17 liability, well, what happens if that plane crashes and
18 down in a neighborhood or something like that? So w e ’re
19 always going to have these types of issues, but, you know,
20 I stressed during the whole time in the legislation about
21 public safety. So, you know, I ’m wondering. I question my
22 own piece of legislation. I know w e ’ve got to worry about
23 Title 75 enforcement. Is there something we have to change
24 in certain of our Title 35 pieces in there that have to
25 reflect this new technology? The driver, the operator, who 39
1 owns the car, who’s in control of the car, all these things
2 that need to be thought of.
3 And then liability issues, so if something does
4 happen, okay, because, you know, in a report from the
5 National Highway Traffic Safety, in their first step they
6 released their policy in ’16, like you stated, but they say
7 trust is required between the public and entities looking
8 to test and deploy the automatic vehicles. So trust is
9 very important as a liability issue.
10 And so we need to think about the liability
11 issues, too. I don’t want some person who’s a victim to
12 worry about who they’re going to go to or someone sits
13 around a table, all the players on that side, the testing
14 and deploying and everything else and the research, and
15 everybody looks at one another and says, well, it’s not my
16 fault, well, it’s not my fault. W e ’ll let the victim
17 handle it. So these are very important for that if you
18 want trust among the public.
19 Now, I did notice that you talked about the Model
20 State Policy, which in a way the other two parts of it, the
21 current regulatory tools and the modern regulatory tools
22 they refer to, they kind of come under I guess the Model
23 State Policy, so that one I understand. But under vehicle
24 performance guidance, they talk about a letter from the
25 companies, the people doing all the innovation here, to the 40
1 National Highway Traffic Safety. Can you explain that a
2 little bit because I ’m not getting it because in the end
3 it’s voluntary, but they name that as their number one task
4 and yet they say a lot to make it look transparent and
5 everything else, but you didn’t address it and I don’t get
6 the thing about the letters being voluntary.
7 MR. HUSCH: Sure. So just to make -- so the
8 guidance was separated into four sections, and the first
9 section deals with essentially a 15-point safety checklist
10 that NHTSA recommends, nonbinding, that those entities be
11 original equipment manufacturers, technology companies that
12 those that want to test vehicles, that they essentially
13 submit this application, and it has 15 different points.
14 Now, it is nonbinding, and again, in Section 2, NHTSA
15 suggests that States require this application be submitted
16 in order for a tester to test an autonomous vehicle. Now,
17 again, that is just a recommendation that NHTSA is making
18 to States. It is in no way binding.
19 But I think in off-the-record conversations with
20 NHTSA staff, I think they get exactly the point that you
21 were talking about which is, you know, the public’s
22 acceptance of this, and that if they don’t believe it is
23 safe, they will be much less likely to accept it in a
24 shorter time frame. And given the potential safety
25 benefits, as well as the immeasurable other economic 41
1 benefits, I think their belief was that to increase the
2 public’s acceptance will bring those benefits more in the
3 short term.
4 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Okay. Well, it’s a
5 discussion we need to have. But we certainly don’t want to
6 do anything to curtail the -- it’s all about balance, and
7 that’s what w e ’re trying to achieve with the piece of
8 legislation. And even if it passes, we still have an open
9 mind to change it. I don’t care if somebody said I screwed
10 something up or if Representative Marshall -- I’m sure he
11 feels the same way on his piece of legislation.
12 But in any case, I think it’s important that we
13 continue to have this discussion to make this the best
14 piece we can pass at this time with flexibility to change
15 it. And I got to tell you, if we can save lives, as a
16 former cop who has seen everything, I have seen everything
17 and the most horrible things, when that one person that you
18 save is someone that you love means a lot.
19 So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
21 Senator.
22 Senator Brewster.
23 SENATOR BREWSTER: [inaudible].
24 MR. HUSCH: I would not say that they have made a
25 final determination in terms of who would be considered the 42
1 driver. In the guidance issued by NHTSA, they insinuated
2 that a level 3 vehicle, the driver of the vehicle would be
3 the driver, but on a level 4, a level 5 vehicle, the
4 vehicle itself or the software operating the vehicle would
5 be considered the driver. So I think w e ’ve seen a few
6 States essentially put in place maybe a placeholder, a
7 liability amount that a tester would have to cover. But in
8 terms of essentially final insurance regulations, I think
9 that we are some years away from that, but that is a very
10 important question to consider going forward.
11 SENATOR BREWSTER: It would seem to me that if
12 w e ’re marketing a product that would eliminate a driver
13 that the producer of the product should play a role in
14 paying the premium, as opposed to the consumer who’s
15 relying on the technology to protect the people in the car.
16 I mean, it would seem like a logical -- what other logical
17 explanation would you have for a driverless car?
18 MR. HUSCH: I have no disagreement with that. My
19 only comment would be that, as the previous witness
20 commented on, that level 4 and level 5 vehicles remain a
21 number of years away, especially from mass consumer market
22 adoption. And level 3 vehicles do involve a driver, and so
23 in terms of going from where we are now to level 5
24 vehicles, there is, you know, essentially a gray or middle
25 ground that will come first. 43
1 SENATOR BREWSTER: Okay. Final question. Have
2 you had any conversations with the insurance industry to
3 get their feedback as to how premiums would go up or down?
4 I’m assuming that the industry’s claiming that the
5 automobiles would be safer, and therefore, we can tell the
6 consumers that, regardless of who would pay the insurance
7 premium, that the premiums would go down.
8 MR. HUSCH: The first part of that, yes, we have
9 had conversations with representatives of the insurance
10 industry. At our winter meeting in Washington, D.C., the
11 committee that I staff held a discussion with a number of
12 panelists from the Federal Government, as well as a
13 representative of State Farm, and he made a number of those
14 points that you just made.
15 SENATOR BREWSTER: Okay. Thank you.
16 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
18 Senator.
19 Senator Bartolotta.
20 SENATOR BARTOLOTTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
21 Thank you for your testimony. I just have a
22 question. I was looking over the list of the other 11
23 States that are doing the testing. It looks to me that
24 S.B. 427 is the only one that has a revision for
25 cybersecurity. So have there been discussions in other 44
1 States with cybersecurity hacking, others’ ability to by
2 any chance override an HAV? And to that point as well, is
3 there an option with, say, law enforcement that might
4 potentially have the ability to override an HAV if there
5 were a crime committed or even as much as a traffic stop?
6 MR. HUSCH: Sure. To the first point I would say
7 that almost every State is having that discussion, but in
8 terms of enacted legislation, I would agree with the chart
9 at least that was produced here. I would say it is one of
10 the most popular topics that members from all States come
11 to NCSL about not only on autonomous vehicles but on my
12 other aspects.
13 And with regards to the second point, I would
14 hope that there is that capability, but I don’t know if I
15 have the technical background to respond to the ability for
16 law enforcement to work with the equipment manufacturer or
17 the software manufacturer to help override a potential
18 attack.
19 SENATOR BARTOLOTTA: And the last question, as
20 far as data collection, I mean, you can’t Google anything
21 anymore that isn’t permanently imprinted on your history,
22 and you start getting all of these advertisements for every
23 other thing associated with it and nothing’s private
24 anymore. So I ’m curious to know who’s collecting and
25 saving the data as to where every single trip that you 45
1 take, every stop you make, every bit of your driving habit,
2 who’s collecting that data?
3 MR. HUSCH: Again, I ’m not sure if I ’m the most
4 qualified person to answer that. I will say that that
5 issue of data sharing is addressed in Section 1 of the
6 Federal Autonomous Vehicles policy. It is a suggestion by
7 NHTSA to be included in the 15-point safety checklist to at
8 least identify how that information could potentially be
9 shared. I think the thought process there was the concerns
10 that you highlighted and so to have essentially a plan on
11 paper by, again, the original equipment manufacturer or the
12 software manufacturer to state up front what it plans to do
13 with the data that it is receiving from these tests.
14 SENATOR BARTOLOTTA: Okay. Thank you.
15 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
16 Senate. W e ’re five minutes over.
17 Senator Stefano for a final question. Thank you.
18 SENATOR STEFANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 Thank you, Mr. Husch.
20 MR. HUSCH: Thank you.
21 SENATOR STEFANO: My question is very brief. Are
22 any of the other States’ legislation, are they measuring
23 their economic impact of their regulations?
24 MR. HUSCH: Not to my knowledge, but I would, for
25 my own curiosity, would like to double-check that and get 46
1 back to you.
2 SENATOR STEFANO: All right. Thank you.
3 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
4 Senator. And I will amend my statement. Representative
5 Kortz, I ’m sorry, Representative, I didn’t see your hand
6 there. So you have a question. Anybody who looks like
7 Wyatt Earp with that mustache [inaudible].
8 REPRESENTATIVE KORTZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9 Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
10 Very quickly, the States that have been testing
11 these HAVs, have there been any crashes of these test
12 vehicles, and has there been any fatalities?
13 MR. HUSCH: So with regards to testing and
14 fatalities, not that I am aware of. I do know that there
15 have been crashes from certain vehicles that have been -
16 or from some autonomous vehicles but not to my knowledge
17 with regards to fatalities.
18 REPRESENTATIVE KORTZ: Okay. And of those
19 crashes, have any of those been deemed to be the failure of
20 the HAV or was it some other driver wrecking into them from
21 another vehicle?
22 MR. HUSCH: From my limited knowledge on this, my
23 belief is that in a majority of cases it has been the human
24 driver at fault, but there have been a couple of very what
25 I would call low-level accidents that were caused by an AV. 47
1 REPRESENTATIVE KORTZ: Okay.
2 MR. HUSCH: But the majority of the accidents
3 have been caused by the human -- or the at-fault person
4 would be the human driver.
5 REPRESENTATIVE KORTZ: Thank you.
6 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Certain,
8 Representative. Thank you.
9 Thank you, Ben, for your testimony.
10 MR. HUSCH: Thank you.
11 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: We appreciate
12 it very much.
13 Once again, I remind everybody that Uber and
14 Carnegie Mellon have test vehicles outside the North Office
15 Building until 1:00 p.m. today. Uber and Carnegie Mellon,
16 we want to thank them. And seeing our friend Mike Steffen
17 back there reminds me that Penn State University and their
18 grad students in George Mason University each have tables
19 set up outside the room. I believe you make a left and up
20 the hallway there. Thank you, Michael.
21 So George Mason and Carnegie Mellon are very
22 interested in this project and have information here with
23 us today. So thank you very much.
24 Next will be State perspectives on HAV
25 authorization and testing, bring up a panel here if we 48
1 could. Mr. Kurt Myers is Deputy Secretary for Driver &
2 Vehicle Services. We see Kurt quite often. Nice to see
3 you, Secretary. Mr. Jason Sharp, Esquire, Executive Deputy
4 Chief Counsel, PennDOT, you’re the guys that can answer all
5 the legal questions here for us today, Jason. Mr. Mark
6 Kopko, Manager of Advance Vehicle Technology, PennDOT; and
7 Major Edward Hoke, Director of Patrol, Pennsylvania State
8 Police. Nice to see you, Major.
9 Thank you very much, gentlemen. Make sure you
10 hit the button so your green light goes on, and you have
11 the floor. Thank you.
12 MR. MYERS: Thank you very much.
13 Major Hoke, would you like to go first or -
14 MAJOR HOKE: [inaudible].
15 MR. MYERS: Okay. Very good.
16 Well, first of all, thank you. On behalf of
17 Secretary Richards, it’s a pleasure to be here today, and
18 we appreciate the opportunity to respond and comment about
19 Senate Bill 427.
20 As you’ve noted, I have with me Jason Sharp and
21 Mark Kopko. They are two of the individuals within PennDOT
22 who I consider experts in the field of autonomous vehicles
23 and have worked very diligently over a number of years as
24 we’ve developed our positions related to the use of
25 autonomous vehicles. 49
1 In addition to that, I also want to recognize
2 Roger Cohen. Roger is the Director of Policy for PennDOT.
3 He’s in the audience today. He was my co-Chair as part of
4 the Autonomous Vehicle Task Force that was formed by the
5 Secretary last summer.
6 I’ve submitted written testimony and I’ll let
7 that stand for the record. I do want to highlight a few
8 areas in reference to the status of what we in Pennsylvania
9 are doing today in relationship to autonomous vehicles not
10 only as PennDOT but as the Commonwealth.
11 And you’ve heard already that HAVs technology
12 holds tremendous potential to improve the quality of life
13 for the citizens of the Commonwealth and for that matter
14 the world. And it really speaks to issues of mobility,
15 safety, and beyond just those two items, certainly from the
16 standpoint of the environment and the benefits to our
17 environment moving forward.
18 On a personal note, as you know, we have a law in
19 Pennsylvania that requires Driver & Vehicle Services to
20 take away the licenses of those individuals that for
21 medical reasons have been determined by their doctor not to
22 be able to operate a motor vehicle safely. That
23 responsibility lies with me, and under that, I really don’t
24 have many options. And when your constituents come to you,
25 the options you can give them are ask a friend to help, ask 50
1 a family member to help, or to rely on mass transit. All
2 of those take away that ability, that mobility that that
3 individual used to have, and I really believe that it is a
4 wonderful future with autonomous vehicles that we would be
5 able to offer the opportunity for those individuals to gain
6 control of their lives again and that mobility. To me,
7 that’s significant, it’s important, and it’s a part of what
8 w e ’re attempting to do here in the development and the
9 encouragement of the development of autonomous vehicle
10 technology.
11 In the environment areas, there’s no question
12 about the fact that the use of autonomous vehicles could
13 have a dramatic impact on the environment. In particular,
14 we fully expect that as time goes by, today, the average
15 vehicle sits for 22 hours a day. It’s utilized two hours.
16 We fully expect that ownership of vehicles will multiply
17 from the standpoint of individuals that own vehicles that
18 we expect that the numbers will dramatically increase so
19 that 10 people may own one vehicle, and in that case, that
20 means as well that we may be able to significantly reduce
21 the number of parking garages and things of that nature in
22 our larger cities and turning that back to green space,
23 just one example of the potential environmental benefits.
24 And of course safety, you’ve heard the numbers
25 already. Although the numbers aren’t finalized yet, 2016 51
1 looks as though w e ’re going to have numbers over 40,000
2 fatalities in the United States. That’s a significant
3 increase from 2015. And those numbers continue to go up.
4 And you’ve heard about the challenges related to
5 the technology, in developing it. And there’s no question
6 about that. But the fact of the matter is is that 94
7 percent of all of the crashes that occur in the United
8 States are attributable to human error. And so if we can
9 reduce that dramatically through the use of autonomous
10 vehicles, that will have a significant impact in reducing
11 the number of fatalities.
12 But the challenges are there; there’s no question
13 about it. I ’ve just talked about safety, I ’ve talked about
14 mobility, and the other part of this equation is the law.
15 When a human being drives their vehicle down the road,
16 those three factors are constantly going through their
17 mind, mobility, they want to get someplace; safely, they
18 want to do it safety; and they want to obey the law. But
19 as we all know, when you’re driving down the road and you
20 find a delivery truck that’s parked halfway into the lane
21 that you’re going down, you have to make a couple of
22 decisions. One decision is I want to keep moving, but can
23 I do it safely? And if I do it safely, I have to go around
24 that vehicle, which means I need to cross that double
25 yellow line. So those are decisions that you’re making 52
1 that our expectations are going down the road, that
2 autonomous vehicles will need to be able to make that
3 decision as well.
4 Those are challenges, and I know that Raj talked
5 about it earlier, and it’s one of those areas when we look
6 at the development of this technology, we know those
7 challenges are there, but we also know that in the long run
8 the opportunities that it brings far outweigh -- and the
9 benefits far outweigh those challenges. And we will, in my
10 belief, in a period of time, overcome those challenges.
11 And as was noted, Pennsylvania truly is a
12 recognized leader in the area of autonomous vehicles. We
13 developed a task force, as I noted earlier, that Mr. Cohen
14 and I chaired. The Secretary, Secretary Richards made the
15 determination that we needed to bring together stakeholders
16 from not only industry but also other State agencies, as
17 well as individuals associated with our institutions of
18 higher learning.
19 To that end, we put the committee together. I
20 want to personally thank the Chairs of both the House and
21 Senate Transportation Committee. Your Executive Directors
22 were directly involved in those meetings as we held them
23 through the summer and were an integral part of helping us
24 to develop proposed policies, understanding those proposed
25 policies will need to change as this law goes through the 53
1 process and once it’s finalized. But we truly appreciate
2 their efforts.
3 The task force met over the summer. We finalized
4 policy document in November of this year. It was presented
5 to the Secretary. We then held a webinar that was held in
6 December where individuals were able to send us emails and
7 ask us questions about the policies. And we received a
8 pretty extensive response. What I will tell you that
9 clearly some of those questions were really related to the
10 uneasiness about automated vehicle technology and what it
11 really means. And that’s why I commend the Committees for
12 coming together and holding this hearing. I think it’s
13 really important that we do everything we possibly can to
14 ensure that w e ’re educating individuals about the use of
15 automated vehicles, how it works, and also that all of us
16 collectively are clearly conscious and concerned about the
17 safe operation of these vehicles. And at the forefront of
18 our discussions is certainly safety and how it relates to
19 the testing and ultimately the deployment of autonomous
20 vehicles.
21 A couple of areas that I -- you know, just from
22 the standpoint of Senate Bill 427, I just want to highlight
23 some of the areas that we from a standpoint of PennDOT find
24 very important and we want to stress as we move through
25 this deliberative process with Senate Bill 427. We believe 54
1 very strongly that policy is the appropriate approach here,
2 and the Senate bill obviously addresses that. And that is
3 of extreme importance. As you’ve heard and as you’ve read,
4 the fact of the matter is this technology is changing not
5 on a yearly basis and frankly not even on a weekly basis
6 but in some cases on a daily basis.
7 The regulatory process quite frankly, because of
8 its nature, is not designed for a changing technology that
9 we ’re dealing with here when it comes to autonomous
10 vehicles. We need to remain flexible. We need to be able
11 to change accordingly as the technology changes, so
12 remaining flexible and nimble is critical. And in fact
13 even in NHTSA’s guidance, that was something that was
14 recognized by NHTSA as well. And so I would encourage you
15 as we move down the road with this legislation that we
16 continue to focus on that flexibility and remaining nimble,
17 understanding how the technology is changing. We don’t
18 want to unintentionally create barriers to testing and
19 ultimately deployment, and so that flexibility is critical.
20 We believe that the HAV Safety Advisory Committee
21 is also a critical component of the future as we develop
22 automated vehicle technology here in Pennsylvania. It’s a
23 critical component, and we commend the legislation for that
24 being included. It’s critical that we bring together
25 stakeholders on a continuous basis. You know, when we put 55
1 the policy together, Mr. Cohen and I had many conversations
2 about the fact that this is a living document. This is
3 just a good first draft if you will. We know it’s going to
4 change, and in fact, there are already things in it that we
5 know will need to be updated as we move forward. So
6 continuing to have those conversations will be a critical
7 part of what we do moving forward, and the Committee is an
8 important part of that.
9 One of the things though that I think we want to
10 stress is that we do believe that the law should require
11 HAVs to either have an operator or not be able to achieve a
12 minimal-risk condition. It’s an industry-accepted standard
13 that requires a truly driverless car to achieve a safe mode
14 to speak. And one of the things that I think is important
15 that we heard here in discussions in references to the
16 levels, level 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and one of the challenges,
17 but one of the things that we need again to remain with the
18 flexibility is how does someone make the determination as
19 to the level of the vehicle? What is the level of the
20 vehicle? What has it achieved? And at what point,
21 regardless of what level that vehicle has achieved, at what
22 point in time does that vehicle go from testing to
23 deployment?
24 And so those are questions that remain, but I
25 would encourage you from the standpoint of the legislation 56
1 to ensure that you maintain the flexibility in the
2 legislation to allow for the natural evolution of the
3 technology and the ability to be able not only to test
4 these vehicles but ultimately to be able to deploy these
5 vehicles on the streets of the Commonwealth.
6 There are a few items specific that I wanted to
7 note just briefly here that we have some concerns about,
8 and they are specifically in the legislation we do have
9 some concerns as to the markings related to the vehicles in
10 the legislation. Nevada was brought up in an earlier
11 conversation. Nevada has a license plate which has created
12 issues for vehicles when someone wants to go from
13 California to Nevada. They literally have to stop and put
14 the Nevada license plate on because it marks it as an
15 autonomous vehicle. These are just cumbersome issues that
16 quite frankly if w e ’re going to encourage the development
17 of this technology, these are the little things that I
18 think are items that need to be addressed.
19 We ’re not suggesting for a second that the
20 vehicles shouldn’t be marked in some manner. We certainly
21 respect the importance of law enforcement and first
22 responders to be able to identify the vehicles. But at the
23 same time we want to be sure that it’s done in such a way
24 that’s reasonable for the manufacturers of the vehicles and
25 the technology. 57
1 There is one item in here that is in reference to
2 the requirements for registration and titling of HAVs and
3 platooning vehicles, and we only note it because of the
4 fact that existing titling and registration in Chapter 11
5 and 13 of the Vehicle Code apply to all vehicles, including
6 HAVs, so making these provisions is a duplication of
7 current law, and we just wanted to point that out. And
8 that is pointed out in the detailed testimony.
9 In addition to that, there is in the legislation
10 a reference to codes. We have concerns with that only
11 because of the fact that because they’re being called codes
12 instead of brands, brands are something you’re all familiar
13 with. We brand vehicles today, whether they be flood
14 vehicles, reconstructed vehicles, former taxis, recovered
15 theft. All those vehicles are currently branded, and we
16 don’t have an issue with branding the vehicle as a HAV. We
17 do have a concern with creating a new code if you will
18 because there are systems costs that are associated with
19 that. And here again, there’s really no reason to do that
20 when we already have the brand field available to us.
21 One of the other areas that I just want to stress
22 and then I ’ll close and that is in relationship to
23 platooning. Platooning is addressed for levels 3, 4, and 5
24 in the legislation, but platooning is not addressed for
25 levels 1 and 2. And there are manufacturers of platooning 58
1 vehicles at level 1 and 2 that are interesting not only in
2 testing but also deploying. I simply state that from the
3 standpoint that it is something that will need to be
4 addressed as we move forward, not necessarily in this bill,
5 but it certainly should be addressed so that those
6 individuals who are testing at level 1 and level 2 for
7 platooning have the same opportunities as those who are
8 testing at levels 3, 4, or 5.
9 With that, Senator, one other item and that was
10 in reference to the $1 million fine. We were unclear about
11 that from the standpoint that that’s not something w e ’ve
12 seen in other State legislation, and it does seem that the
13 fine could potentially be excessive. But, again, we
14 weren’t sure what it was based on so we raised that as also
15 just a potential concern.
16 So with that, I will close and at this point in
17 time I will turn it over to Major Hoke.
18 MAJOR HOKE: Good morning, Chairmen, Committee
19 Members. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here this
20 morning and provide you the PSP perspective with regard to
21 Senate Bill 427.
22 Ensuring highway safety is a core function of
23 policing. The PSP and municipal police officers from all
24 across the Commonwealth work hard every day enforcing
25 traffic laws to prevent crashes and improve highway safety. 59
1 The duty to enforce the law is an obligation taken very
2 seriously by all police officers.
3 Today’s hearing on Senate Bill 427 to propose
4 oversight of the emerging HAV industry is an important step
5 forward to ensuring that the Commonwealth’s law enforcement
6 officers are provided with the statutory authority they
7 need in order to keep our highways safe.
8 Currently, there are no laws that enable,
9 prohibit, or regulate the testing of HAVs on Commonwealth
10 highways. The absence of legislation creates an
11 enforcement void that our existing statutes do not address.
12 Establishing a legal framework is necessary for the safe
13 and responsible testing of HAVs on our highways both now
14 and into the future.
15 Recognizing that this rapidly evolving industry
16 has an interest in testing their vehicles on Pennsylvania
17 highways in real-world conditions, the Department of
18 Transportation took the initiative to establish an
19 Autonomous Vehicle Task Force. Last June, at the
20 invitation of Secretary Leslie S. Richards, PSP joined with
21 many other public and private stakeholders to formulate
22 recommendations to develop policies which would regulate
23 the testing of HAVs. The task force met monthly over the
24 seven months and worked diligently toward the goal.
25 Although comprised of a variety of different stakeholders, 60
1 each with their own separate interests, the group never
2 lost sight that public safety was paramount and that that
3 had to remain the focal point of all of the policy
4 recommendations.
5 The task force completed its work in December
6 and, the recommendations were delivered to the Secretary’s
7 desk. Although the initial recommendations have been
8 completed, the work of the task force will continue into
9 the future as the new and innovative technologies evolve.
10 We live in an interesting and exciting time in
11 history. While new and innovative technologies continue to
12 provide new opportunities that were difficult to
13 conceptualize just a few years ago, they also bring about
14 many new challenges. No matter what those challenges may
15 be, the Pennsylvania State Police remain committed to
16 protecting and serving the citizens and the visitors of
17 this Commonwealth just as they have since 1905.
18 Thank you for the opportunity to provide our
19 perspective, and I ’m happy to answer any of your questions.
20 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
21 Major. Anyone else want to speak before we -- okay. Turn
22 it over to questions.
23 Senator Scavello.
24 SENATOR SCAVELLO: Good morning. Thank you for
25 your testimony. 61
1 Kurt, you’re the most unpopular guy amongst
2 seniors. You know what I ’m talking about. And this
3 really, I agree with you, totally, it gives them back their
4 lives, that they’ll be able to go anywhere they need to go
5 with a vehicle. You know, this is that technology that we
6 really need, and as well as, you know, I said it earlier to
7 the earlier gentleman that testified, people with drinking
8 problems now have a way of getting home without a problem.
9 I didn’t think of 10 people using one vehicle
10 like you mentioned, but I guess that is possible. The car
11 can drop you off at work and goes back and picks up Mom and
12 drops her off at work. It’s amazing.
13 Major, how do you pull one over? Like, for
14 example, you’re behind that vehicle. How does the car pull
15 over?
16 MAJOR HOKE: Well, sir, as I said, this
17 technology presents many challenges. And the task force
18 has addressed a number of those scenarios as w e ’ve
19 completed our work.
20 But to your point and what the Deputy had
21 mentioned here earlier, most of the autonomous vehicles
22 interested in testing on Pennsylvania roadways at this
23 point are level 3 ’s, which require an operator seated
24 behind the wheel of the vehicle with the assurance there
25 that that individual will be properly attentive to what it 62
1 is he should be doing at the time that that vehicle is in
2 operation. And one of the scenarios of course that we
3 propose is how does an autonomous vehicle navigate its way
4 through a work zone, which is not your typical traffic
5 pattern if you will that a vehicle would encounter. Also
6 an emergency response area, a crash scene, the approach of
7 an emergency vehicle, a firetruck, an ambulance, you know,
8 law enforcement vehicle, all of those things would then
9 revert to the operation to be completed by that operator of
10 the vehicle.
11 SENATOR SCAVELLO: I think with the technology
12 today to have gone this far, I ’m sure that they’ll be able
13 to figure those things out in the future, and looking
14 forward to the final product, the 5 ’s shall I say, the ones
15 that can do it all.
16 Are we going to charge them for a driver’s
17 license? You’re going to have to think about that because
18 you’re going to lose a lot of revenue.
19 MR. MYERS: Senator, you know, that’s certainly
20 an interesting question. And certainly when we talk about
21 some of the concerns of individuals, there’s no question
22 about the fact that this technology is transformative. And
23 in being transformative, it can be disruptive. And so
24 people are questioning, well, how does this impact truck
25 drivers? How does this impact other people who depend upon 63
1 driving for a living? I would suggest that it is something
2 that we will see an evolution from the standpoint of job
3 responsibilities -
4 SENATOR SCAVELLO: Yes.
5 MR. MYERS: -- and so more people will go into
6 areas and fields such as logistics. I mean, certainly from
7 the standpoint we know that when we went from the horse-
8 and-buggy to vehicles, many of the individuals who were
9 blacksmiths taking care of the horses and the wagons moved
10 on to become mechanics, and today we call them technicians.
11 Why? Because they need to know more about computers
12 necessarily than they do a braking system per se. And in
13 the future, those same technicians will need to know the
14 inner workings of the laser systems, the camera systems,
15 and the GPS systems to ensure that that vehicle is
16 operating up to its full capacity.
17 SENATOR SCAVELLO: Just one last point, and we
18 touched on folks given back their lives. The young folks
19 that made mistakes when they were teenagers and continually
20 made mistakes and have a 25-year suspension, now they’ve
21 got kids that have trouble going to work. There’s a lot of
22 them in this Commonwealth. And again, this also will help
23 them go back to work. There’s a tremendous amount of them.
24 I get those calls all the time because they just compound
25 their -- you know, one ticket, don’t take care of it, and 64
1 it just keeps compounding. And that will also make them
2 mobile again.
3 Thank you very much for your testimony.
4 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
5 Senator.
6 Representative Harper.
7 REPRESENTATIVE HARPER: I ’m not sure who gets
8 this question, but w e ’ll give it to the Deputy Secretary
9 first. And along the same lines, when we put drivers on
10 the road, they get learner’s permits first, then they get
11 driver’s licenses. Do you think that we should put in
12 place a system where we test the vehicle to see that it
13 does or doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do and what level
14 it’s supposed to be at and then give different permissions
15 based on what the vehicle can do? Do we need learner’s
16 permits for these test vehicles?
17 MR. MYERS: I ’m going to turn this question over
18 to Mark and Jason because it’s really something that we
19 discussed in our task force discussions. So Jason or Mark?
20 MR. SHARP: I think I ’ll just start.
21 Representative, from a standpoint of licensing the system,
22 that gets caught up in the Federal-versus-State question of
23 who has the authority to regulate vehicle safety and
24 operational systems, which is traditionally a Federal role,
25 versus the licensing of a driver, which is a State role, 65
1 with a common understanding that once an automated driving
2 system, that hardware and software combination that
3 actually is doing the driving, what we call the dynamic
4 driving test that you just tell it take me home and it
5 drives home and it avoids pedestrians and it makes the
6 turns, more of that is left to the Federal Government to
7 the extent that the Feds have always been the one to say
8 these are the safety systems and the hardware and mechanics
9 of a vehicle.
10 REPRESENTATIVE HARPER: Right. But that’s my
11 point. The Federal Government is regulating the safety
12 systems that have to be in the vehicle. I ’m wondering
13 should we test the vehicle to make sure it behaves as
14 planned? And going back to Senator Bartolotta’s comment,
15 do we test to see if it’s got the software so the police
16 could stop it if it’s, you know, commandeered by a tourist
17 or hacked or something? Should we test the vehicles, the
18 individual vehicles as opposed to letting the Federal
19 Government say this class of vehicles is cool for this
20 purpose?
21 MR. MYERS: Do you want to address the
22 demonstration of the ODD?
23 MR. KOPKO: Sure. So as part of the task force
24 recommendations, it lines up with NHTSA, and we recommended
25 that any potential tester submits an ODD, an operational 66
1 domain design, basically where and when your vehicle can
2 operate. Can it operate during nighttime hours, during
3 inclement weather? And based off of this ODD submission,
4 then it will determine where and when you can actually
5 test. As a tester progresses through and they can advance
6 to new levels in their ODD, they should inform the
7 Department, and then we can evaluate from there. As part
8 of the policy recommendations, we put a clause in there
9 that the Department could request a demonstration. So they
10 have to submit their self-assessment, but then on top of
11 that we could potentially request a demonstration depending
12 on how far they advance through their ODD.
13 REPRESENTATIVE HARPER: Okay. But that doesn’t
14 sound as if it’s vehicle-specific to me. Is it?
15 MR. KOPKO: It’s tester-specific.
16 REPRESENTATIVE HARPER: Right, so a class of
17 vehicles gets tested. I ’m wondering if you say that this
18 class of vehicles is supposed to have the ability to stop
19 on a dime and be overridden by, you know, safety or
20 whatever and that vehicle’s software doesn’t work, we would
21 not know that unless we tested the vehicle.
22 MR. KOPKO: It would be for that specific tester
23 we could have that demonstration done through the policy
24 recommendation. So it wouldn’t necessarily be vehicle
25 class. Each tester would have to submit what vehicles they 67
1 are actually testing, and if there’s multiple vehicles,
2 then you could actually potentially request multiple
3 demonstrations.
4 REPRESENTATIVE HARPER: Thank you, Senator. Or
5 do you have another -
6 MR. SHARP: I was just going to add one of the
7 things that Deputy Secretary Myers mentioned, that minimal-
8 risk condition, the concept behind it is essentially if
9 there is some sort of fault with a particular vehicle that
10 it’s designed to essentially shut itself back to a safe
11 mode. So if there was a software or hardware issue -
12 REPRESENTATIVE HARPER: Right.
13 MR. SHARP: -- that caused it to not operate, it
14 essentially goes back into the safe setting and would shut
15 itself down. That would be the safeguard against a
16 particular -
17 REPRESENTATIVE HARPER: Vehicle on the road -
18 MR. SHARP: -- HAV not working properly.
19 REPRESENTATIVE HARPER: Thank you very much.
20 Thank you, Senator.
21 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
22 Representative.
23 Representative Kortz.
24 REPRESENTATIVE KORTZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. 68
1 Deputy Secretary, in your opening remarks, you
2 talked about mobility and how the future looks bright for
3 those folks, elderly, or those with medical conditions who
4 may not be able to drive on their own. So obviously, from
5 that I assume you’re going to allow people that don’t have
6 driver’s license to operate these vehicles? Is that the
7 long-term -- do you envision that?
8 MR. MYERS: For a level 5 vehicle.
9 REPRESENTATIVE KORTZ: Level 5, fully automated,
10 correct.
11 MR. MYERS: Potentially. I envision a time -
12 and w e ’ve talked about this -- in the future where
13 individuals that own antique and classic vehicles, you
14 know, the 2025 model, will need a license to operate those
15 vehicles, but individuals that are simply passengers in an
16 autonomous level 5 vehicle that’s in full deployment, there
17 would be no need for them to have a driver’s license as we
18 envision it today. And, you know, a lot can change
19 obviously, but it seems as though there would not be a need
20 for someone to have a license at that point for a level 5
21 vehicle.
22 REPRESENTATIVE KORTZ: Okay. That being said,
23 now as we get older, some of us lose some of our cognitive
24 ability. I assume that, you know, there’s certain people
25 that still would not be able to drive because of dementia 69
1 or those type of reasons. So I assume there might be some
2 type of a driver’s test down the road that you at least
3 have -- so you don’t get in a vehicle and say, okay, take
4 me to Cincinnati. I mean, that could happen, correct?
5 MR. MYERS: It could, but I could also imagine
6 the technology being able to keep an individual within a
7 grid so that as a family member, you could set the vehicle
8 so that it could only travel within certain areas and
9 things of that nature. Again, the technology is such that
10 those are the types of things that the developers and
11 others, the other futurists looking at this will say here’s
12 what we ought to develop into these vehicles because these
13 are potential concerns.
14 REPRESENTATIVE KORTZ: Yes. I hope the task
15 force is taking some of this into consideration as we go
16 down the road. And I know w e ’re 10 years off or whatever,
17 but there’s a multitude of things here, young drivers,
18 elderly drivers, that open up a whole other can of worms.
19 So thank you for your testimony.
20 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
21 Representative.
22 Senator Vulakovich.
23 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24 Okay. Mr. Myers, you brought up issues of
25 concerns regarding marking some vehicles, specifically 70
1 license plates. So with regards to that, you travel across
2 State lines, you leave one State to another State, another
3 State who has no -- maybe they don’t even have legislation
4 governing these types of vehicles. What gives that vehicle
5 the right to cross over State line into another State if
6 the Federal Government hasn’t issued some type of -- I
7 don’t know what the hell you call it, inter-commerce or
8 something? I have no idea. What gives them the right -
9 if you have the State police like in West Virginia and we
10 have one of these things and you drive over into West
11 Virginia, State police say, well, you don’t have a
12 registration plate on here; you can’t drive here?
13 MR. MYERS: Senator, I wasn’t suggesting that
14 they wouldn’t have a license plate. I was suggesting that
15 in Nevada it’s a very specific license plate that has to be
16 on the vehicle so that if you bring a vehicle in from
17 California, as an example, they literally have to take the
18 California registration plate off and put on a Nevada
19 license plate that shows -- and I believe they use the
20 infinity sign for their license plate.
21 And so all I was suggesting there was that there
22 are ways -- we think the vehicle should be marked.
23 Obviously, from our standpoint the vehicles need to be
24 registered, they need to be titled, and as such, they would
25 have a Pennsylvania license plate on them. What we were 71
1 simply saying is that we think there should be some
2 flexibility as to how that vehicle is marked in
3 consultation with the State police, whether that’s on the
4 windshield or whether that’s on the bumper or someplace.
5 W e ’re not suggesting it shouldn’t be marked. We were just
6 concerned about the fact that we were talking about
7 putting, you know, very specific on the license plate.
8 That may ultimately be the best solution. I ’m not
9 suggesting it’s not. But we wanted some flexibility in the
10 legislation to working with the State police make the
11 determination as to whether the best location would be for
12 the marking.
13 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Okay. And then you brought
14 up Chapter 11 and 13 of titling and registration. Are
15 there changes that need to be made in there as is or would
16 it need to be made to make accommodations for more lenience
17 with the license plate?
18 MR. SHARP: One of the issues we looked at,
19 Senator, in the legislation was the idea of the added
20 provisions to specifically requiring titling and
21 registration of HAVs in Pennsylvania led to the enforcement
22 sections of the bill, which were directing PennDOT to pull
23 registrations for certain violations. In addition to
24 comments that are in our written testimony where we think
25 that might be a bit beyond the need giving other penalties 72
1 within the bill, it seemed repetitive only because that
2 would only apply to Pennsylvania registered and titled HAVs
3 and really wouldn't extend to test vehicles that might be
4 brought in by a tester from another jurisdiction but would
5 meet all the Federal safety guidelines and Pennsylvania
6 State requirements. There would be nothing that would stop
7 them from testing in Pennsylvania. That would be a barrier
8 to testing that we didn't think was necessary. And no
9 changes are necessarily apparent from the face of an 11 and
10 13 right now.
11 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Okay. You made reference to
12 codes versus branding.
13 MR. MYERS: Yes.
14 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Major, this is all new. I
15 don’t know, codes versus branding, that’s a new one to me.
16 How do you see that or would you have to do some research
17 on it to -
18 MAJOR HOKE: Senator, if you wouldn’t mind, let
19 me get back to your previous comment regarding the marking
20 of vehicles. From a law enforcement perspective and from a
21 first responder perspective, we do believe that that is an
22 important issue that needs to be addressed. Simply because
23 this is all new, the technology is new, you know, until it
24 becomes mainstream throughout the country, first responders
25 and police officers that are going to be encountering these 73
1 vehicles need to know some definitive way that that’s what
2 they're dealing with, whether it be, you know, in a crash
3 situation or whatever circumstance.
4 I know there was some question earlier on today
5 with regard to the cybersecurity aspect. I believe Senator
6 Bartolotta brought that up. There is an obvious concern to
7 law enforcement with this type of technology that it can be
8 weaponized, that if the cybersecurity is not adequate
9 enough to protect these vehicles from being hacked, that
10 they can be misused in a criminal way. You know, it's not
11 a far stretch to envision a terrorist hacking into one of
12 these vehicles and weaponizing it for, you know, a criminal
13 intent.
14 So we have had those discussions regarding the
15 markings of the vehicles, and we are confident that -
16 actually, it was one of the recommendations that PSP had
17 made to Nolan Ritchie to include perhaps some further
18 revisions to the current draft.
19 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Okay. And if I could have
20 just one other question, Mr. Chairman?
21 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Go ahead.
22 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: With regards to platooning
23 where you say that's not addressed in level 1 and 2 but is
24 addressed in 3, 4, 5, okay, it only makes sense that how do
25 you get to 3, 4, 5 with testing a different type of vehicle 74
1 but it’s not really covered under level 1 and 2? Now, it
2 brings me to my point. You know, driving the turnpike all
3 the time, driving the interstates, you have these large
4 tractor-trailers, all different sizes, and then you have
5 the piggybacks where they have two of them. Should there
6 not be different levels -- having a car versus a tractor
7 and trailer, they may work the same way, but they don’t
8 drive the same way. So with the levels 1, 2, 3, should we
9 not have a different thought pattern about the levels for
10 those larger vehicles, transport vehicles, commercial,
11 tanker trucks, things like that?
12 MR. MYERS: I think we should from the standpoint
13 that there are companies that are in existence today that
14 are solely focused on level 1 and level 2 platooning and
15 have no intentions of moving beyond that. And this
16 legislation as it’s currently written doesn’t address that.
17 I ’ll have Jason speak to some of the more details
18 in reference to the specifics of the law.
19 MR. SHARP: Senator, there are two main issues
20 with the way -- the definition of platooning vehicle in the
21 current version of 427 exists, it only applies because it’s
22 a highly automated vehicle to 3, 4, and 5. It would leave
23 those currently level 1 and 2 platoon testing operations
24 potentially in legal limbo because it would revert back to
25 where we are today, which is the law doesn’t say anything 75
1 positively or negatively about whether they can do it.
2 Additionally, I think we've made recommendations
3 in our written testimony there needs to be addressed the
4 problem of Section 3310 in the Vehicle Code specifically
5 that deals with following too closely whereas the point of
6 platoons is to get the trucks in proximity to achieve fuel
7 savings. That would need to be addressed as well. But not
8 addressing 1 or 2 either in this bill or in a separate
9 piece of legislation leaves them in a legal limbo, and we
10 just wanted to make sure that was pointed out.
11 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Well, look, you're going to
12 need to get together with the people from the House
13 Transportation Committee and this Committee and our staffs.
14 Look, this is new stuff, and there's a lot of us that don't
15 have expertise in this area and it's new territory. So
16 we're looking to the people who even agree it's new and
17 innovative and we don't know where to go, but you're the
18 best resource we have besides the people who are developing
19 and doing the testing and the research and everything else.
20 So there comes a point in time we need to get
21 together. We want to put out the best piece of legislation
22 that we can before the Members who aren't as engaged in
23 this as we are, and we are not as engaged knowledge-wise as
24 all of you are. So there has to be a degree of trust in
25 the public and amongst the own Members who want to put up a 76
1 vote for this thing and make sure that they’re putting up
2 the best vote that they can put at the time and know full
3 well w e ’ll be flexible on this as things change. So we
4 need to get together on this thing. I don’t want to put
5 out a piece of legislation and tell them, well, everybody
6 said this is a pretty good piece of legislation but yet we
7 have some concerns about it. And when concerns come up, we
8 should address it right away, okay?
9 So just keep that in mind, and I think we need to
10 do those things. But, you know, we rely on the State
11 police for these types of things. They are truly the
12 expert and the Title 75 and then of course basically speak
13 for all law enforcement officers who have to enforce these
14 pieces of legislation dealing with Title 75 where something
15 happens with one of these vehicles and, well, I don’t know
16 what to do with this. So there needs to be a lot of
17 discussion on this.
18 Major, you had something to say?
19 MAJOR HOKE: Senator, just to concur with your
20 point, if at any point in time if anybody would have asked
21 me in my lifetime if I would be sitting before a Committee
22 to talk about autonomous vehicles, I probably would have
23 laughed at them. But the reality of the situation is the
24 technology is here, it is now, and certainly from our
25 perspective, PSP’s perspective, w e ’re going to do 77
1 everything that we need to do to make sure that the
2 legislation that’s drafted not only assures the public
3 safety but also gives the law enforcement community the
4 tools that they need to adequately address violations of
5 the law.
6 And I can tell you, and I ’ll give the recognition
7 where it’s due here this morning if you’ll allow me to
8 Nolan Ritchie from Senator Rafferty’s staff. He’s been
9 very receptive to our comments. He’s been very good with
10 our dialogue exchange of information when we bring ideas to
11 him, to bring that to light in the legislation. So want to
12 recognize him for that this morning also.
13 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: Well, we can do this. We
14 got two Chairmen who are willing to work on this, and as
15 the Representative and myself, makers of the bill, w e ’re
16 open to everything, but we need to have this ongoing
17 dialogue. And if something comes up, we need to get a
18 change and try to work out the best we can, okay?
19 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
21 Senator.
22 And thank you, Major, for the kind words about
23 Nolan, appreciate it.
24 Representative Rothman.
25 REPRESENTATIVE ROTHMAN: So we had talked 78
1 earlier, and the technology is advancing rapidly.
2 Sometimes government doesn’t advance as rapidly. Are we
3 prepared? I mean, the technology is prepared to have
4 testing today, tomorrow. How far are we away as the
5 Commonwealth in allowing testing to take place on our
6 roads?
7 MR. MYERS: Well, as I noted in my earlier
8 statements, Pennsylvania clearly is recognized as a leader
9 not only nationally but internationally, and a great deal
10 of that is based upon the fact that PennDOT took a
11 leadership role a number of years ago with working with
12 stakeholders, and really that leadership role goes back to
13 the 2012 region, 2011 region when we were beginning our
14 discussion about autonomous vehicles.
15 I ’m proud to say that PennDOT, under the
16 leadership of Secretary Richards, has a number of
17 individuals that are directly involved at the national and
18 international level related to automated vehicles in
19 organizations such as AASHTO, TRB, as well as AAMVA. These
20 organizations are very much in tune with what’s going on
21 not only in the U.S. and Canada but as well across the
22 world.
23 And we have remained active with those groups
24 because, as I think we all know and it’s been said here
25 earlier is that the more we think we know, the less we know 79
1 about this subject matter because it is changing so
2 rapidly. And w e ’re very fortunate that we have individuals
3 that have that knowledge base and are learning within the
4 Department but also in coordination, as I ’ve noted, not
5 only with the State police but also with other State
6 agencies that we have brought in to discuss these matters
7 so that we can all learn from each other.
8 So I think w e ’re well positioned at this point in
9 time. We understand, just as the bill represents, that
10 having that committee, as I noted earlier, to carry forward
11 and bring the stakeholders together will be a critical
12 component to ensuring our future success as well.
13 REPRESENTATIVE ROTHMAN: And I just want to add
14 thank you. And I didn’t want my comment to -- you are well
15 ahead of where I thought you were, so I ’m very pleased and
16 it’s exciting. Thank you.
17 MR. MYERS: Thank you.
18 REPRESENTATIVE ROTHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
20 Representative.
21 Chairman Keller.
22 HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you,
23 Mr. Chairman.
24 Major, we heard testimony that level 5 is about
25 10 years away. Now, I assume that all these cars will be 80
1 programmed to obey all the traffic laws in Pennsylvania. I
2 was just wondering, has the State police looked at the loss
3 of the traffic fines and the effect that will have on local
4 municipalities, the State police, and eventually the Motor
5 License Fund?
6 MAJOR HOKE: Sir, I think, as I mentioned in my
7 opening comments, our primary mission or one of all law
8 enforcement across the Commonwealth is highway safety. So
9 the fines are secondary to the enforcement of the law if
10 you will. So if the introduction of this technology
11 accomplishes all those things that w e ’re hearing from the
12 manufacturers and the industry that it will, it will save
13 lives. It will reduce crashes. It will, you know, provide
14 the mobility that the Deputy spoke to earlier. But at the
15 end of the day, people will be safer because of the
16 technology.
17 HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN KELLER: I completely
18 agree with you, and that is one of the main things that
19 will be accomplished by that. But another thing that may
20 be accomplished -- and it always comes back to us around
21 here -- is the loss of fines and how that’s going to be
22 replenished. I just wanted to know if the State police had
23 any estimate because it’s going to impact local
24 municipalities also if the State police had taken a look at
25 that. And, believe me, I ’m for traffic safety and I ’m for 81
1 saving lives, but eventually, w e ’ll never get away from the
2 revenue aspect of this, and I was just wondering if the
3 State police had taken a look at that yet.
4 MAJOR HOKE: We have not, sir. And I think at
5 this point it would be a little bit premature for us to do
6 that because simply we don’t know -- we have estimates as
7 to when this technology may become mainstream. However,
8 they’re only guesstimates if you will. So I mean,
9 certainly, planning forward as this technology becomes
10 introduced onto Pennsylvania roadways, we may be able to
11 get some sort of an assessment down the road, but it’s
12 certainly something w e ’ll be willing to keep an eye on for
13 you.
14 HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you.
15 Major, we do a lot of guesstimating around here so -
16 MAJOR HOKE: Yes, sir.
17 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Gentlemen,
18 thank you very much for your testimony today. I appreciate
19 it. I know, Kurt, you’re staying for the next panel as
20 well.
21 Next will be the HAV testing roundtable
22 discussion. Ms. Shari Shapiro, Senior Manager of Public
23 Affairs for Pennsylvania and Delaware, Uber; Mr. Chan Lieu,
24 Policy Advisor, Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets;
25 Mr. Jeffery Perry, Director of Public Policy, General 82
1 Motors; Mr. Damon Shelby Porter, Director of State
2 Government Affairs, Global Automakers; Mr. Wayne Weikel,
3 Senior Director of State Government Affairs, Alliance of
4 Automobile Manufacturers; Kurt Meyers, our Deputy Secretary
5 will be here to answer any questions. He won’t be
6 testifying during this segment. I believe Mr. Lieu will
7 begin the testimony.
8 Just so you know, please have a seat. Once
9 again, hit the button. When the green light comes on, you
10 can speak. A number of us will be leaving very shortly.
11 We plan to be back. We have a Senate Judiciary Committee
12 meeting we need to attend, myself included, and Senator
13 Sabatina. Representative Taylor then will be taking over
14 as Chair of the hearing. All the testimony will be
15 recorded, so w e ’ll make sure that we know what you’re all
16 testifying to here today.
17 So thank you very much. Mr. Lieu.
18 MS. SHAPIRO: W e ’re actually going to change it
19 up. I think I ’m going to go first and then -
20 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: You’re going
21 to go first?
22 MS. SHAPIRO: Yes.
23 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: You change up
24 the chair on me. No foul. No foul. That’s fine. That’s
25 fine. Ms. Shapiro, it’s always -- 83
1 MS. SHAPIRO: I like to keep it fresh.
2 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: -- good to
3 hear from you. Thank you.
4 MS. SHAPIRO: Good morning, Chairmen and the
5 other Members of the Transportation Committees. Thank you
6 for the invitation to testify this morning.
7 My name is Shari Shapiro, and I'm the head of the
8 Public Affairs for Uber for Pennsylvania and Delaware.
9 I'm here to take us back to Pennsylvania and to
10 talk about a Pennsylvania success story that we can all be
11 very proud of.
12 When fully deployed, the economic benefits of
13 self-driving vehicles are expected to exceed $1 trillion in
14 the United States alone. These savings are the result of
15 reduced congestion and improved productivity, reduced
16 commute times, fuel efficiencies, and of course to Chairman
17 Keller's point, reduced health care costs. So we're going
18 to see a shifting in the costs that are attributable to the
19 vehicle sector. And for most of the world, this is going
20 to take 5, 10, 15 years to be realized.
21 But that's not true here in Pennsylvania.
22 Through the investment of companies like Uber, we are
23 seeing the value of the investment in self-driving vehicles
24 right now. Uber opened its Advanced Technology Center in
25 Pittsburgh in 2015. Since then, we've invested hundreds of 84
1 millions of dollars in research and testing and deployment
2 of vehicles with self-driving safety technology.
3 In less than two years, w e ’ve created over 500
4 jobs, both blue- and white-collar. We employ engineers,
5 roboticists, artificial intelligence experts, as well as
6 automotive technicians, vehicle operators -- I invite you
7 to come and meet two of them outside with our vehicle today
8 -- and maintenance staff.
9 Our expanding operations have also created a
10 demand for goods and services from local small businesses.
11 Let me give you an example. Common Plea, a catering
12 company located in Pittsburgh’s strip district, has served
13 Pittsburghers since 1971. We hired Common Plea to provide
14 the catering services to our Pittsburgh facilities. As a
15 result, their sales have increased by 75 percent. They’ve
16 hired 25 additional staff people. They needed newer trucks
17 and kitchen equipment, which they bought locally. And
18 their weekly orders with local businesses and farms have
19 increased their productivity as well.
20 So by facilitating this kind of investment and
21 bringing a new sector into Pennsylvania with automated
22 vehicle technology, we have these great multiplier effects
23 from the investments the companies themselves, which my
24 fellow panelists will talk about, all the way through to
25 our local businesses and farms. 85
1 In addition to Common Plea, we rely on several
2 local high-tech electronic and mechanical components and
3 vehicle manufacturers. We've redeveloped 55 acres of
4 former industrial properties in Pittsburgh with the
5 associated environment remediation. And we have ongoing
6 work with six Pittsburgh architecture firms.
7 Most importantly, from our investment here, we
8 showed that Pennsylvania is a great place to start or grow
9 an autonomous vehicle business. In September 2016, we
10 launched the first commercial deployment of autonomous
11 vehicles on our road-sharing network. As a result,
12 Pittsburgh was instantly rocketed to the top destinations
13 for self-driving technology globally, and Pittsburgh's
14 leadership was featured in headlines around the world.
15 This is exactly the kind of reputation for technological
16 advancement and innovation that we deserve to have in
17 Pennsylvania.
18 There's now a burgeoning cluster of companies
19 like Google, Argo, Aurora, and Delphi that are developing
20 self-driving vehicle technology business in the greater
21 Pittsburgh area. Students from local universities like
22 Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh that might
23 once have left for New York or California now have the
24 opportunity to stay after they graduate to become part of
25 the technology revolution that is happening here. 86
1 Pittsburgh’s growing self-driving vehicle
2 technology cluster is a fantastic example of what can
3 happen when State and local governments encourage
4 innovation and take care to ensure that regulations do not
5 create unnecessary barriers to growth. W e ’ve been able to
6 test and deploy our vehicles in Pittsburgh without
7 incident, without any particular requirements being in
8 place, and without any incentives, tax or otherwise, from
9 State Government.
10 Unfortunately, in its current form, we think that
11 the language of Senate Bill 427 creates some upfront
12 barriers to developing and deploying self-driving
13 technology without making Pennsylvanians any safer in the
14 ways that all of the panelists and Members have raised. It
15 is our hope that we can work with the Committees to find
16 regulatory frameworks that allow companies like Uber to
17 continue to invest here while addressing some of the issues
18 that have been raised.
19 We have the opportunity to foster the growth and
20 innovation right here in Pennsylvania of technology and an
21 industry that will generate jobs, spur economic growth, and
22 save thousands of lives. We need to harness the
23 opportunity to grow that industry here, and we look forward
24 to working with the Members of the Committees to taking the
25 legislation into its next iteration. 87
1 Thank you.
2 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Mr. Lieu,
3 you’re -
4 MR. LIEU: Thank you very much, sir.
5 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: -- going to
6 continue.
7 MR. LIEU: Chairman Rafferty, Democratic Chairman
8 Sabatina, Chairman Taylor, Minority Chairman Keller, and
9 Members of the Senate and House Committees, on behalf of
10 the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, my name is
11 Chan Lieu, and I am pleased to provide this testimony for
12 the Committees’ joint hearing.
13 The Coalition was founded in April of last year
14 by Ford, Waymo, Uber, Lyft, and the Volvo Car Group. We
15 are focused on enabling the safe and swift deployment of
16 fully autonomous vehicles. This cross-section of companies
17 representing technology, automobile manufacturing, and
18 transportation network companies demonstrates the
19 widespread interest in developing this technology across
20 different sectors. Despite their different backgrounds,
21 these companies came together to form the Coalition because
22 of their commitment to bring this tremendous potential
23 safety benefits and mobility benefits of self-driving cars
24 to consumers in the safest and swiftest manner possible.
25 The Coalition believes autonomous vehicles have a 88
1 great potential to make our roads safer and more
2 accessible. As noted previously in other testimony, data
3 from the National Safety Council estimates that 40,000
4 American lives were lost last year due to motor vehicle
5 crashes. Since an estimated 94 percent of all crashes are
6 the result of a human decision, whether driving drunk, as
7 Senator Scavello had noted, distracted, fatigued, or at
8 excess speeds, fully autonomous vehicles have the potential
9 to dramatically reduce fatal crashes because they remove
10 human error from the driving process entirely. In addition
11 to these potential safety benefits, self-driving vehicles
12 hold the promise of enhanced mobility for the disabled, the
13 elderly, reducing congestion, and improving productivity.
14 Given the Coalition’s enthusiasm for autonomous
15 vehicles -- more specifically, levels 4 and 5 -- our
16 strongly held view is that self-driving vehicles have the
17 potential to change the country for the better, and we
18 support efforts at the State level to facilitate the rapid
19 testing and deployment of fully autonomous vehicles.
20 Likewise, we have concerns with legislation in any State
21 that unduly limits and impedes the advancement and public
22 use of this technology.
23 States will play a critical role in the
24 deployment of fully autonomous vehicle technology, and the
25 Coalition is encouraged that the legislators in 89
1 Pennsylvania recognize the significance. The fact that
2 these two Committees are jointly holding a hearing on AV
3 technology is encouraging and a step in the right
4 direction.
5 The Coalition wholeheartedly supports
6 Pennsylvania’s interest in autonomous vehicles. At the
7 same time, we are concerned that S.B. 427 would severely
8 restrict the development and deployment of self-driving
9 technology in the Commonwealth. The Coalition believes
10 that this legislation is a well-intended effort to achieve
11 our shared goals of improving safety and mobility but falls
12 short for several fundamental reasons. As a result, we
13 respectfully call upon the Legislature to shift its
14 consideration of AV technology to explicitly include
15 measures and steps that would facilitate greater testing
16 and the rapid deployment of self-driving vehicle technology
17 We are concerned that S.B. 427 would create
18 substantial obstacles to the deployment of self-driving
19 vehicle technology for several reasons. First, we believe
20 the bill imposes regulatory hurdles for entities seeking to
21 engage in testing. This is a significant departure from
22 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s
23 longstanding approach of encouraging innovation and
24 development in new technologies while requiring
25 manufacturers to self-certify that vehicles adhere to a 90
1 common set of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
2 NHTSA is the agency responsible for ensuring safety on
3 American roadways and capably employs its broad enforcement
4 authority and recall authority to ensure that companies do
5 not introduce unreasonable risks to safety on our roadways.
6 A cumbersome preapproval process runs completely
7 counter to the way this country has historically advanced
8 automotive safety. From critical safety technologies such
9 as seat belts, antilock brakes, airbags, to electronic
10 stability control, we have a strong history of allowing the
11 industry to innovate, develop, and deploy new safety
12 technologies before rushing in to define and mandate what
13 they are. The preapproval approach set forth by S.B. 427
14 would have the effect of stifling the development and
15 rollout of AV technology and denying the safety and
16 mobility benefits that this technology promises.
17 Second, the legislation focuses exclusively on
18 the testing of AV technology, making no provisions for
19 deployment. A testing-only approach is one that has been
20 rejected by policymakers in other jurisdictions such as
21 Arizona, Florida, and Michigan because AV technology is
22 advancing at such a rapid pace. Further, they are
23 preparing for its safe deployment and taking steps to be
24 leaders in facilitating innovation. Coalition members are
25 deeply concerned that proceeding with a testing-only 91
1 approach sends the signal that AV deployment is not welcome
2 in the Commonwealth. Moreover, such an approach would be
3 detrimental to the substantial investment that several
4 entities have made in Pennsylvania to date.
5 Because AV technology is so near to deployment, a
6 testing-only bill would likely be outdated the moment it
7 takes effect and another legislative effort would be
8 required to immediately clear the path for level 4 and
9 level 5 vehicles to be deployed. To the extent the
10 Legislature seeks to take action in areas of AV technology,
11 it should address both testing and deployment rather than
12 testing alone. More specifically, the State should examine
13 existing statute and regulations to determine if there are
14 present any obstacles to level 4 and level 5 deployment.
15 The Coalition appreciates the opportunity to
16 share our views on deployment of fully autonomous vehicles
17 in Pennsylvania. We are encouraged to learn that
18 alternative legislation to permit testing and deployment
19 may soon be circulated and are committed to working
20 collaboratively with all Members of both Committees towards
21 a reasonable policy that supports safety and innovation.
22 Thank you.
23 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Perry?
24 MR. PERRY: Good afternoon, Chairman Taylor,
25 Chairman Keller. We've lost a couple others, Chairman 92
1 Rafferty and Chairman Sabatina. Members of the Committees,
2 thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here
3 today. My name is Jeff Perry. I'm the Director of Public
4 Policy with General Motors.
5 And I would like to begin by pointing out that it
6 has been an honor to serve on behalf of General Motors as a
7 contributing member of the PennDOT Autonomous Vehicle Task
8 Force. And we do greatly appreciate the opportunity to
9 collaborate alongside with our fellow stakeholders, both
10 public and private in that endeavor.
11 As you know, the task force was tasked with
12 creating a framework in Pennsylvania to strike a balance
13 between safety and innovation in this space while creating
14 a clear pathway that elevates that State as a leader in the
15 responsible development of self-driving cars. GM is a
16 strong advocate for legislation that does just that, by
17 paving the way for self-driving vehicles and vehicle
18 testing and deployment here in the Commonwealth of
19 Pennsylvania.
20 And while safety is General Motor's number one
21 priority in this space, we do share many of the concerns
22 that have been expressed by other panelists this morning,
23 including many of those recently expressed by our peers
24 here at Uber.
25 And given that many of my comments that are in my 93
1 testimony have already been stated, I ’m going to save you a
2 little bit of that time today and jump ahead a little bit.
3 But as w e ’ve been discussing, with any new technology,
4 there are certainly hurdles that we all need to overcome.
5 Collaboration is definitely the key to getting over those
6 hurdles and working together to resolve the uncertainties
7 that w e ’re all faced with. And they are certainly needed
8 to realize the tremendous safety potential that this
9 technology holds for all of us.
10 And it’s important to remember that the
11 development of self-driving cars provides many other
12 potential societal and environmental benefits that have
13 been discussed here this morning, not the least of which is
14 providing transportation options to those that either can’t
15 afford the transportation or can’t operate a vehicle or for
16 some other reason have no access to personal or mass
17 transportation.
18 At General Motors we are committed to a safe
19 transition to self-driving cars, and w e ’ve focused on
20 developing a suite of technologies that range from active
21 safety features to fully autonomous vehicles. Our
22 innovative technologies in our cars today provide many
23 safety features, including full-range adaptive speed
24 control, lane-keep assistance, forward collision warning,
25 and collision mitigation braking to name a few. These 94
1 automated driving technologies represent the next logical
2 step forward in the journey already underway to take
3 transportation to this next stop as safe as possible.
4 But before we deploy those self-driving cars at
5 the highest levels of self-driving automation, we need to
6 capture and develop real-world experience in a safe
7 environment, and we need to do it in a way that we can
8 capture as much unpredictable, unscripted information and
9 data to make this go as far as we can. There’s only so far
10 and so much that we can test with scripted information on
11 planned roads and pathways, so I think part of what’s
12 missing in this legislation goes to the extent that this
13 bill only addresses the authorization of testing and it
14 misses an important step of deployment to the public where
15 w e ’re going to get access to that randomized information
16 that comes from the unpredictability and the unscripted
17 nature of that type of driving environment.
18 We do, however, believe that the existing legal
19 barriers to the safe testing and deployment of autonomous
20 vehicles need be removed. That was discussed a little bit
21 earlier. For example, Pennsylvania’s law currently
22 requires a human driver to be in the vehicle at all times.
23 This makes deployment of a self-driving vehicle, levels 4
24 and 5, significantly more difficult if not nearly
25 impossible for a level 5 because in order to operate those 95
1 vehicles and know that they are doing what they’re supposed
2 to do, we need to be able to show they can operate without
3 a human actually in the car.
4 But we do encourage Pennsylvania to join other
5 States that have already acted to make possible for these
6 cars to be tested and deployed in a driverless
7 configuration, and several of those States were mentioned
8 earlier today, including my home State of Michigan.
9 We believe that self-driving vehicle legislation
10 should encourage and foster innovation, while also ensuring
11 that safety is the top priority. And to that end, we are
12 committed to working on an ongoing basis with the bill
13 sponsors, the Members of these Committees, the PennDOT AV
14 Task Force, our industry peers, and other stakeholders on
15 legislative language that would improve the current
16 provisions of Senate Bill 427.
17 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Porter.
18 MR. PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members
19 of the Committee. In the interest of time, I know you’ve
20 digested a lot of information and you have my official
21 statement for the record that you can reflect upon in
22 addition to the other testimony that you’ve heard today. I
23 would like to just spend a few moments touching upon some
24 of the comments that have been made by some of the other
25 presenters to put into context really the public policy 96
1 questions that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should be
2 discussing.
3 First of all, Global Automakers is a trade
4 association. We represent the U.S. operations of
5 international automotive manufacturers. W e ’ve invested
6 over $56 billion in the United States, employ over 100,000
7 Americans, and in 2016 our member companies represented
8 seven of the top 10 best-selling cars and light-duty trucks
9 that were sold in the United States. So obviously our
10 investment and commitment in the United States has been
11 strong for many, many years and certainly has been very
12 strong in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
13 First of all, I really want to commend and
14 congratulate the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You’ve
15 demonstrated in a variety of ways your support for
16 promoting autonomous vehicle technology. You really have
17 been a leader in this space, and you should be commended
18 for that. And you should also be commended for the great
19 stakeholder that you have in government, particularly Kurt
20 Myers, who w e ’ve had the pleasure of working with, as well
21 as other folks that have been mentioned such as Nolan
22 Ritchie.
23 I would like to point out just a couple of areas
24 where you’ve been in the right way, you’ve done the right
25 thing to promote autonomous vehicle technology. Number 97
1 one, in 2016, PennDOT wrote a letter to the Federal
2 Communications Commission and urged them to preserve the
3 5.9 gigahertz spectrum, which we call the safety spectrum.
4 Why is this important? The safety spectrum was allocated
5 some 20 years ago to help automobile manufacturers and
6 others deploy what's called dedicated short-range
7 communication, or DSRC. This is something we really
8 haven't touched upon today because we've been focusing
9 primarily on autonomous vehicles, and autonomous vehicles
10 has the ability through radar or lidar or cameras to have a
11 360-degree situational analysis of what's going on with
12 that car.
13 But we really need to move beyond just the self
14 driving car to the ability of cars to speak to other cars,
15 to talk to them, to talk to pedestrians, to talk to
16 infrastructure. And this is going to alleviate a lot of
17 the concerns that this Committee has raised such as how do
18 we enforce traffic codes? How do we ensure when an
19 ambulance needs to get down the road? How do we alleviate
20 traffic congestion? A lot of this is with DSRC technology.
21 We want to commend the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for
22 urging the FCC to preserve that spectrum.
23 Secondly, we wanted to commend the Commonwealth
24 of Pennsylvania and particularly the City of Pittsburgh for
25 collaborating with Carnegie Mellon and Uber to test 98
1 vehicles on public roads. This is very important in terms
2 of making both the public, consumers and other stakeholders
3 aware of autonomous vehicle technology.
4 Third, we want to congratulate the Commonwealth
5 of Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh again for being designated
6 by the U.S. Department of Transportation as a proving
7 ground. This is going to allow all of the stakeholders to
8 share best practices. Pittsburgh is only one of 10
9 communities in the entire United States to have this
10 designation.
11 And the fourth example that we want to commend
12 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is your significant public
13 investment, increasing $2.4 billion into transportation
14 infrastructure. A lot of that’s going to go in terms of
15 helping autonomous vehicles and V2V communications
16 accelerate.
17 So the natural question that we really need to
18 have at this conversation at this informational hearing is
19 this: With all of the achievements that the Commonwealth
20 of Pennsylvania has made thus far and certainly there will
21 be more achievements that will be made in the future, is
22 this the appropriate time for Pennsylvania to be
23 introducing legislation such as Senate Bill 427 to foster
24 the right public policy environment for autonomous
25 vehicles? In the opinion of Global Automakers, we believe 99
1 that that answer is quite frankly no. A lot of the
2 conversation that you've had today has been to highlight
3 other States and the legislation that has been passed, and
4 that may give you the sense that perhaps the Commonwealth
5 of Pennsylvania should follow that track.
6 We believe that there's an alternative public
7 policy path that you can take, and it's not to follow the
8 State of California, which has quite frankly imposed one of
9 the most cumbersome, highly regulatory, dense, complex set
10 of rules that will frustrate innovation. We believe
11 there's an alternative path, and frankly, you're already
12 working with that State, and that's the State of Ohio.
13 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of
14 Michigan, and the State of Ohio have worked jointly in
15 what's called a Smart Belt Coalition to again figure out
16 how we deploy autonomous vehicle technology not just within
17 the borders of one State but how we work regionally. And
18 this is very important I think for the Commonwealth of
19 Pennsylvania to follow the path of Ohio.
20 The State of Ohio has not passed one law, they
21 have not introduced one piece of regulation, and yet they
22 have achieved many of the same successes that the
23 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's done. And I'll point to a
24 couple of them. Number one, the City of Columbus was the
25 first city in the United States to be selected as a smart 100
1 city challenge city. They were awarded $40 million by the
2 U.S. Department of Transportation to become the first fully
3 integrated transportation network to focus on automated and
4 connected vehicle technology. They didn’t pass one law;
5 they did not implement one rule.
6 Secondly, Governor Kasich has designated a
7 stretch of U.S. 33 as an innovation corridor, and he has
8 committed over $45 million in additional resources to
9 accelerate technology. Not one law was passed; not one
10 rule was implemented. And as I mentioned before, Ohio has
11 established the Smart Belt Coalition along with
12 Pennsylvania and Michigan working across State borders to
13 support research and develop additional technology.
14 While we understand that it is the natural
15 progression for a lot of public policymakers to try to
16 introduce legislation, we think that we should take a more
17 incremental approach. We should try to find where there
18 are impediments or barriers on your books currently that
19 need to be removed so that more innovation will continue.
20 But if you’re looking to introduce legislation
21 because you want to show that you’re open for business or
22 that you want to try to attract or to retain those of us in
23 the private sector or other stakeholders to come or to
24 stay, or if you believe that there are important safety
25 concerns that need to be addressed, we believe that through 101
1 collaboration, through cooperation by working with agencies
2 such as DMV, Highway Patrol, and others, we can achieve
3 these goals and a whole lot more.
4 But if you look at every other State that’s
5 passed a piece of legislation, they’ve had to come back
6 time and time again to change that law because the laws
7 will never catch up to the innovation. As was mentioned
8 before, the technology is moving very rapidly. Does
9 Pennsylvania want to be one of the States that’s going to
10 have to address this issue year after year trying to catch
11 up with technology? Or does Pennsylvania want to be one of
12 the States that is a leader by letting the technology and
13 the information accelerate in its natural and organic
14 progression.
15 So these are some of the comments that Global
16 Automakers has. Again, I have mentioned we have an
17 official statement for the record that explains much more
18 thoroughly our position. We look forward to answering any
19 questions that you may have. And again, we thank you very
20 much for the time to be here at this forum.
21 MR. WEIKEL: Good morning, Members of the
22 Committee. My name is Wayne Weikel. I ’m here on behalf of
23 the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The Alliance is
24 a trade association representing 12 of the world’s leading
25 car manufacturers who, together, sell three out of four new 102
1 cars on the road each year.
2 While it is clear that the sponsors in this
3 Committee and Committee staff, as well as Kurt and numerous
4 people over at DOT have put a lot of effort into this
5 legislation and this issue over the last few years, the end
6 result in Senate Bill 427 is simply not something that the
7 Alliance can support at this time.
8 We would, however, like to continue to work with
9 the Committee and DOT on this issue, as we did last year.
10 We provided numerous comments on the rounds of revisions of
11 this bill last session. We also provided testimony to
12 PennDOT in their working group. Regrettably, we continue
13 to sort of see the same issues present in this bill.
14 The first challenge for any company considering
15 testing is the complexity of this law outlined. While
16 trying to solve for every issue raised, the bill gets
17 mighty confusing. For example, the definition of a test
18 operator is two full pages long. The sections on titling
19 and registration and insurance all reference other
20 Pennsylvania statutes. I ’ve read the citations and I ’m
21 still not sure whether auto manufacturers are obligated or
22 exempted from those sections.
23 And that’s not to suggest that the complexity
24 ends with Senate Bill 427. The bill also provides PennDOT
25 cart blanche to develop layers of policy to implement this 103
1 law. That just is a lot for a manufacturer or a testing
2 company to come in and understand when they are looking at
3 venues to possibly test.
4 The definitions in this bill sort of combine SAE
5 definitions, NHTSA definitions, and then some definitions
6 that are Penn-specific. And when you’re talking about
7 applying definitions to engineering specifications, minor
8 changes really do make a difference, and this bill has more
9 than minor changes in the definitions.
10 Kurt referenced the identification of how
11 vehicles are labeled when they’re going down the road, test
12 vehicles. Testers will tell you that having an obvious
13 marking on a vehicle presents challenges. You’ll either
14 have other drivers going down the road noticing that
15 sticker and then causing a distraction by hey, hey, that’s
16 an autonomous vehicle, or you’ve got the people who have
17 are a little bit more nefarious who want to test the
18 technology and get in front of a vehicle and jam their
19 brakes on and things of that nature. As Jeff had said, the
20 goal of this is real-world testing. We want just a real-
21 world test, not a simulated or augmented sort of testing.
22 The confidentiality section in the bill we don’t
23 think goes far enough. It only protects against
24 distribution to third parties, and from what our lawyers
25 have told us, the only way, the only way to keep sensitive 104
1 business information private is to share it as least
2 possible.
3 Liability in this section we think does not go
4 far enough. If our manufacturers produce a vehicle that
5 rolls off the assembly line as a fully working vehicle and
6 then another company takes one of our vehicles and changes
7 the technology and somehow fails to do it correctly, we
8 don’t think we should carry any liability on that.
9 Platooning, it was mentioned a little bit earlier
10 in some of the questioning, platooning is not automated
11 vehicle technology. Platooning should be dealt with in a
12 completely separate section of this bill or in a completely
13 separate bill. In platooning, you still have a human being
14 at the very front of the platoon making all the decisions.
15 The trucks that are following are just tied electronically.
16 Autonomous vehicles gather data from sensors and the
17 computer is making decisions based on that data. It’s
18 advanced but it’s not the same thing.
19 I think it’s regrettable that the City of
20 Pittsburgh was not able to participate today. They are the
21 reason w e ’re all here. The Mayor recognized the
22 intellectual capital that that city had and welcomed
23 industries to that city that could benefit from that
24 capital. You know, as a result, everyone’s aware of Uber’s
25 investment in that city. More recently, Ford announced a 105
1 billion-dollar investment, a billion-dollar investment in a
2 Pittsburgh-based technology company Argo AI, and Argo
3 immediately turned around and announced that they were
4 hiring 200 more employees.
5 In a story covering the Argo AI announcement, the
6 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette made the statement "The road to
7 self-driving future goes through Steel City." And they're
8 right. You know, just a few years ago, the development of
9 automated vehicle technology was seen as a race between
10 Silicon Valley and Motor City. The Mayor, through his
11 actions at presenting a welcoming alternate venue, he
12 changed that.
13 As Ben from NCSL had mentioned earlier, Arizona
14 is another State that has used the existence of a welcoming
15 regulatory structure to attract investment in autonomous
16 vehicle technology. Like the Mayor, Governor Ducey made it
17 clear that he wanted to help companies bring their
18 technologies to market. To do so, he signed an executive
19 order directing his administration to bring down any
20 barriers to testing. That is the sort of mindset that is
21 needed to remain a leader in this area. How can you bring
22 down barriers, not how can you put them up.
23 I heard a lot today about safety. Safety is
24 paramount, and we certainly don't question that. But I do
25 think the focus on that needs to be a little different. 106
1 The safety focus in this area should be on the 1,200
2 roadway deaths that the Commonwealth had in 2015 or the
3 1,195 it had the year before, or the 1,210 the year before
4 that. Over the last 10 years, 13,256 of your constituents
5 have died on the roadways of Pennsylvania. As you heard,
6 94 percent of those accidents were due to human error.
7 Incidentally, the other 6 percent are 2 percent weather, 2
8 percent automotive vehicle, and 2 percent some
9 miscellaneous.
10 You know, automakers have invested billions of
11 dollars over the last decade to develop automated vehicle
12 technology to reduce roadway deaths. The goal of
13 policymakers should be to help automakers bring this
14 technology to market as quickly as possible. It really
15 isn't hyperbole to suggest that lives actually do hang in
16 the balance.
17 In closing, while I would again like to express
18 the Alliance and its members' commitment to work with the
19 Committee and DOT, I would also like to recommend to
20 Committee Members, as they're considering this legislation
21 and others like it, that they consider two real simple
22 questions when evaluating legislation: How is this needed
23 to really promote safety in the Commonwealth? And what
24 does this do to grow Pittsburgh's emerging AV industry.
25 Thank you. 107
1 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, thanks to
2 all of you. It’s a shame that we had conflicting meetings
3 because now w e ’re at the fun part, right? So even the
4 audience now, everybody’s kind of perked up. Now, w e ’re at
5 the stage where we all want to be where there’s some
6 conflict and just as a curious point, from the time
7 Ms. Shapiro started till we got down to you, it just got
8 increasingly more critical of the bill. So everybody had a
9 little bit of license. Mr. Perry was very polite.
10 Mr. Lieu not so -- and then bam.
11 However, you know -- and look, we have different
12 roles, right, so I understand what, you know, Mr. Porter
13 was saying. It’s awesome from your end if there’s no rules
14 or no laws.
15 However, we did get testimony earlier about this
16 10-year span when level 5 would be maybe implemented,
17 right? And I know there’s not a lot of confidence in you
18 that we could pass a testing legislation alone without
19 going into implementation. You know, and I ’m going to let
20 Kurt talk because, you know, when I chair a lot of
21 meetings, we love to have the conflict right there.
22 But when is that time? So when is the time when
23 any of your companies would want to put that vehicle out on
24 the street at level 5 and just -- and I understand. I
25 mean, I ’m sure that if we tried to do aviation, we didn’t 108
1 want to hurt anybody, no plane would ever have taken off,
2 right? So I get that. But if anybody has an opinion on
3 what that timing is because I understand that you would
4 rather see a bill that has testing and implementation all
5 at once and be done. And w e ’re constantly trying to catch
6 up by the way in every industry in every Committee. W e ’re
7 never ahead of the curve the way we would like to be.
8 But I ’d just like to hear when that is. When is
9 that timing when you would just love to put that car out on
10 the street? So do you want the most polite or the most
11 critical?
12 MS. SHAPIRO: Well, I try and flip it around -
13 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You go.
14 MS. SHAPIRO: — keep it fresh.
15 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh.
16 MS. SHAPIRO: So I would answer -
17 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That’s not a bad
18 thing, Mr. Weikel. W e ’d rather get to the point, right?
19 MS. SHAPIRO: I would argue that there is no
20 line, that this is iterative technology and that we will
21 always be testing and that you could argue that we have
22 already deployed the autonomous vehicle technology. It’s
23 arguably not even level 3, but there will never be a time
24 when you can draw a line and say w e ’ve stopped testing, now
25 w e ’re going to deploy. For automobile manufacturers, you 109
1 may be able to say, well, this is the time that they
2 started selling it to the public, but from fleet operators,
3 from the FedExes of the world, et cetera, when is that
4 line? I don’t know. And that’s the reason that a
5 testing-only bill doesn’t really make a lot of sense from
6 our perspective.
7 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Kurt, do you
8 have any comments yet or would you like to see them respond
9 to that? Okay.
10 MR. MYERS: I ’ll let these folks speak and I ’ll
11 be happy to comment then.
12 MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, I think one -- and I
13 think Shari’s done a great job of answering one of the
14 pieces of question. I don’t think any of the members,
15 certainly Global Automakers has ever suggested that the
16 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or any other State shouldn’t
17 consider introducing legislation and that there is an
18 appropriate time for introduction of legislation. There is
19 a critical role for States to play, there’s no question,
20 just as there’s a critical role for the Federal Government
21 to play in this whole public policy arena.
22 I think Shari touches on one very important part
23 which is we’ve had automated technology in cars for 20, 25
24 years. This is not something new. And consumers frankly
25 have embraced the automated features that have been 110
1 introduced in their cars year after year after year because
2 they’re asking for more.
3 So to a certain extent what we need to be
4 thinking about is when you introduce legislation in this
5 State, how is it going to impact your neighboring States?
6 And I think this is probably the more critical question.
7 It’s not so much what the legislation will do within the
8 boundaries of this State but what’s the impact? So, for
9 example, if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passes a
10 particular piece of legislation, what happens when that
11 autonomous vehicle crosses State lines? Is it still
12 certified or is it not certified? That’s, you know, one
13 very important question.
14 Another question would be, you know, from the
15 perspective of an automobile manufacturer, we are designing
16 and building and selling cars that we hope will be
17 introduced in the marketplace of 50 States, not one, and so
18 we’re very concerned whenever we’re investing billions of
19 dollars in technology, will one State pass a law which will
20 in effect make that car only available to sell in one
21 State? And we have seen, this year, for example, 50 pieces
22 of legislation, and those 50 pieces of legislation, a
23 variety of different definitions, a variety of different
24 scenarios of when you can test, where you can test, how you
25 can test. And we can’t as an industry of four to invest 111
1 that type of resources and time if we are not going to be
2 able ultimately to deploy.
3 And the final piece I ’ll make, and I ’ll let my
4 other colleagues speak, the importance of testing is really
5 to determine what is the appropriate real-world application
6 for a particular community. We don’t know if the
7 deployment of autonomous vehicles will take the form of
8 platooning or commercial truck first, whether it will take
9 the form of ride-sharing such as Uber, or you’ll be able to
10 go down to your local dealership and buy an autonomous
11 vehicle. That’s the importance of testing and that’s the
12 importance of collaboration. And I think those are the
13 things that we need to focus on.
14 So it’s not so much that w e ’re opposed to any
15 particular legislation for legislation’s sake. It’s the
16 question of is it necessary to achieve the goals that you
17 want to achieve?
18 MR. MYERS: Go ahead.
19 MR. LIEU: I definitely want to echo the comments
20 of the other witnesses. The only thing I would add is, you
21 know, if we take a page out of what the Federal Government
22 is doing with the Federal Automated Vehicle Policy
23 Guidance, I think NHTSA took a very, very, you know, wise
24 approach in recognizing that w e ’re still a ways away from
25 developing regulations and standards. And so the mode that 112
1 they're in right now is data gathering, trying to learn as
2 much as possible from the industry through things like that
3 safety assessment letter, learning about what the
4 manufacturers are defining for their own respective
5 operating design domains. How are they developing
6 cybersecurity technologies? What are these different
7 components of what makes an autonomous vehicle an
8 autonomous vehicle and how they intend to operate? And
9 from there I think the regulators can have a better
10 understanding of how to proceed, and I think that approach
11 would be worthwhile to consider for the States as well.
12 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: [inaudible]
13 Senator Scavello want to ask your questions now and then
14 we'll have [inaudible].
15 SENATOR BREWSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's
16 just an observation, not a question. I was impressed by
17 the way you sequentially talked about the kindness down to
18 Mr. Weikel on the end, so mine should not be reviewed as
19 being criticism but an observation.
20 Having heard the testimony, I just want to make a
21 couple points clear. I think what you're doing is great,
22 and I'm happy to be part of it, but there were some things
23 said that aren't quite accurate and I just want to take you
24 back a little bit.
25 We heard about Pittsburgh being a good partner. 113
1 I represent 38 communities. Pittsburgh's not one of them.
2 and I would remind everybody in this audience that where I
3 represent was the largest producer of steel in the world,
4 and everyone in this room has benefited from that 50 years
5 ago. And with all due respect to Pittsburgh, which is our
6 hub, no question, there are other areas, brownfield sites
7 that are just standing there waiting for you. And I
8 haven't heard from any of you. Two hundred and seventy
9 thousand people are waiting with open arms.
10 And, again, without any disrespect to Pittsburgh,
11 that's not the only game in town. These rivers are still
12 there. The brownfields are remediated. People are
13 displaced and unemployed, okay, skilled workers. So when
14 you do your strategic plan, I would suggest you go back and
15 revisit that.
16 Now, on the automation point, I'm a little old-
17 fashioned, and I've seen what we've done with education in
18 the last two years and we displaced 30,000 teachers. They
19 didn't all get jobs. So anyone that thinks when you
20 automate that there's a one-for-one replacement, that's
21 simply not true. I spent 30 years in the banking business,
22 and we dictated how people would bank and we put banks out
23 of business unfortunately.
24 So I would like to see your long-term strategic
25 plan, and I think any smart businessperson would say here's 114
1 who w e ’re going to hire and here’s who may get displaced.
2 It happens. How do we transform them and get them back
3 into the industry, small things like where do we buy the
4 steel for the automobiles and where do we get the
5 technology, what country, you know, all the things that we
6 hear on a national level now.
7 I believe in those things. You have an
8 opportunity to reinvent communities across this
9 Commonwealth, not just western Pennsylvania, third-class
10 cities that have fallen deep into poverty. So to get my
11 vote, and I want to do that, I want you to be mindful of
12 those things because these are great opportunities that
13 don’t come around all that often.
14 I think Kurt went from horse-and-buggy to cars
15 earlier on. I remember that. I wasn’t sleeping two hours
16 ago. And w e ’re going to see big changes. We want to be at
17 the beginning of that. But without saying any more and
18 creating any more heartburn for anybody in the room or
19 those that may not be here, we still have an obligation to
20 12-1/2 million people in the Commonwealth.
21 And I would just close by saying this: Some of
22 us voted for Act 89, the transportation bill, freed up
23 considerable money for roadways. And I ’m hoping that we
24 can somehow marry the technology that you present with the
25 technology on the new roadways. I’m thinking there’s 115
1 things you can put in the concrete to make sure older guys
2 like me don’t run off the road and all that good stuff.
3 And this is a great time to think about those things. And
4 I ’m sure your IT folks are doing that as we speak.
5 But I just wanted to get that off my chest
6 because it is exciting but right now it sounds like it’s
7 exciting for just a small region. And I would ask you to
8 revisit that. We have a lot to offer in some of these
9 other districts, not just my district but other districts
10 throughout the Commonwealth.
11 So thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you want to
12 comment, that’s fine.
13 MALE SPEAKER: [inaudible] quickly, please.
14 MR. PERRY: Senator, if I could respond to that
15 real quickly. And you commented that there are many folks
16 across Pennsylvania other than in Pittsburgh that are sort
17 of waiting with open arms for this technology to come to be
18 a part of it, to be a part of that industry with us. And I
19 think every one of us would actually agree with that, and
20 that’s sort of the scope and tenor of our comments here
21 today is that what w e ’re trying to say is that while we
22 want to be able to come to Pennsylvania and we agree 1,000
23 percent that safety is the first and foremost priority,
24 that what has been presented at this point unfortunately
25 needs a lot of work. And the reason that there hasn’t been 116
1 a lot of additional manufacturer activity in the State at
2 this point is that w e ’re not at that level yet that the
3 manufacturers are feeling attracted to the State for that
4 development.
5 SENATOR BREWSTER: Well, thank you. And thank
6 you, Mr. Chairman. I would just again close by saying
7 you’ve got McKeesport, Clairton, Duquesne, New Kensington,
8 Lower Burrell, a whole bunch of communities that are
9 sitting out there waiting. They deserve your attention.
10 So thank you.
11 MR. PERRY: Yes, thank you.
12 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don’t know
13 what that was, but Kurt?
14 MR. MYERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be
15 very, very brief. I just wanted to follow up with the
16 comments that were made by the panel. And one of the
17 things that I think is extremely important and I mentioned
18 earlier was the need for flexibility in this legislation.
19 It’s critical, as well as collaboration, and you heard
20 those words earlier brought up by the panel.
21 In addition to that, one of the most important
22 things -- I had the opportunity to speak at the Royal
23 Congress outside of Detroit in October, and I was asked by
24 an audience, which was primarily automotive manufacturers,
25 what’s the most important thing that you can recommend as a 117
1 State Government in reference to the advancement of
2 automation? And I said it was the word trust. There has
3 to be a degree of trust.
4 And I would prefer that we not be called the
5 regulators. And these individuals that are creating this
6 automation, the manufacturers, we are partners and we need
7 to move forward as partners. There needs to be that
8 flexibility. I don’t believe for a second and I know this
9 panel doesn’t believe that safety and innovation are
10 mutually exclusive. The fact of the matter is is that they
11 can go together.
12 And we understand that unquestionably the
13 manufacturers, whether it be Uber or General Motors or any
14 of the other corporations that are out there developing
15 this technology are evolving at different paces. And it
16 does create a difficulty if we only have testing to address
17 when all of the manufacturers may not get to the point of
18 deployment at the same time. And so then the question
19 becomes do you say to a company A who’s reached that point
20 of being able to deploy, no, even though your technology is
21 better, your engineers did a better job, you have to wait
22 for the slowest one in the pack to get up to that point
23 before w e ’re going to pass legislation.
24 So I do believe -- and as the lead agency for the
25 administration as PennDOT, that we believe that there has 118
1 to be that flexibility. There needs to be something to
2 address that very issue because the message we are sending
3 at that point in time, if we don’t have that flexibility
4 for some form of deployment process, whatever it might be,
5 w e ’re holding back those companies who have achieved the
6 ability to be able to put a level 2, 3, 4, 5 vehicle out on
7 the road.
8 I would also say, and I say this to the industry,
9 with that trust and with that partnership also comes along
10 the responsibility to ensure that that technology is ready
11 to be deployed and is not simply a marketing ploy. That is
12 critical because there will be nothing quicker to undermine
13 the trust of the citizens of Pennsylvania and for that
14 matter the citizens of this country than marketing
15 decisions that override your ability from the standpoint of
16 deploying that technology.
17 And so when we speak about trust, when we speak
18 about collaborative efforts, it is critical that we treat
19 each other in a way that allows for this innovation to move
20 forward for all the benefits that have been discussed
21 earlier.
22 Secretary Richards has a vision for the future
23 that has an intricate role for the use of automated
24 technology and how it will affect our society. I ’d like to
25 see that vision come true sooner rather than later, and I 119
1 think we can do it by working together.
2 HOUSE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I thought that
3 this segment, certainly Members appreciate it and our staff
4 and everything that you have said will be taken into
5 consideration I'm sure.
6 With that, John?
7 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
8 Chairman, and thank you for filling in. We've returned
9 from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thank you, panelists,
10 for your time today, the Members. We have in the parlance
11 of baseball our closer for today. Representing the
12 Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania as President and CEO
13 Mr. Sam Marshall. Good to see you, Sam. And Sam's
14 testimony is one that's been of interest to a number of us
15 is what's going to happen insurance-wise with these type of
16 vehicles on the road, and we're happy to have him here
17 today to offer his testimony.
18 Thank you very much, Sam, and whenever you're
19 ready, just hit the button at the base and the green light
20 will come on and you can go.
21 MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Senator. In my younger
22 more sensitive days I would have been a little hurt not to
23 have been a part of the other roundtable, and I would have
24 been a little hurt not to have been a part of a lot of the
25 stakeholder meetings that have been had because that's 120
1 exactly what the insurance industry is. We have a lot at
2 stake here. We ensure the safety of people who drive on
3 the public roads and we frankly -- I'd love to have a
4 relationship with the regulator where we're partners. We
5 don't enjoy that luxury. We don't get that ability because
6 we are regulated. So should these entities.
7 I know sometimes we come along in this and we
8 come across as sort of the Flintstones opining on the
9 Jetsons and we seem to be the outdated ones, you know,
10 trying to resist new technology and innovation. Nothing
11 could be further from the truth. I think a lot of -- you
12 know from our past influence on legislation we're huge
13 promotors of driver safety, you know, sometimes not
14 successfully, I mean, you know, things like the helmet law
15 for motorcyclists, you know, things like speed limits. You
16 know, sometimes we come before you and we make our case and
17 you turn it down; sometimes, you know, we all go there.
18 You know, we've done, you know, whether it's anti-texting
19 laws, things like that, things to try to reduce human
20 error, try to reduce accidents, and frankly try to take the
21 cost out of the accidents and the injuries that come from
22 it.
23 That frankly is why we're conflicted on self
24 driving cars. On the one hand we love the technology. We
25 can't wait for it. We're eager. We see a lot of promise 121
1 in it to reduce accidents and reduce injuries. At the same
2 time w e ’re concerned with the testing of it because what
3 you’re talking about is testing experimental cars on public
4 roadways. It’s what it is. You know, it sounds really
5 cool unless that test car is driving right next to you and
6 you wonder how those tests are going.
7 You know, from our perspective, you can have that
8 balance. You can do that balance. You can regulate that
9 balance. It’s not going to be a partnership; it’s going to
10 be a regulatory relationship, and it should be. But what
11 you can’t do is let the promise of tomorrow overtake any
12 protection of the safety of today.
13 We ’ve gone through the bill in considerable
14 detail, and you can see that from our attached comments
15 going through it section by section. You know, right now,
16 we don’t think that it establishes the regulatory structure
17 that has adequate standards and the ongoing supervision of
18 the testing of these experimental cars on public roadways.
19 I’m not going to be able to go into every recommendation
20 we ’ve made or every consideration that w e ’ve had, but I
21 will, in the interest of time and your own schedules, I ’ll
22 lay out our major concerns.
23 You know, first, insurance guy, the bill should
24 spell out the insurance requirements of HAV testers, you
25 know, highly automated vehicle testers and operators, and 122
1 their liability in the event of an accident. We hope there
2 are no accidents, but these are test cars on public roads.
3 You shouldn’t have -- all of us are unwittingly going to be
4 a part of that experiment. What are we going to do? W e ’re
5 not going to know that somebody’s driving a test car right
6 next to us.
7 If there is, God forbid, an accident, it ought to
8 be clear for the consumer as to who’s liable and where the
9 consumer goes. You know, you don't want to say, gee, who
10 was -- I mean, we talked about who the driver is at level 3
11 as if somehow the individual in the car who overrides the
12 computer when the computer has a glitch doesn’t work, that
13 that’s the real driver. No, he’s not. He’s the real
14 corrector. He’s the emergency responder. The driver was
15 the computer. That’s what got the car, you know, ran
16 through the red light or did something wrong. But you
17 don’t want consumers who say, God, you know, where do I go?
18 Who am I looking at? Everybody’s going to point fingers
19 the other way. Make it clear.
20 You know, second, the bill -- and you’re going to
21 have PennDOT processing applications. Make it clear what
22 an applicant has to set forth to PennDOT and make it clear
23 what the standards are for PennDOT, you know, to grant or
24 deny or, you know, ask for more information on that
25 application. It’s not in there right now. The bill talks 123
1 about PennDOT collecting information. It’s not what you
2 want. You want the applicant supplying information to
3 PennDOT saying here, I ’m applying for this. Here’s what
4 I ’m submitting based on the standards that you’ve set
5 forth. I realize those standards are going to flexible.
6 PennDOT should have the ability to adjust its standards as
7 things evolve. But make it clear so that everybody knows
8 what it is. It shouldn’t be PennDOT trying to collect it.
9 It should be the applicant submitting it.
10 Third, and related to that, the bill should
11 clarify that when an applicant applies, say what level the
12 applicant is applying for, and that’s what the approval
13 should be. You know, there was a lot of talk today about
14 the differences between level 3, level 4, and level 5. And
15 it may be that going into the future w e ’ll have a level 3.2
16 or level 4.5. I mean, there will be flexibility. Make it
17 clear what the applicant is applying for. You shouldn’t be
18 able to apply for a level 3 and then say, gee, whenever I
19 feel I ’m ready, I now get to be level 4. PennDOT should
20 re-review each step along that way so that you have some
21 level of public accountability on the safety.
22 Going to that, you know, talking about safety,
23 the bill has to require an applicant to detail its
24 cybersecurity procedures. And PennDOT should have
25 standards for measuring the adequacy of those procedures. 124
1 You know, that’s the heart of what w e ’re talking about
2 here. These are computer-driven cars. We all live in an
3 era sadly of computer hacking, cyber breaches. There
4 should be in any application a very clear outline of just
5 what each applicant is doing to protect cybersecurity. You
6 have a roadmap for that. You know, we as the insurance
7 industry, the financial institutions as well, have just
8 been put under a mammoth and correctly mammoth
9 cybersecurity oversight. You know, it started out in New
10 York as the home of a lot of the financial places.
11 But it requires you if you’re an applicant to
12 have a genuine cybersecurity plan, that you have real
13 experts, they have contracts in place and you’re doing an
14 ongoing monitoring. I ’m sure that all the applicants will
15 be doing that, but PennDOT should know that. It should be
16 on public record because, God forbid, if somebody cuts a
17 corner here, somebody misses something somewhere and
18 PennDOT says, you know what, we never thought to ask, you
19 don’t want that.
20 Also, along the lines of what PennDOT’s role
21 should be, require that an HAV tester immediately and
22 regularly report to PennDOT about any cybersecurity breach,
23 about any computer malfunction, and any instances of human
24 intervention or override. That’s the key to it. You know,
25 frankly, if somebody’s out testing a car on a public road 125
1 and it’s had a bunch of computer glitches, PennDOT ought to
2 know that and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. Let’s
3 ease up on the testing on public roads until you get some
4 of those computer glitches cleared up.
5 It should know on an ongoing and real-time basis
6 how many times when these cars are out being tested on
7 public roads they need human intervention, human override.
8 Gee, it went to the red light until the guy slammed on the
9 brakes. You want to know that. PennDOT should know that.
10 The public should have -- you know, I mean, if you’re going
11 to have testing of experimental cars on public roads, the
12 public should know that those things are being looked at
13 and it ought to be accountable.
14 And then finally, you know, I think you’d need
15 any State law -- and there’s been talk about this before.
16 It’s got to coordinate the role of PennDOT with that of the
17 Federal agency, NHTSA as it’s referred to. And then there
18 wasn’t a lot of mention, but there is in the details on
19 this the Society of Automotive Engineers because they’re
20 the ones who are setting the levels 3, 4, and 5 standards.
21 You need PennDOT -- you know, there shouldn’t be three
22 branches doing things in their own way or two branches
23 doing things in their own way. They ought to be
24 coordinated. Frankly, PennDOT shouldn’t approve an
25 applicant unless it knows that that applicant has also 126
1 satisfied NHTSA. You want the two agencies working
2 together. You want them coordinated in how they're going
3 to allow these cars to be tested on our roads.
4 You know, this has been an impressive group
5 you've had here today, but you haven't heard from NHTSA.
6 You haven't heard from the Society of Automotive Engineers.
7 It would be good to hear them come in and explain how they
8 want to work with PennDOT, how they're going to work with
9 every State agency that's doing this.
10 I appreciated the panel before, the roundtable.
11 Spiritually, I'm probably a part of that because I
12 understand onerous regulation. I even understand outdated
13 regulation. We come to you guys at times and we talk about
14 that. You know, I know that feeling. I don't think the
15 recommendations that I've made here today are onerous.
16 They certainly aren't in comparison with how we're
17 regulated on a day-in, day-out basis.
18 I mean, you know, the part where things -- if
19 you're going to experiment with something, that's great.
20 That's as it should be. We need Pennsylvania to be
21 innovative. I wish we had that same regulatory approach to
22 our industry at times, you know, but I understand. We want
23 this technology to be here. We appreciate, you know,
24 turning this into a techno center and all that. At the
25 same time, if you're going to test cars on public roads, 127
1 there ought to be some real live oversight on an ongoing
2 basis from PennDOT because that’s who’s in charge of it.
3 It’ll coordinate with the State police, it’ll coordinate
4 with the local police.
5 You know, and there ought to be, if something
6 goes wrong, clear liability rules. There ought to be an
7 ability for PennDOT to say, hey, you know what, you got a
8 problem here. I ’m shutting you down temporarily until you
9 fix it but until you’re doing that. And I ought to know
10 that on a regular basis. That’s the way insurance
11 companies are regulated. That’s the way providers are
12 regulated. That’s the way most people who deal with public
13 trust are regulated.
14 And since it should be here, I realize that in
15 saying this I probably come across as a wet blanket and,
16 you know, I ’ll accept that. I would say that last week,
17 you know, there have been some questions about how quickly
18 all of this is going to happen. And, you know, you go to
19 these hearings and everybody -- you know, w e ’re all very
20 optimistic, you know, and I ’m already starting to save for
21 my car. We have some time and we have some time to do it
22 right.
23 There was the Bosch Connected World conference
24 last week, met in Germany. And the Bosch CEO, you know, I
25 mean, they noted a couple of things that the State did what 128
1 you're dealing with far better than I might, you know, the
2 Bosch CEO, and he's a huge fan of self-driving cars. He
3 said, look, there a long ways off. It's not 10 years.
4 It's significantly longer than that.
5 And as he said, of course, we still have to prove
6 that an autonomous car does better in driving and has less
7 accidents than a human being. We talked today about how
8 these cars are going to eliminate human error and they're
9 going to be very safe. That's the goal. That's the hope
10 that I hope is the result, but we're not there yet. We
11 don't have those results yet. And during the testing, you
12 need to make sure that the testing is certainly no more
13 dangerous than what you have now. You want to make sure
14 that that testing is very thorough and accountable, not
15 just, you know, sort of in-house secrets and all, boy, we
16 better correct that.
17 You know, probably the more aggressive person at
18 the conference when you read the reports was the NVIDIA CEO
19 Jen Huang -- probably can't pronounce the name -- but he
20 noticed something that when you think about it, it's very
21 true in the world of driving. He said the whole key in
22 this is going to be able to make computers be able to
23 develop their own codes because, as he said, no human could
24 write enough code to capture the vast diversity and
25 complexity that we do so easily called driving. 129
1 I realize human beings make errors on the road.
2 They also make judgments where you say, okay, I want to
3 make sure the computer’s able to make that same judgment.
4 I want that computer, when it sees two blobs in front of it
5 and one is Sam and one is a dog and it’s got to go one way
6 or the other, I mean, with all respect to the animal
7 kingdom, I hope the computer doesn’t hit me.
8 I mean, you need to make sure that that
9 technology is perfected, you know, and that’s incumbent on
10 us as a State. It’s not anti, you know, bringing in new
11 industry. It’s not anti, you know, bringing in jobs that,
12 you know, have, you know, related benefits and all that.
13 But it is to say that when you’re testing experimental cars
14 on public roads, make it accountable, make it verifiable,
15 and make sure that you know what’s going on.
16 And I would note, I mean, as much as reducing
17 pain, I ’ll close with a parallel. When Uber and Lyft came
18 in with transportation network companies, we were seen as
19 the naysayer, we were seen as, you know, the roadblock and
20 all that and we had hearings and all that. We actually
21 listened and learned from each other. You know, it wasn’t
22 just educating and all that but everybody listened and
23 learned and you pass a law that’s a very effective law,
24 that everybody agrees certainly with respect to insurance
25 requirements and safety requirements and some clarity in it 130
1 with where people go with claims, that it’s there, that
2 there’s accountability, and it works.
3 I think you can do the same thing here. I think
4 it’s got to be a genuine roundtable. It shouldn’t be -- my
5 roundtable is a pretty isolated one. I mean, it should
6 probably be a more collusive approach, and w e ’re happy to
7 be a part of it. Thank you.
8 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
9 Sam.
10 Questions for Mr. Marshall?
11 Senator Vulakovich.
12 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: You bring up a lot of good
13 points with liability issues, and that’s one of my concerns
14 and I think it should be the concern of most of us.
15 Liability is kind of like a little overseer to make sure
16 that people do the right things, as is violations of law.
17 You know, if you didn’t have certain laws out there to
18 guide you on the road, you see how people drive now, you
19 can imagine how they’d drive if there was no rules of the
20 road so to speak.
21 I ’m not quite sure -- in liability issues we talk
22 about -- it was in the other discussion that popped into my
23 head here but, you know, there’s violations of law. Right
24 now, regulation may not be the way to go, and the best way
25 to go is in this new innovative environment of this area to 131
1 go with policy. So I ’m not sure how we determine and how
2 we even have any oversight or penalties in regards to
3 violations of law versus violations of regulation versus
4 violation of policy. I ’m not sure where we go there. I
5 don’t know how that will play into effect with the
6 insurance industry. I don’t know if these companies are
7 going to go with a regular insurance company or whether
8 they’re going to insure themselves, so there is a lot of
9 questions here.
10 But you brought up in the beginning of your
11 testimony, Sam, about different things that PennDOT should
12 do. Now, some people might say, well, that’s out of the
13 realm of concern of the insurance industry regarding what
14 PennDOT does. Your job is to insure. How do you tie those
15 together with your recommendations as far as the insurance
16 industry saying that PennDOT should do some of these things
17 in coordination with other people so that the liability
18 issue that the insurance companies are concerned about is
19 addressed?
20 MR. MARSHALL: As an insurance industry, our
21 first concern is safety. That’s what we want to know
22 because, frankly, that’s what w e ’re insuring. W e ’re
23 insuring the lack of safety. And generally, we want to
24 reduce that deficiency in safety as much as possible when
25 w e ’re saying, okay, here’s what it is. 132
1 So if you’re going to have a lot of cars being
2 out tested, for instance, in the Pittsburgh area and a lot
3 of talk about that today, that’s great. What w e ’d like to
4 know because we insure people who drive on the roadways in
5 the Pittsburgh area, what w e ’d like to know is that those
6 test cars are adequately regulated for safety concerns
7 because if they’re not, that creates a safety hazard and a
8 safety exposure for us and our policyholders. So you need
9 to avoid that.
10 And I know you have the whole focus here and
11 frankly the promise of self-driving cars is that they will
12 promote safety. And we as an insurance industry, we do a
13 lot of things that may seem to be only indirectly related
14 to what is the cost of insuring the risk, that’s because we
15 do a lot of things not just in auto insurance but across
16 the board on safety measures. W e ’ll always do that. It’s
17 part of our industry.
18 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: You know, I think how we can
19 -- of course, listening to people and having the dialogue,
20 but I keep thinking about, you know, when they do
21 innovative things like high-speed trains and they’re
22 traveling on rail through certain areas and if you have
23 railroad crossings and things like that, when they were
24 coming up with all this innovation, especially over in
25 Europe, you got some high-speed trains that are pretty -- 133
1 well, in Japan I guess.
2 But with regards to public safety and liability
3 issues, I don't know. Is there someone that has some
4 reasonable commonsense approach because during innovative
5 times you can't talk all the variables into account, but
6 yet you still have to keep -- you know, it's nice to talk
7 about public safety because that's my main concern because
8 in government that's your number one concern, public
9 safety. And I'm sure the industry, the insurance companies
10 are all interested, but also business factor to you guys.
11 If you don't have public safety in the foremost, it's much
12 more likely you're going to pay a lot out on some insurance
13 claim.
14 The companies want to -- as far as their business
15 goes, there's a lot -- when people are in research,
16 generally, they don't want a whole lot of restrictions on
17 them because regulation can kill research, and we get that.
18 But the research still has to be tempered with the idea
19 that no matter what you do, you still have to think about
20 people around you that may be affected during that type of
21 research. There can't be so-called just casualties that
22 might occur during a research time. We know that will
23 happen, but somehow we have to try to regulate that. And
24 it's like any type of innovative thing. We just don't know
25 where to go with this as far as a liability issue goes. 134
1 You know, how do we protect victims so that they
2 know where to go and what process to follow even down to
3 the police officer who says, you know, like first thing we
4 do is license, registration and insurance information. And
5 we document that. And then the first thing you do is they
6 call up your insurance agent and they talk to them. But if
7 we don’t have a process inside there to follow, I just
8 don’t know how w e ’re going to address all that.
9 MR. MARSHALL: And that’s a fair comment. And
10 your difficulty here is that you’re testing something that
11 unlike, for instance, if you’re testing a drug, the only
12 person who might suffer from that is the person being
13 tested and the person’s been given that disclosure. Here
14 where you’re testing these cars, it’s on public roadways.
15 I mean, they’re members of the public who had nothing to do
16 with -- you know, they didn’t sign off or accept the
17 responsibility.
18 So what you do there generally, you’re only
19 regulating in this the automated test car. That should be
20 the one liable. Now, whoever that applicant to PennDOT is
21 should be the one who’s liable, but that should hold true.
22 What you don’t want is -- let’s say that’s a car
23 manufacturer and there’s an accident. What you don’t want
24 is when that consumer says, okay, car manufacturer, I ’m now
25 suing you. And the car manufacturer said, no, you know 135
1 what, it really wasn't me. It was some software company
2 that isn't regulated here that isn't responsible to have
3 insurance. That's who did the software here, and that's
4 who you really ought to be going after.
5 You ought to have it whoever is the applicant to
6 PennDOT should be the one who is going to be responsible as
7 to the consumer. It may then have rights against other
8 parties. But it's much like, you know, when you register a
9 car, you have to have insurance on it. Now, if the car
10 malfunctions, it may have been because somebody put the
11 brake pads in incorrectly or something like that. Your
12 insurer may have an action later on against, you know, that
13 entity, but in the first instance, the car and its insurer
14 are going to be responsible. That clarifies liability, and
15 frankly, that makes everybody a little bit more attuned to
16 safety concerns as well.
17 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: In closing, Mr. Chairman, I
18 guess -- and I read some of the other things and we had
19 some discussions about this, but, you know, the collection
20 of data. We still have to protect -- because in research
21 people just don't want to freely give out their research to
22 someone else who hasn't put the money, the effort, and
23 everything in. They work on that research within
24 themselves, so we can't jeopardize the fact that they have
25 a certain privilege to certain information they have about 136
1 their research and hamper that and someone else takes
2 advantage of it. That’s the way our world works. I mean,
3 you know -
4 MR. MARSHALL: And I would agree. I understand
5 the proprietary nature of some of these things. I don’t
6 think that -- and nobody is saying here we want to see, you
7 know, what your secret recipe is or what the special sauce
8 is for that other entity, but I do think that PennDOT, if
9 it’s going to be properly monitoring what are applicants to
10 operate test vehicles on public roads, PennDOT ought to
11 know, okay, have you had computer glitches. Because if you
12 have, w e ’d want to know about that because, you know, we
13 want to make sure that that’s being corrected or we want to
14 shut you down.
15 We want to know how many times you’ve had to
16 override your computer, when you want to go from level 3 to
17 level 4 so that there’s no longer a person in the car or
18 level 4 to level 5 where there’s no longer a steering wheel
19 or brakes in the car. We want to know that, and we want to
20 know that you’re ready for that. I don’t think that
21 that’s, you know, Macy’s telling Gimbels just how it’s
22 pricing things.
23 I think that that is a -- you know, that’s not
24 saying here, everybody gets to look at how my computer
25 system is set up, but it is saying that the regulator and, 137
1 you know, the government agency that’s in charge of safety
2 of our public roads knows that these test cars are
3 preforming sufficiently that it’s not a real danger to
4 consumer safety. Those are just basic facts.
5 SENATOR VULAKOVICH: All right. Thank you,
6 Mr. Chairman.
7 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you,
8 Senator.
9 Sam, quick question. With the information given
10 to us this morning with seven or eight States, 11 States
11 having these cars now, within your federation is there
12 discussion as to this State’s got a model program for
13 insurance on these type of vehicles or have you gotten that
14 far?
15 MR. MARSHALL: You know what, it’s still evolving
16 on that, and even the map -- I mean, for instance, the map
17 had Pennsylvania painted blue as one of the States that has
18 an automated vehicle testing law, so I ’m not sure frankly
19 how accurate that map is. But I know as an industry, you
20 know, w e ’re trying to come to grips with it, too. I mean,
21 frankly, I don’t think w e ’ve been fully at the table, you
22 know, with those who are making the cars and those who are
23 responsible for letting them apply. I mean, we get invited
24 to some meetings, not others and all that. We weren’t a
25 part of PennDOT’s task force. We are now. So I hope going 138
1 forward w e ’ll be able to have more of a dialogue with the
2 other stakeholders.
3 But I don’t think right now, you know, we as an
4 insurance industry can say, hey, this State got it right.
5 This is the great model law. And some of that is because
6 it may be great in terms of our concerns, but there might
7 be other industries that have other concerns. They can be
8 balanced. They can be reconciled. You know, what w e ’re
9 talking about is, look, if you’re going to have test cars
10 on public roads, make sure that the agency in charge of
11 your State’s public roads knows what’s going on, knows
12 who’s out there.
13 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: Thank you.
14 W e ’ll -
15 MR. MARSHALL: I ’m not sure what the objection is
16 to that.
17 SENATE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RAFFERTY: W e ’ll make
18 sure that the Insurance Federation has input going forward
19 I think.
20 And we appreciate everyone today. I think
21 Senator Vulakovich and Representative Marshall has gleaned
22 some information going forward with the bills before they
23 move out of Committee.
24 I want to thank the four Chairs for their support
25 today and their questions, which I think elicited good 139
1 testimony, and all the Members of the Transportation
2 Committee from both the Senate and the House.
3 Anything else for the good of the order?
4 If not, the first joint hearing of the Senate and
5 House Transportation Committees for the 2017-2018 session
6 will recess till the call of the Chair.
7 Thank you very much. Thank you, Sam. Thank you,
8 one and all, for your patience.
9
10 (The hearing concluded at 12:30 p.m.) 140
1 I hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings
2 are a true and accurate transcription produced from audio
3 on the said proceedings and that this is a correct
4 transcript of the same.
5
6
7 Christy Snyder
8 Transcriptionist
9 Diaz Transcription Services