[inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. the consumer protection and digital commerce is called to order. welcome to the first hearing of the 115th converse -- congress it is the pleasure to be here with you today. before we get started the chairman burgess' they give for all his hard work also to recognize the new vice chair we're glad to have you

on board also looking advancing the agenda to put consumers first. also to recognize the gentle lady from mellon awaytle working with her this congress also with bipartisan fashion and finally as chairmen workingo with all of members to create new opportunities for economic growth and consumer empowerment to visit seattle showed here in washington and d.c. with the new leaves design system with the convenience of the experience and i was impressed with the creativity and ingenuity that could only have ben thought about a short time ago it is nothing short of amazing.ance

the subcommittee will continue the focus of so driving vehicles and to transform the transportation system we will find out what testing needs to happen in the testing for the deployment there are overin 35,000 lives based on a yearly estimates it will be higher and unfortunately 90 percent of all traffic accidents and the growing investments of-- increasing traffic accidents safer for all users. to adequately test these

vehicles for commerciall deployment and today the convention would improve the grounds and in each of these settings with those detailed assessments to ensure compliance of crash avoidance standards with the overall structural integrity was sometimes hundreds of thousands that the car on a a dealer's lot is safe for consumers and their families. police solved driving vehicles is not to have the employee or the control andf to take corrective actionake flexible with the reliability of self driving

vehicles and as we discussedrive with commercial deployment how automakers and other entities for plants of pitcher deployment also look for to hearing about how icahn be improved with uh oh life-saving technology in this country into the mobility in east liberty ohio made to understand how to take positive steps that it does not become a roadblock to innovation not

only providing what they need to make as safe as possible that is essential to realizing the future so driving vehicles of afford to a thoughtful and engaging discussion and that this time i have about one and the left. >> that chair recognizes the vice chair.ld l >> and the previous efforts of so driving cars with theiv countess improvements that could save thousands of lives every year and those

of driving cars to america as a disability is that our unable to obtain drivers' licenses with sometimes uncertain and public transportation including running errands been uh disability world it is widely viewed as success into society purpose of driving cars could have a tremendous opportunity. >> the gentleman yields back and recognizes the gentlelady from illinois. >>.

>> and with that subcommittee -- [inaudible]

[inaudible]cturer

and today i want to focus on how we get there. was test being is necessary can in the sole driving cars uh just trust us approach does not work for passenger vehicles that what we have seen from be air bags in the long term viability of long term driving cars working cooperatively to share data and promote safety.ds on as we think about tasty -- testing and how zero weecific they should be and

we need to determine how the federal government can best work together for our want to apologize 1/2 to step out wat for a moment i also have a budget committee meeting this morning and i hope to be back later to ask questions of the witnesses and i want to think the witnesses for their time and information and to be here r today. >> vehicles have incredible potential to be so much more than just cars this technology guess of way to have the potential to expand access to seniors and american as with disabilities and those luckyil

at the -- those who cannot drive today we may no longer have before parking spacesantly, all of this innovation relies upon connectivity on roads and highways and infrastructure to the powerer communication. frame and of the 21st century economy.t to both the local economy and the globaly. competitiveness and as you consider the new landscape and to play into the future and in this area i yield back the balance of my time.

>> i don't believe the fall committee is here so i will pass on the chairman's testimony so i will recognize us gentlemen from new jersey. >> '01 to start by congratulating you and i am hopeful that will watch out for the little guy and consumer protection appears in the subcommittee name. the hearing nonself driving cars a recently readco something and uh decade ago as a matter of debate and since reno they're coming to the marketplace talking about the potential benefits achieved in the out years to get into the of beads were

we are in the testing that they are reliable and safe are median fees to be safe also during the decades when they share the road but few men drivers of their using testing and modeling to demonstrate these vehicles are safe to meet the challenges and the snow-covered pavement also insurance of cybersecurityw and autonomous driving has been created in this country with hard-working men and women and to many arehn immigrants and to put upzi

road blocks to immigration to at the same time we need to find ways to find new opportunities and died a will give the right -- the remaining time. >> i will just talk loud nobody said i did not have a big mouth. [laughter] h there has never been a more exciting time and it is an honor to be here.o b >> technology. we're trying to be at the forefront. [laughter]

as never abandon more exciting time automated vehicles are not just something you read about but to help transform mobilityity and those transportation's that 35,092 people died on the road in this country this would be a public health epidemic in any othern industry. automated vehicles will feltlt the save lives and since 94% it is also an issue during competitiveness. globally whether we like it not it is critical but to take uh need of potentially life-saving advances.

and in this area and the 12th district and was just designated by the dot.n a and to consider these resources and i am committed to helping the united states that safety including several security nobody wants to lead and save technology on the of rhode poet dylan to prevent safety from reaching consumers either. i am looking forward to frrking with the committee between supporting innovation to make sure consumers are safe and yield

back the balance of my time. >> and as we mentioned to be afforded the opportunity to give the opening statementwill said chair will remind the of members to be made a part of the of record.rd. and then taking the time to testify to give opening statements were witness panels with the vice president of global strategyf and the vice president of global affairs and co-director at decisionmaking on uncertainty and that the

research institute to liveve is the vice president of insti policy we appreciate you being here with a round of questions in your recognize for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> good morning.e and want to thank the chairman and ranking members and to tell you more about the mobility and that's this

last september to have been incredible tragedy and to be struck and killed by a homeracted driver. watching steve and his family go through this and to make that technology available and steve is not alone. and then do too distracted driving and those that involve a drunk driveries and the leading cause of death for children and adults and those that are from potentially could do

better proposal driving cars will not drive if under our drugs or and alcohol. they will not drive drowsy recklessly for years they have committed resources to have the opportunity to avoid crashing is altogethercras but we also believe so driving vehicles will provide tremendous benefits terms of convenience of quality of life. and with public transportation and the elderly. in to be incredibly optimistic faced with the

tremendous opportunity for personal transportation andor rising to the challenge. in june of last year in scottsdale arizona and in december we announced retesting in detroit. more than 50 self driving vehicles with more plant in the near future. we announced gm would produce the next generation that the assembly plant in michigan.plan. and of this exciting news and expansion of the testing program and for thosese

control the rights and the safety of our customers is our driving principle.rs is and of the test vehicles to monitor and evaluate the performance that safety david gathered proving that the vehicles current federal motor vehicle safety standards that technologyty stad takes years to develop. without changes to those regulations can be realized and thousands of deaths could have been prevented at the same time we under stay and better vehicles are safe

to begin the process of appointment of self driving vehicles. it is imperative that manufacturers have the safety data to critical tocl have large-scale deployment. one good way to accomplish this goal is the specific exemptions for highly automated development. this authority would be similar in during this hearing alone another eight people will the died on thes u.s. roads and eight moree have to experience that painful loss.ence t this is far too great a of a cost with mir within reach of a solution. accord to working with the committee to bring this

life-saving technology as quickly and safely asec possible.e we h and we are anxious for the public to experiencemarter technology first and.nds. it is the safety of our passengers. thank you for your time today and look forward to answering any questions. >> they sawyer testable the and now we recognize mr. corpora. >> chairman, congresswomannk and members of the subcommittee and a vice president of government affairs latta and in 1955 d many times but

cannot be overstated. over 94% of all crashes are due to human error. self-driving cars will be important to reduce crashes. also, self-driving cars will free up idle time for the driver to do something more productive

while being in the car. our vision is to every year give back one week of quality time to volvo commuters by 2025. going forward there are very important preconditions. technology must be safe. consumers must trust it. the proper national framework must be in place. these pre-conditions are fundamental. when we bring this technology to market. the first self-driving volvo will be an x 90 suv. it will be offered in the u.s., europe and china in 2021. the cars will be able to operate unsupervised at level 4 during normal traffic conditions on designated commuter roads only. our approach is not to provide unsupervised driving anywhere any time. instead, we start with less complicated conditions, where consumer benefits are the

highest. there after, step-by-step, we open up for more complex traffic as technology matures. we develop these cars, we take a comprehensive approach. ground work engineering is based on our extensive experience from active safety and driver support systems. we design systems critical for safety with redundancies. we perform virtual testing based on data from historical crashes. we will start behavioral testing with up to 100 customers on railroads this year in sweden and plan folks tend those to london an china and cooperate with un ber in engineering the hardware. uber. our intention is to test ourselves in the u.s. but the patchwork of regulations is a concern. in just the last two months, at least 50 new bills have been introduced in 20 states. this started to become a problem

already in 2015. we publicly called for federal guidelines. last year we got the federal automated vehicle policy, a very positive initiative, even if it needs several improvements. what could congress do? first, to accelerate traffic safety improvements, crash avoidance technologies should be rated in n cap. the u.s. is woefully behind, other markets already done this. active safety assistants in driving cars and take partial control when cars risk a crash and help build consumer confidence in unsupervised dr e driving. second, congress should encourage nhtsa to update with an explicit request that the states refrain from legislating and regulating self-driving cars. third, congress should consider incentives for states to adopt the model state policy in the

fabp, as is. a patchwork will delay making roads safer in america. it's also a competitive disadvantage. this is a race for jobs. discussing loss and regulations with pollutionpollution -- poli and u.s. and china. six years ago i put you as a leader. seeing the patchwork, i'm not so sure. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your testimony and the chair recognizes for five minutes, dr. kalra. >> thank you. congressman and distinguished members of the sub committee. thank you for the opportunity to testifying on the safety of autonomous vehicles. for those that don't know, rand is a nonprofit organization. my spouse is the co-founder of a silicon valley startup working on autonomous vehicles though

his testimony has no bearing on my testimony. public crashes poses a crisis in the united states and autonomous vehicles help with this crisis. we want them as safe as possible as quickly as possible. they probably won't eliminate all crashes and may introduce new safety risks particularly in the newnew -- near term. i want to discuss new challenges and then i'll propose solutions. the first challenge is there isn't yet a practical way to prove autonomous vehicles are safe before they're allowed on the road for consumer usen the second challenge is there's no consensus how safe they should be before they're allowed on the roads. we neither know what tests autonomous vehicles should have to take or a passing grade. solving this is urgent because real world driving experience is crucial for proving autonomous safety. this presents a third risk.

learning in real world settings presents risks from other ado adopters from which late ado adopters would benefit. it's like allowing teenage drivers on the road. they may not be safe drivers yet but need good experience to become safe drivers in the meantime they pose risks to theirselves and others we try to limit with age restrictions and permit restrictions and we may need that for autonomous vehi e vehicles in their teenage years. i'll make three recommendation, i first recommend we rapidly develop practical methods of testing their safety. these methods can be done by industry, researchers and econom economics, federal regulators -- academi academics. wherever they come from they need to be vetted, rigorously, objectively and independently. it's not enough for testing methods to exist. secondly i recommend an adaptable framework that recommends what level of safety

performance autonomous vehicles needs to meet before being on the roads. a lower level of safety white be okay for demonstration projects in some environment but a higher level may be needed for uncontrolled environments. as for teenage drivers it should balance the need for real world driving experience and the need to protect the public from undue risk and it should be revised as it evolves. it would likely fall under nhtsa's jurisdiction and under industry and the state and federal lawmakers and public. the state already released rules for autonomous vehicle but they don't specify testing requirements or develop such a fraimt work and not proposing guidelines at this time. regulatory framework i'm proposing will take time and strategy pilot studies and data can help. pilot studies could start with real world testing in controlled

conditions like operating in well maintained areas and climates and expand as safety is demonstrated. risks can be lowered by desi designing and operating vehicles if a crash does occur, risks are lowered by limiting vehicle speed or ensuring all passengers buckle up. as for data sharing the develo developers already use the experience of a single vehicle in their fleet to improve the entire performance in the fleet. this could go faster if it is shared across the industry for technology. there's certainly not trivial concerns about trade secrets and insuring the right data is shared and truly useful. these concerns should be addressed and could be for the balance of safe autonomous dr e driving. to conclude we can't predict the safety of this or impact on american transportation safety. we can shape that with well designed policies.

i want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. thank you for allowing me to appear before you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your testimony today and the chair now recognizes for five minutes, dr. pratt. >> chairman and congresswoman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. my name is gill pratt, the ceo of the toyota research institute. before working for toyota, i was a program manager in the area of robotics at darpa, the u.s. defense advancement projects agency. tri focuses on artificial intelligence and related technologies formed in january, 2016, with a five year $1 billion commitment from toyota. tri is located wholly within the united states with its headquarters in palo alto, california and additional teams in ann arbor, michigan and cambridge, massachusetts. tri is intensely focused on the

development of autonomous vehic vehicles, currently pursuing two paths to autonomy, a system called guardian and an estimate called chauffeur. under guardian, the autonomous technology operates in the background and constantly monitoring the environment st stepping in only when a collision is imminent. under chauffeur, it takes over the task from the mu man driver. we're currently testing both guardian and chauffeur. because they have the potential to save lives our hope is to deploy these systems as soon as possible but only once we know they can be deployed safely and responsibly. society tolerates a circuit amount of human error on our roads. we are after all only human. but it shows nearly zero tolerance caused by deaths in flaws in machines. the question is how safe is safe enough for this autonomous technology to be deployed.

as we sit here today, it is not clear how this measure will be devised or by whom. before we can deploy the technology, policymakers, such as yourselves, will need to answer this foundational question. policymakers must also keep in mind testing is a necessary means to an end. the goal is to develop a vehicle that can save lives and improve the efficiency of our roads. we cannot reach that goal unless we test our technology in real world environments including on public roads. testing is what will allow us to determine when our technology achieves a sufficient level of performance and is ready for deployment. one of the most significant challenges we face this is patchwork of policy initiatives at the state level. many of the other witnesses referred to the same thing. under a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, autonomous technology may meet performance requirements in one state and not another state. such a situation will impede the

ability of a developer to test the same system across multiple states slowing the development and deployment of the technology. policymakers should work to promote in advance a single national framework with appropriate safeguards. we believe the federal automated vehicle policy that was released by nhtsa was an important step incrementing federal leadership in this area, however, we also believe there are several areas that should be addressed before the policy ills fully impleme implemented. this includes clarifying in the favp itself that it? sa does not intend for states to regulate vehicle performance, reconsidering the applicability of a safety assess document the testing of autonomous prototype vehicles by traditional automakers and the need to submit a new assessment for each significant update to a prototype. the reason for that last comment is we develop these systems very quickly and it will create tremendous red tape to submit that assessment every single

time a change is made. there has also been growing discuss of need for data sharing. we support the goals of data sharing but also believe there's a significant amount of work to be done to ensure it does not create paradoxical incentives to avoid difficult test conditions which would worsen safety, not improve safety. we look forward to working with other stakeholders to determine how to share data in the most practical and effective manner. before closing, i would like to provide a couple of additional observati observations. first, with regard to test, the truth is that millions of physical test driven miles are necessary but they are probably not sufficient to achieve the reliability that we need for autonomous vehicle technology, particularly if those test driven miles are through easy or predictable routes. all testing miles are not created equal and developers should be focused on testing scenarios where driving is challenging or exceedingly

difficult. we believe with computer simulation, billions of test miles are needed to accelerate and expand the range of testing of these systems and these simulated miles, if they're valid, should be an acceptable equivalent to real world te testing. finally, it's important that the federal government begin looking beyond testing to the deployment of these systems, this includes updating the federal motor safety standards to address a hand follow of stands inconsistent with or compatible to autonomous technology. i thank you very much for your time and look forward to working with you to advance this technology and most of all, i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you very much for your testimony today. the compare now recognizes for five minutes, mr. opaku for five minutes and thank you for being here today. >> thank you, chairman latta and

vice president dingle. i'm the vice-chairman of lyft. lyft was the first to establish peer-to-peer ride sharing and currently the fastest ride sh e sharing company in the united states. it connects nearly 18 million people per month for safe rides in over 250 communities across the country. lyft was founded with the mission of improving lives by offering the world's best transportation. in less than five years we have proven to be a powerful driver of positive change with respect to economic empowmt, enhancing efficiency of public transportation and connecting communities previously underserved by transportation options. the proof is in the data. since our launch in 2012, lyft has worked to reduce traffic and congestion, reduce -- increase mobility options and reduce duis

and provide opportunities to our drivers. this is only the beginning. autonomous vehicles hold potential to improve the quality of life of our users but also save lives by increasing -- decreasing severity of automobile accidents. the safety benefits of autonomous vehicles should be affordable and available to all members of the mcregardless of income, disability or visibility. and the ride sharing network will fundamentally transform cities and the way people move around them. the convergence of ride sharing provides lyft with a tool to provide a transportation network that will greatly reduce the need and demand for car ownership and significantly expand transportation options particularly for sections that have limited access due to age, infirmity or disability. as vehicle ownership rates

decline and consumers continue to engage with the lyft platform we will see fewer cars on the road, less congestion and increased positive impacts. a world with fewer cars provides a tremendous opportunity to reorient, re-imagine and redesign our urban fabric. cities in the not too distant future could be built around people instead of cars and should and could be defined by communities and connections not pavement and parking spots. they could and should include common spaces where culture can thrive and new ideas can be shared in the very places where cars previously stood parked and empty. lyft stands at the center of this coming transportation revolution as we believe the transition to an autonomous future will occur not only through individually owned cars but more practical and appealing to rely on autonomous vehicles when they're part of a ride sharing network fleet. to this end, it is our goal to operate a pilot in a major city this year that will permit consumers to enjoy for the very

first time a lift in an autonomous vehicles. there are serious challenges to bringing them to market for mass consumption. the greatest potential obstacle is regulations. the greatest risk as some of the members have already stated on this panel is inconsistent patchwork of state, local, municipal and county laws that will hamper efforts to bring the technology to market. it is well on its way to becoming reality. since the beginning of the year, over 20 states have filed 60 bills to regulate the testing and deployment of avs. while most bills are well-intentioned, it is our position states should not rush to regulate this technology. it's our view if a state does choose to take legislative or regulatory action with respect to autonomous vehicles, it should be to moving impediments and creating a pro competitive

and technology neutral playing field. in order to facilitate the continued innovation testing and development of avs by all industry participants, i would urge congress to examine two potential avenues for action, first is the authority to allow for a greater number of autonomous vehicles to be on the road for testing and deployment purposes and the second is to have nhtsa begin a rule making process to update bms standards and deployment and introduction into commerce of avs at a commercial scale. lyft looks forward to working with the members of this committee to insure avs can be deployed and tested safely in communities across the country. the potential ability they offer to save thousands of live and reduce traffic and reduce congestion and reorient our communities for the better around people not cars is an achievable near-term reality. with a collective effort we can

all insure this potential is rea reached. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you for your testimony today. we appreciate it. that will conclude the opening statements from the witnesses and the chair will recognize himself for five minutes to begin questioning of our witnesses. we appreciate you being here. mr. ableson, if i could start my questions with you, could you discuss gm's timeline for dep y deploying self-driving cars? pull that mike right up there. >> we currently have deployed in three cities vehicles that are operating at a level 4 automation with drivers in them. we are collecting data on how the vehicles operate. when we have convinced ourselves that the vehicles are operating properly and are at a level that would inspire confidence in the technology, we will then make those vehicles available for members of the public to

experience with drivers. at that point, we will continue to collect data on a wider scale. only when we have collected enough data to convince ourselves we're truly ready to go driverle lesless will we the remove the drivers from the vehicles and let them operate as self-driving vehicles. >> let me follow up. cybersecurity is a huge out there, across what we deal with in this subcommittee and across the congress today. can you tell me, or go into detail how you're looking at insuring against cyber threats? >> i can. cybersecurity is an issue general motors takes very seriously. we had the onstar service for 20 years and we are not new to the connected vehicle space. specifically around cyb cybersecurity, we were also the first out to maker to appoint a chief cybersecurity officer who reports to the ceo and board of direct directors. we were also a founding member

of the auto isac, an industry committee to share best pract e practices and learning on cybersecurity. jeff max imilla is our chief cybersecurity officer and also the vice-chairman of the auto isac. it's an area we've been very active in. we've worked with companies from other industries, the defense industry, and neurospace industry to make sure we have the most current learnings, not just in the out to space, but in industrial spaces, wherever they are. >> thank you. mr. pratt. in toyota's comments on nhtsa on the federal automated vehicles policy, toyota mentioned they would be deploying the systems in a step-by-step manner as the technology matures and becomes available. would you walk us through what that step-by-step process looks like and how long you think it would take for that technology to mature to a point it might be

ready to be deployed? >> sure. i'd be glad to. first of all, we have a number of automated vehicle technolo technologies already in our cars today. these include the toyota safety sense system and lexus safety sense system. in particular, automated emergency braking is one of these types of guardian system i spoke about before where the autonomy intervenes when the human is driving in order to prevent an accident. that's already happening now and we believe we're saving many lives as a result of doing so. as you desire to have the human being take less and less control of driving and have the autonomy take up more control, you ascend up the sae levels you may know about. know about. our plan is to be self-timed in this regard. we don't have a specific date to remove the driver from the car, but rather reare going to test and see when the system is save

to do so. they don't happen all the of the time it happens at beginning some of the times. certain weather, traffic conditions. at beginning with the human supervising and in the end where you don't need human beings. a step by step process of grad wallyry moving the driver with the goal that no supervision is necessary but checking each stage that the system is safe enough. >> a large part has been about safety. how does this impact with volvo before it puts a self-driving car on the street before testing and deployment? >> safety is our prior to throughout development process for the cars. we are targeting 2021 for this. in order to make the safety to

come at right point we are co doing a number of different approaches. first of all, we'll engage into computer simulations. we have accidented that have happened in the past with auto cars. we combine them with u.s., data from germany so that would be 250,000 traffic accidents. we will put it in the computer to how to avoid this. you have to test this in public roads to learn about the behavior on how customers react to this. we will step by step this drivers more and more advanced

technology so we plan to be ared by 2021. >> thank you, very much. my time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from the new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have heard concern about the period before cars are fully autonomous the driver doesn't need to be active all the time. even if the driver is in front of the steering while, if the car is dog most of the work we know it's hard for the driver to stay engaged. someone suggested we can say up dik tick with vehicles to reengage. volvo said it would skip automation and go from level

three to level four. is it due to the fears i just mentioned. >> at level three the car is doing the driving but the driver is the fall back so you could end up in situations where the driver has to take back the control that could happen within seconds. we are concerned about the level three stage within sa and therefore we are targeting level four as the end game. >> doctor kalra did you want to comment on that? >> i agree. there's evidence to suggest level three show increase in level three, so it is plausible for auto makers to skip level three. but it does safety concerns that a lot of recognizing and tried to avoid. >> volvo said it will take

complete liability at level four can you explain that decision? >> it is really not that strange. car makers should take liability for any system in the car. so we have declared that if there's a malfunction to the system when operating autonomously we will take liability. >> researchers and investigators remotely drivers are shown losing control, so i want to ask how real is the threat of vehicle hacking especially in the autonomous context. do you expect the nature of the threat to evolve as the technology develops? also -- i think you kind of --

did you talk about this at all yet, no? would you respond to that, dr. kalra. >> sure. it is a real threat. transportation receives a lot of attack from hacking because it's a way to disrupt transportation system. there's a great concern. cybersecurity is not to be string wrapped. it's not only hacking for fun and profit but autonomous vehicles provided avenue for terrorist because there's a way to use the vehicles to -- the threat is no longer suicide bomber we have vehicles that can drive around. we don't want to over state it but we need to think about cyber threat as terrorists opportunity

as well. >> i agree because of the cybersecurity threat, we need to design the vehicle with that threat in mind. in our case as we deploy the self-driving chevy volt, they look like the one we sale to retail but we have begun through changes to ensure cybersecurity in those vehicles. >> go ahead. >> i wanted to add to that too. toyota connected is subsidiary of our company that's focused on this. toyota is the chair of auto i sack before for share information. i think it's important that as serious to understand as serious as this threat is there's mitigation we can employ. first of all, to make sure that the safety technology on the car

does not depend on wireless network to operate. all the of the seventy function haves to be self-sufficient on the car itself. the wireless network improved to efficiency of the car. >> i agree with the speakers. i want to add approach you have to take encompass supplies and dealers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chairman recognizes vice president, the gentleman from mississippi from five minutes. >> thank you for being here. this is remarkable. mr. abelson, i have too technical question, let's say you have your driver out of the self-driving car, it is self-driving and i'm driving along and i honk my horn, will

it do any good? >> we have not reached that point of deciding how and whether it would be appropriate for vehicles to react and can i could have to ask the technical folks. >> there's scenarios on what's going to happen and whether a car with car driver comes awe cross a self-driving car without a driver and they realize it will freak some people out. how they deal with that would be fun part in this process. >> absolutely. >> this is so nice. we have a special son but he

dependent on us for his ride. so the possibilities are so good in the disability community particularly those like my son with a intellectual disability. he social individual but limited in many ways to what he can do. so what this opens up for whether running errands or bookstore or getting too and from to work. as you look at that can you elaborate on the work gm is doing to provided this access in the future. you have discussed it. >> we have. i agree with you it's an exciting opportunity for some of the communities. while we recognize potential benefits there's a lot of work that needs to be done. inside of general mottors we

have employee research group that are working with our engineering group for potential self-driving vehicles going forward. we look toward to engage internally with our employees and with external groups on how to realize this potential for those communities. >> thank you for that work. dr. pratt. can you comment on your company is considering the needs of the disability community in the development and deployment of self-driving cars? >> yes. our president decided to change the company's policy on autonomous as a result of meeting with a blind person. the company decided to change it's policy. i want to add one more part.

we cannot forget about ageing society. 13% of our population is over age 65. because of the baby boom that franks will grow from 13% to 20%. this is extraordinary things. my sister and i had to take away the keys from my father because he is too elderly to drive. our goal is to make that not have to happen in the future. >> thank you, very much. mr. -- can you answer what volvo is doing for those with disabilities. >> we recognize -- every sunday i meet my father who turned 100 years and he ask when can have

this car. we are targeting commuting. >> that's great. mr. owe pakpaku. one of the initial challenges was that not every one had a smartphone but we recently adopted that process so you don't have to have smartphone to request a lyft. we have heard from the community how ride-share increased their life. in terms of the potential to have that same impact with the -- ability to bring avs to

market to address this issue in a broad and sweeping way. lyft and ride-sharing play a role in sharing that by those who most critically need it. >> thank you for. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back him time. the ranking member from illinois. >> so even though we're some time away from fully self-driving cars on the road, but manufacturers are developed some exciting safety technology right now from blind spot detention to rare seat notification. i want to focus on the discrete technologies.

last year, 39 children died from heat strokes in cars had is tragedy accidents. i heard stories from parent who will never be able to forgive themselves. last year, representative ryan king and i introduced hot cars to warn drivers that a passenger may be left behind. so mr. abelson. what is gm doing to prevent child heat deaths? >> these are tragic circumstance and gm has nouned we are implementing 2017, 2018 model remind you when rare door is open on the vehicle and the ignition is turned off, chime

souped sound and message is put up reminding driver to check the rear seat. this has been effective system to implement and one i say is already in production on many models. >> dr. pratt and mr. karrberg, are your companies working on technology to prevent child heat death? >> first of all, consumer education is important. however, what we have recently introduced is emotion sensor. it can sense if a child or animal moves. it's a first step and i'll be happy to provide protocol later on how they are to protect our

children. >> the problem the baby is sleeping so there's no movement. dr. pratt. >> i run the research lab, i done know that particular details of the implementation, i can speak to what we are doing research on. we are working on inside occupants in the car. there's research technology, i done don't know when it will fields, that can amp pli, i would be glad to get you information on when we're planning to field test anything. >> i appreciate all the manufacturers to look at that.

automatic emergency breaking is another technology emergency. you said automatic emergency breaking is standard in almost every model toyota model this year. how long would get to 100%. >> i'm not sure. so i don't know the answer but i would be glad to get it to you. >> mr. abelson and mr. karrberg what are your company's time line for automatic breaking? >> at gm we agreed with the volunteer roll-out, we are working to execute that. i don't know the exact date, but i would be happy to get back and send you the details. >> mr. karrberg. >> we emergency breaking since

2013. on our large platform, it is system that breaks for cyclist, large animals day and night. >> i have questions about various technologies, but i point i want to make is that obviously, some of these are available and one manufacturer not available and another manufacture sometimes optional, sometimes standard. it seems to me if it would be great to harmize the safety features that they are standard. i'm not saying it has to be exactly the same technology but the same goal at end of the day so that we do develop the safety features. and i yield back.

>> thank you. five minutes for the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to distinguished panel. mr. karrberg once the systems are automatic driving are ready for use by the american people, how should manufactures provide instructions and education about proper use and limitation of the systems or vehicles? >> that is clearly a priority that's why we start to introduce these vehicles supervised levels this year to 100 kusers to learn how they interact with the cars. we design the cars accordingly. >> would that require further testing of the public? would i have to go back to the

state of new jersey and be tested further in this regard? >> we will do tests of how people behave in different areas so in sweden and plan to move on to london and china and hopefully in u.s. well. to learn how different types of drivers zi drivers interact with the cars. >> mr. abelson. >> in gm we entend to roll out in ride-sharing need. >> in ride-sharing. >> yes, similar to lyft fleet. one of the advance is it gives you without having to buy or own the autonomous vehicle. whether you book the ride to provide the information they

need on the autonomous vehicle. >> when do you estimate this may be in use in gm's vehicles? >> as i said we are doing testing on public roads. the exact dated depends on how quickly the data can be gathered. we have to -- as i said that we're ready before we go driverless. >> to the distinguished panel do you believe that these automobiles will be used on all of our roads or will they first be used on limited access highway system for example or other similar roads? dr. pratt. >> let me add on to the last question with regard to driver education, i think education is key. some of the issues are having to

do with much trust the driver puts in the system not to undertrust or over trust the auto that's there. whether or not changes to the requirement for license we done know. we'll learn. also keep in mind we need to educate the public in term of how they sbefinteract with the . so we think that's important as well. >> i was taught driver ed in gym class, but the year i was taught is a national security secret. >> i would like to address your questions about will they expand to all roads. i believe overtime, you will see them used on all roads. we are starting with urban environments. >> new jersey is most densely populated in the nation. this is interesting because of

the conguest that existed in this densely populated state in the country. >> yes, dr. pratt. >> i grew up in springfield, new jersey. >> glad to meet you. >> wonderful place. it's important to realize that the ability of autonomous car to go anywhere at any time is level five. and we as an industry it could be sometime before we get to level five. i believe it or not there are places in the world that are worse than new jersey and so i think that we'll hit new jersey before we handle the whole world. it's going to be in stage with the easier stages coming first. >> before i yield by time, you did not grow up in my

congressional district. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the lady from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i mentioned, it's critical to ensure that automatic vehicles are safe before they are available to consumer and we need to ensure there's no barriers to prevent -- i want to be clear here, we should never let an unsafe or unproven vehicle hit the road. so that our challenges as congress is how to strike the right balance between supporting innovation and making sure the consumers are save safe. >> i know all colleagues want to get the record here on some things. so i have few questions for the members of the panel. i would ask you to answer yes or no. yes, or no. >> do you agree that federal

motorcycles safety standard need to be updated in order to support automatic vehicles. >> yes we do. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> my understanding that rule making will tame several years. that rule making were to commence today it will not be completed the time many in the industry have nouned you want to deploy auto mated vehicles; is that correct? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> i'm not sure. the reason i'm not sure, i whoo hope that nifta could speed up if they could, yes. >> yes. >> i understand nitsa have

authority to exempt vehicle based on factors but this exception is limited. >> yes absolutely. >> yes. >> maybe it's more complicated than a number of vehicles right now. there's no reason to believe that that limit is going to be lit and equally important is on what basis they will be granted given that most of the time when you request it, the vehicles are save or safer and there's no way to show that. that is it equal concerns with a number of vehicles. >> we have same concerns at previous witness. >> the answer is yes. the development and expansion of the ride-sharing industry in

2012 there were a few thousand rides completed and millions show demand for this so i would say it's whole hearted yes. >> we have had good discussion with proactive thing that the federal government should be doing here. in your opinion are there specific things congress should avoid doing that would stifle the development of automatic vehicles. >> we wouldn't want to see the government taking steps to specify specific solution. keep in mind the goal is to prove the vehicles are safety. the nit sa guidelines are -- they specify what the

expectation are before vehicle is deployed in driverless fashion. >> you have a minute and nine seconds. >> we could not like congress to engage because it would stifle development. also, we -- i agree with the gentleman from gm it's clear that technology is important. limitations when it comes to technology that should be done by industry. >> technology neutrality is important so is design to keep up. in terms of what she shouldn't do, i'm not sure. >> i would agree with all the witness before that evidence based approach is the best one where the government sets what the criteria are and that's done at the federal level but does

not dictate what the ways are to complete that level of performance. >> i agree with the rest of the panel. there's concern about -- precluding or restricting potential innovation to make that technology safer. >> i'm out of time. thank you. >> the gentleman lady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have figured it out with driverless car cans, everyone drives the speed limit, nobody blocks the left lane. if you're going to turn left and the incoming traffic using up the yellow, you're in the park way coming from the airport lined up to get on 395 and

somebody forces themselves because they don't want to wait in line, nobody does it here i'm sure. my question is does the -- does self-driving cars have to be perfect to have them on the highway and how do we get to it point where we are safe fluff to have them on the high wie. >> there's no way to prove something is perfect. we have to agree on the metrics. i think that's why this testing in real world is important because you'll see the real life conditions we deal with on a y daily basis. >> what is your level of vehicles are safe, for example,

what about level three cars? >> i would like to comment on the traffic conditions you described here. that's not where we go initially. those are complicated conditions. we are targeting consumer roads. so the next question was -- >> comment on level three scars, what you do consider safe. >> at level three, the car is doing the monitoring, however the driver is still the fall-back. the driver may have to be able to take back control in short time. that's far less safe where the level four car should be able to put the car in save control unless driver takes over the

control. should be able to predict that can be done in a safe manner. >> i know -- i think you're talking mr. karrberg is people commuting every day because the car is taking care of that issue. but your guy is picking people up and dropping them off at capitol hill. how do you see that happening in that environment. >> let's look at it from the network. how to manage thousands of cars transporting people around and making sure they are doing so in efficient manner. is a car going to heading if your direction efficiency of that nature. number one, that's one of the

expertise we can bring to the aav revolution knowing how the vehicle can get passenger where they are going. reduction in congest -- >> home state would you like to comment on how safe does it have to be to be safe? >> we have thinking about this deeply. we feel there may need to be a safety factor multiplying human fo performance. if a autonomous car is lightly -- it could have hamm happened to us. when a machine makes a less our empathy is less.

we would like is to work collaboratively to figure out what the answer is. we worry it may not be one that the public will accept if there was a 35,000 fatalities ayear because of the human. would the public accept 499 because of a machine, the answer would be no. so we have no factors need to be there. >> i yield back time. >> thank you, the chair recognizes the chair lady from california. >> many of you have expressed concern for potential patchwork different state standard for vehicle codes. california has been a leader in trying to develop a framework for this technology.

i understand the need for the laws to be flexible. ask you encourage enno nation. i would be concerned about undermine safety and accountability standard which would harm the driving public by consumer confidence in your products and services. i think we can agree we need some rules of the road. can each of you provide your perspective on where regulation may be needed at the state and federal level. >> i would say gm we recognize if a patchwork were to develop on the technology sides of the issue that auwould be an issue r the industry, we have seen states pass like michigan did recently. with nits sa we recognize the

state and the government have a role going forward and we look forward to working with the government on all levels in rolling out the technology. >> the way approach that nits sa has taking with the automatic vehicle policy, it's flexible, it's not perfect but i think that's the way forward. >> i think federal regulations are needed to set tested methods and what threshold are needed. until those are in place, states are in -- in the interim for those federal regulation it would be important for the federal government to provide support in developing relevantinglation that are not contradikry and pave the way for the federal regulation and the

policy put forth last year take a step towards that. >> -- to be clear, we totally support rigorous standard of this. but we think it should be one standard. i want to give an example of what could be wrong and it coming from california where we have a lab. in kcalifornia there's a requirement that you report to the government what you are disconnection right is every time the car has failure of a certain kinds. that's not sufficient a bad idea. but that information becomes available. it creates perverse intensive and for companies to make the figure look good because the public is watching and that causes the company to not try to

test difficult case but test easy case to make the score look good. i think it should be deep thought about this issue before the rules are made and we think concentrating that before the federal government is the best idea. >> thank you for the question. if can i touch patchwork of state legislation quickly, there is something we have experience in this. over the last three or four years, we have seeing cities next to each other, implementing ordinances. it was real situation we were facing for years. that's been resolved. the concern that the member of this panel are expressing is a real one that one we experienced recently. to the heart of the question, i agree with the gentlemen, that

some of the proposed regulation we are seeing, we are seeing proposals that infridge upon federal government in regulating standard that's dangerous. if if i were going to encourage state focus on anything, it would be focusing on making sure they were not enfridging upon that which is the province of the federal government. >> i understand what you're talking about, i believe the test sha should be test bed for innovation. other than what you said, are there any specific concerns about california's testing regulations? i live where the governor lives it would be nice to have this information. >> from my perspective the reporting -- >> i heard that. >> i don't reporting in california would encourage

companies to do easier testing. we are testing in a difficult environment. making the data public any way. >> i'm not aware of the details of the california but it has honerous reporting. >> i think i have heard from you. thank you, very much. >> thank you, very much. the lady times expired. the gentleman from west virginia. >> thank you. as one this is intriguing process. i'm fascinated with that. one of them is since i have learned that we were going to have this hearing, i tried to do more reediading about this. i have not seen third party

certification for butting public safety first overriding come come pettive -- come pettive. >> i'm not aware in there's any requirement for third party. >> okay. the second are there going to be global standard because i heard mention in europe and china would -- are we going to adopt standard that are comparable is that on the way to sell america and china avs over there. i would have to say our experience overtime is we don't get global standard that the regulating bodies send to move in similar but different details

directions. >> one thing i have not heard is -- i'm a little concerned about lack of global standard is cost. no one has mentioned cost up here. what is the projected additional cost per vehicle that could be -- i guess you could answer it depends on whether you go to level 2, 3 or 4. i understand that. what are some costs projections that we're facing. is the overall goal that it would be universal or it would be an option that i as a buyer can choose not to have auto mated. dr. pratt. >> the cost is high. tens of thousands of dollars.

part of the reason you are seeing push to see ride-share because you can advertise cost override share vehicle. the incredible rate in decreasing cost of scale. think about the cell phone which rifle some of the best cameras you can professional use in the past now costs pennies to put in the cell phone. we do not know the number but we are confident that the numbers will decrease. >> do you see this -- it's going to be universal or is this going to be option for your car? >> it will start as option and eventually 15 years out it -- some functions will be standard. >> it will be standard in.

>> yes. >> the last because i heard some very interesting arguments, very heart wretching. is the automobile through this autonomous process put us into an entitlement program or is that something that's privilege to be able to have a car? >> that's one of the reasons why lyft is intrigue about autonomous vehicle because we believe the only way it could be equitably provided to all society is to be presented on ride-share. >> that's sound like entitlement. i'm in the very short time i

have left, i'm curious, you have been talking from 30,000 people. i don't understand someone going to get in the car theys go to level four or five and they program something to take me to destination x and you get there and sit back and enjoy. is that -- >> that's basically the goal. as we said it will take a long time before it gets everywhere for everyone. >> will be able to interact with the car as you see that visually as you're driving down you get a phone call or e-mail pick up milken milk. will you be able to tell your machine to pull into that -- >> absolutely. it may know the closest way to get there and suggest a

destination for you. >> that would be fascinating. getting the cost down so that it is affordable for more people and not -- >> just a comment on cost. it would be expensive but come down in cost in the years later. you save on fender bender and the economy is going to be improved. >> fuel efficiency, i know from engineering perspective, cruise control use more gas than otherwise. the fundamental to -- i'm questioning whether or not this is going to be fuel efficiency. it may save lives. >> that's one of the reason we're rolling out the

technology. >> i have gone overtime. i apologize. yield back. >> gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a lot of us heard about self-driving cars. my wife is the one because she complains about my driving. but i guess we would not have to use way to find out to get close closest milk. what used to be science fiction is fast approaching reality. that's for the 50 years we have seen so many different changes. while the technology benefits society like any new ground breaking devise. i look forward to talking about this. dr. karrberg, you talked about

the many approaches of testing the vehicle, that real world driving experience may be the most important tools for improving vehicles. the sharing of data can improve overall safety based on the knowledge accumulated by the car. you mentioned that tests call it fleet learning. can you tell us what fleet learning is what it can play in the role of improving autonomous vehicle safety. >> the idea of fleet learning, what is fundamental to autonomous vehicles, computers are design today learn betser ways of performing without being programmed to do so. they have data and use learning alga rhythm to improve performance. the more data the better

performance and faster it can improve. companies like tesla are using this so entire fleet can be upgrade the. the question is whether that limited o -- that kind of learning is limited to individual developers or whether there's opportunities learning across developers. i believe that kind of data needs to be thought through carefully. >> you compare risk of the early autonomous vehicle they may not be good drivers, but they will develop in good drivers. i would submit with distracting driving we could all be 15 or 16

year olds for driving, we have limited restrictions on teenager drivesers you see similar -- what do you imagine some of the restrictions would look like whether it it comes to self-driving cars? >> it doesn't need to be requirements, but mean of the things that my colleagues have described, for example, limiting to commuter road or low speed. reduce likelihood that the crash occurs. owe reducing the consequences of a crash these are be industry developed ideas and choices or it may be something down the line that is done through regulation to say these are the ways in we are going to start rolling out. reducing risk, is an important

step. >> in your mind what does the air bag regulation teach us about regulation for autonomous vehicles. it may not be effective and may take a long time to correct things. >> if anything air bag regulation tells us this is extremely complicated and difficult to get right but it's important. air bags were developed in the 1950s. they were first introduced in the 70s. it took a long time. one can argue that some mistakes weres made along the way. air bags were not smart. air bags we have today can detect unmaled message. that was learned through

experience and deployment of the technology available at the time. there's this conflict getting technology on the road and learning ways in which it is not safe. we need proceed carefully and thoughtfully. >> mr. chairman, with my one option left r i yield back my time. >> the gentleman's time expired. the chair recognizes the florida for five minutes. >> mr. pratt, we heard a lot about vehicle to vehicle communication to in previous

hearings on this subject of autonomous vehicles. where does the work you are doing to v to v doe deploying sever driving cars. >> vehicle to vehicle as well infrastructure are important to autonomous vehicles. we drive -- autonomous vehicles use sensors on the vehicle and neighboring vehicles to see better. vehicle to vehicle communication can give you egive lens of x-ray vision. it's hard to make a vehicle that is safe in all conditions, that's this level five vehicle we keep talking about, and

standard are high it's a machine that's going to be running this not a human being. our ability to empathize and forgive will be low. we have to give ourselves every tool in the tool chest to be -- i think saving the spectrum for that use is important. >> thank you, very much. mr. okpaku, the problem safety benefits of safe driving cars are significant. we have already talked about the potential benefits in the disability community which could allow to the elderly community p as well, especially in our community and i represent tampa bay area in the state of florida. there are many elderly to benefit from this technology, maybe they want to get to their

medical poirmt appointment, i can see a lot of benefits there. in lyft view what are benefits we can see for the deployment of self-driving cars? >> we talk about the benefit that lyft in a ride-sharing platform for driving, one of the things gets lost is how important transportation is for upwa upwa upwa upwa upward mobility for passenger side. we have seen impact we have on the campus her side just by providing option that didn't exist. if you buy that concept and apply it across the scale the av platform provides, it's

significant and help a lot of people who are in economic needs get to and from their job. i would echo what you mentioned non-emergency medical inspection, we see them do -- expand once you includes automatic driving into mix. >> mr. karrberg it's been suggested that welcome show federal leadership, it may conta contain guidance that has unintended consequences of -- can you come men on that and how -- the am by ambiguity,

should be involved. >> reporting on software changes that you do in course of the testing. that's difficult because in engineering you deal with direction all the time and you report every one of those that's practicely impossible. there's a waiting period for -- you hand in your change there's a four-month waiting period. it calls for third party version, preapprovals, we are certification, it's worked for 30 years, we see no reason to change that. we also think that for the vp

nit sa should staffing and av develop so nit sa will not be a part of the delays. >> i know my time has expired. >> i will make it short. we agree with what the last witness said. >> thank you. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. the laid from california. we talked about the need to prevent a state by state patchwork of laws for autonomous vehicles. while i appreciate mrs. matsui's concerns about california regulation. i think we need to consider the

impact on the state regulation. i have seen my state california and it's over regulation of the i saw it up close and i seen thousand of productive business flee for most friendly states. when uber moved its testing arizona after california took -- i can think a few states that would benefit from this technology considering its promise congestion and ability to move products from west point. at

>> thank you very much for the question. i can give you the local regulation to impact testing. as of right now in california there is only one allowed location or there's a proposal that would make limiting to testing to one part of california. if it were to pass the ability to test in different environments and different situations would be hampered we have seen enough proposed legislation all across the country, whether it is in massachusetts all the way from california that does raise that exact concern that if inacted it would inhibit the ability to deploy. >> thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my

time. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you to all of you who have testified here. i have spent a fair amount of time reading up on this. i feel that your testimony, which i have had the time to read through really lays out the issues that are in front of us as policymakers in a very thoughtful way so we can go about facilitating this technology with you to the public's benefit. each of you, i think, lay out what the various public benefits from this. i think each of you also lay out a little bit differently but nevertheless the central question here as being are we erecting or are there regulatory

barriers or is the regulatory frame work facilitative for your technology to be tested so that we can expedite increasing safety, carbon emissions, etcetera, etcetera they should be focused on the driver. are you aware between states that facilitate testing across

state lines? that's the first question. i think that's important too. as some of the testimony has reflected you need to test this technology in a lot of different topographical climate and urban rural circumstances in order to know how effective it could be. if not, if you have not engaged is it something that would be he helpful to the technology. we have one in california, one in michigan, one in massachusetts. we do most of our testing in michigan. the reason we do that is because of different regulatory environments in three states. it is any sort of reciprocity.

we work to make sure to do a lot of testing. >> so far we have not had an issue in conducting the testing in those three locations.

it could be related to the data sharing, double-edged sword that was part of the analysis. it could be things related to those issues.

it is important there be a low overhead way of making changes. >> my time is up. >> thank you very much. the gentleman yields back and no further members asking to question the witnesses. >> i'm sorry. >> would you let me ask one -- >> absolutely. >> thank you. am i correct that general motors as sertd fied preowned when they have open recalls?

>> all of them have been updated for all appropriate recalls. >> is that also true for your company? >> i could not comment on that. i don't know the answer. >> i would like to admit that. >> and i myself don't know since i'm the head of the research lab. and some sort of statement but have open recalls are permitted for resale. so i would like to hear from that. thank you so much. >> thank you very much. >> no further members asking -- i'm sorry. >> can i just ask unanimous consent to put it in the record of this hearing?

>> thank you very much. we'll submit that for consent. >> again, thanks very much for witnesses today. you can see from the folks that were here in the audience today. it's a topic that's on everybody's mind and seeing where the technology is going, safety factors and making sure father or mother -- folks are heard. it is a topic people are looking forward to especially in the next few years. a letter from the insurance companies. letter from the national council and disability. a letter from ford motor company. a letter from global auto makers. a letter from epic. a letter from competitive carriers association.

letter from safe. the rules are numbers they have ten business days and i ask the witness to submit their response in ten days. thank you for our