[Senate Hearing 113-78]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-78
THE ROAD AHEAD: ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-768 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri DEAN HELLER, Nevada
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DAN COATS, Indiana
MARK WARNER, Virginia TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
MARK BEGICH, Alaska TED CRUZ, Texas
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
WILLIAM COWAN, Massachusetts
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 15, 2013..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 3
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 15
Statement of Senator Johnson..................................... 16
Statement of Senator Pryor....................................... 19
Witnesses
Hon. David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.......................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Mitch Bainwol, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers.................................................. 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Jeffrey J. Owens, Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice
President, Delphi Automotive................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Dr. Peter F. Sweatman, Director, University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute.............................. 34
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Dr. John D. Lee, Emerson Electric Quality and Productivity
Professor, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
University of Wisconsin-Madison................................ 39
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Appendix
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from New Jersey, prepared
statement...................................................... 53
Isaac Litman, CEO, Mobileye Aftermarket, prepared statement...... 54
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. David L.
Strickland by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 55
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg..................................... 59
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 61
Hon. Dan Coats............................................... 63
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank R.
Lautenberg to:
Mitch Bainwol................................................ 65
Jeffrey J. Owens............................................. 66
Dr. Peter F. Sweatman........................................ 66
Dr. John D. Lee.............................................. 68
Response to written question submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Mitch Bainwol.................................................. 69
THE ROAD AHEAD: ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D.
Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. Mr. Strickland, I apologize.
Mr. Strickland. No apologies, sir. This is your forum.
The Chairman. John Thune was here on time. He is from South
Dakota, and they have got good values.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We have good values in West Virginia, but
just evidently today, a couple of them passed me right by, so I
apologize.
The story of modern America would be difficult to tell
without the automobile. Ever since the Model T first rolled off
the assembly--that should say assembly line, should it not? You
cannot walk off an assembly.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--the car and its drivers have shaped our
history, our lives, and our imagination. It was the automobile,
after all, that brought forth Detroit's rise. The golden age of
manufacturing, it gave Americans a new sense of independence
and freedom. It changed quite literally our country's
landscape. The car has been a defining ingredient in modern
American culture.
The automobile has also been central to the story of
America's innovation and public safety standards. Seat belts,
brake lights, air bags have saved innumerable lives that were
once needlessly lost. Today the cars on our roads are safer
than ever, but we still have a long way to go.
More than 30,000 lives are lost each year--I can remember
when that was 50,000. I can remember when that was 50,000, so
that's good, but that is an awful lot of lost lives--each year
on our highways and roads. Most crashes frankly are caused by
driver error. That needs to be said. Automakers, regulators,
researchers must continue their pursuit of safer vehicles and
fewer fatalities, especially at the hands of driver
distraction, impairment, or poor judgment. In recent years, I
have seen advances in vehicle technology that show great
potential, not only to save the lives of many more, but also to
revolutionize how we have come to understand the relationship
between the driver and his or her car.
Driver-assist technology has already found its way into
some of today's cars. Electronic--and they will get to Florida
in due time--electronic stability control, for example,
prevents rollover accidents and is now installed in all new
cars, saving hundreds of lives per year. The latest sensors,
cameras, and software are doing even more to assist drivers.
They can warn the person behind the wheel of an imminent crash.
If the driver does not respond, the car will stop itself. They
can warn drivers if the vehicle is drifting into another lane,
and can even automatically bring the car back to its proper
place. Another system knows when the driver's eyes wander off
the road and can alert him back, or her, back to the task at
hand.
So the power of technology is already saving lives, but
looking ahead a bit further down the road, the car's future is
even more incredible. Advanced technologies currently under
research and development could radically challenge our notion
of what it means to be behind the wheel. One of these
technologies enables vehicles to communicate with each other
and with the road, warning drivers of dangers ahead that they
have no way to see. Another technology, of course, is one all
of us have heard about, that is, the self-driving car that
could take you safely from point A to point B with no human
involvement.
There is much to be excited about as these technologies
develop, but there are risks as well. As important questions,
we have to ask some of them this day and discuss them. One
growing technology raises concerns for me, and that is auto
makers seem to be engaged in a race of sorts to see who can add
more entertainment and communication devices and features into
the car's dashboard, all in the name of allowing drivers to
remain connected. I am not convinced so many of these devices
are necessary, and I fear they only further distract drivers.
We can discuss that.
Even those technologies with great potential, safety
benefits, come with their risks. As our cars become more
computerized and electronics-based, can the industry make sure
that they are reliable and prevent failures? And as our cars
become more connected to the Internet, to wireless networks,
with each other, and with our infrastructure, are they risk for
catastrophic cyberattacks? In other words, could some 14-year-
old in Indonesia figure out how to do this and just shut your
car down--shut a whole bunch of cars down because everything is
now wired up? And this is one of the, you know, results of the
Internet. You connect things enough, you can cause things to
stop happening. Now, that potentially will at some point
include automobiles.
And as our cars become more computerized and more
electronic based, can the industry make sure that they are
reliable and prevent failures?
So we have so much change in automobiles and at such a
rapid clip. It is like people are competing with each other to
titillate, tantalize, and it sells. It works. This is not of
particular interest to anybody, but I am a great fan of Johan
Sebastian Bach, and I listen to him when I drive to work, and I
listen to him when I go home. But in order to listen to him,
I've got to push all kinds of things. And if you have noticed
traffic recently in Washington, D.C., you do that for a second,
and you have moved a half lane over. You did not mean to, but
you just have because you've got to do this, and you've got to
do this, and you've got to do that. And that is a simple one.
I think this hearing is going to provide us with an
overview of what the future holds for our cars, it will give us
a foundation for future legislation if necessary and for future
industry oversight as we move forward. If they deliver as
promised, the technologies we are discussing today have the
potential to revolutionize transportation and bring about
dramatic improvements in safety.
And I thank you, and I turn to my distinguished Ranking
Member, Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be watching
for you, listening to Bach when I am driving in in the morning.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. I want to----
Senator Nelson. Watch for him when he punches the devices.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. I want to want to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for holding this hearing as the Committee examines a variety of
advanced motor vehicle technologies that are now emerging in
the marketplace and working their way through the product
development pipeline. These technologies, which include driver
assistance systems, vehicle-to-vehicle communication, and
autonomous self-drive cars, offer the promise of many future
benefits.
Advanced driver assistance technologies, such as adaptive
cruise control, collision avoidance, and lanekeeping systems
appear to offer obvious safety benefits. In addition, these
technologies, many of which are being developed domestically,
represent innovations that will help to drive the tech and
manufacturing sectors and benefit our economy. It is very
welcome news to hear NHTSA report that traveling by vehicle has
become safer in recent years. According to the agency, fatality
and injury rates reached new lows in 2009 compared to 10 years
ago.
I hope we will continue to improve in this area, and I am
encouraged by new technologies that offer the promise of an
even safer driving experience. One such advancement is the
Department of Transportation's Intelligence Transportation
Systems Program, better known as ITS. In 1999, the Federal
Communications Commission allocated spectrum in the 5.9
gigahertz band so that vehicles can someday communicate
wirelessly with each other and with their surroundings. This
connected vehicle's technology holds tremendous potential to
make driving much, much safer.
Last year, Congress directed the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration to study
whether wireless Wi-Fi devices could share the same 5.9
gigahertz spectrum band as the ITS technology. Expanding Wi-Fi
use in the five gigahertz range is becoming more important as
other Wi-Fi bands have become extremely congested.
Advocates of connected vehicles, however, have raised
concerns that Wi-Fi use in the 5.9 band will interfere with
ITS, which could, in turn, endanger drivers. While some people
have characterized this as two technologies pitted against each
other, I instead choose to see this as an opportunity.
Connected vehicle technology and increased Wi-Fi bandwidth will
each have significant benefits for the public. Obviously, the
best possible public policy outcome is if the engineers can
find a way for both technologies to coexist in the 5.9
gigahertz band. The NTIA and the FCC are currently examining
whether such spectrum sharing can be accomplished, and we
should avoid letting heated rhetoric color this debate while we
await the findings of the technical experts.
Americans have long marveled at the notion of an autonomous
vehicle, a car that could drive itself. Anyone who has seen the
You Tube video of Steve Mahan, a blind man, using a Google
self-driving car to perform his daily errands around the
suburbs of Morgan Hill, California, knows how potentially life-
changing these technologies may be. These self-driving cars
offer a glimpse into the future.
Mr. Chairman, maybe our next hearing on the subject should
take place at a test track in West Virginia or South Dakota so
we can more directly explore the vehicle technology of Google
and others, which undoubtedly will build upon today's
discussion.
I am pleased that we are joined today by NHTSA
Administrator Strickland. As a Federal agency within the
Department of Transportation responsible for highway traffic
safety and motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA must partner
with industry to make the high tech cars of the future a
reality.
In the NHTSA reauthorization passed last year as part of
MAP-21, Congress directed NHTSA to establish a new council for
electronics and emerging technologies to improve the agency's
expertise in the areas being discussed at today's hearing. I am
particularly interested to learn more about NHTSA's plan for
tackling its mission to ensure safety, while also ensuring that
innovation is not stifled.
The potential benefits of these advanced motor vehicle
technologies are remarkable. They should enable advanced safety
features, new information services, greater energy efficiency,
and reduced insurance risk, and provide a growing market in our
economy. However, with these advancements, Congress,
regulators, industry, and other stakeholders must grapple with
the forward-looking questions that will shape the motor vehicle
technology landscape in the coming years.
What changes to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards,
if any, are necessary to ensure that automobile manufacturers
can safely adapt new technologies and bring them to market? Do
the motor vehicle technologies currently in the pipeline
present other risks that we should be aware of, including
driver distraction, cybersecurity, and privacy risks? And how
are product developers working to identify these risks in order
to engineer mitigating solutions? Does NHTSA have the necessary
expertise in order to perform properly its mission in this
area?
I know the Committee looks forward to hearing from the
witnesses on these issues today, and I want to thank you for
being here and for sharing your testimony. And again, thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Thune.
And the Honorable David Strickland, who is the
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, we are very glad that you are here. You have a
large job. There is a whole slew of issues, some of which we
have mentioned, and many of which we have not. So we will be
interested in your testimony, and then we will want to question
you about it.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID L. STRICKLAND,
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Strickland. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. But before I
begin my remarks, I would like to introduce NHTSA's new Deputy
Administrator. The President appointed him, and the Secretary
swore him in this morning, David Freeman, on my left. Wave to
everybody, David.
The Chairman. He raised his right hand.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Strickland. Again, thank you so much for the
opportunity, Ranking Member Thune, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Johnson.
This is a real opportunity for the agency to talk about a very
exciting time in the automobile industry. We have been focused
on crash worthiness for over 40 years, frankly since we have
been in the business, since 1966. And these technologies that
you both alluded to in your opening statements really are the
new North Star for the agency.
As opposed to just protecting people in a crash, how can we
keep the crash from ever happening? And that is such an
important opportunity for us to make that critical disruptive
change to make sure we get well below 30,000, 20,000, 10,000
lives possibly in the future.
So we feel at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, that the future for the automobile is extremely
bright. Increasingly, a car's capabilities are determined more
by electronics than by mechanical linkages. This is bringing
countless innovations that improve driver comfort, provide
information and entertainment, and, most importantly, advance
safety. According to early estimates, there were over 34,000
fatalities on America's roadways in 2012, and I believe the
advanced safety technologies that we are discussing today could
reduce these numbers significantly.
Traditionally, we have improved survivability by advancing
the vehicle's trustworthiness. Through technology, such as seat
belts and air bags, occupants are more likely to survive a
crash than they were 20 or 30 years ago. Today we have exciting
prospects for advancing safety through new crash avoidance
technology suites that could prevent a crash from occurring in
the first place. Auto manufacturers are equipping vehicles with
lasers, cameras, and various sensors that enable features
unimaginable just a few years ago. And NHTSA has been
evaluating these technologies.
We have greatly accelerated our efforts to initiate and
complete research on the connected vehicles program. V2V or
vehicle-to-vehicle communications, are designed to give drivers
situational awareness and improve safe decision making on the
road.
The V2V program depends on digital short-range
communications, or DSRC, technology operating on the FCC
license spectrum. Located in the 5.9 gigahertz band, this
spectrum is uniquely capable of supporting a number of safety
applications that require nearly instantaneous information
relay. Since this spectrum was allocated, the Department has
conducted significant research developing the concept,
supporting consensus standards, and working with the
manufacturers on V2V technology development.
Last August, the Secretary launched the Connected Vehicle
Safety Pilot Program in Ann Arbor, Michigan. This safety pilot
enlists approximately 3,000 specially equipped vehicles
operating in day-to-day driving, enabling us to collect real
world data that cannot be duplicated in a lab. It represents
the largest test ever of connected vehicles in a real-world
environment. In this project, we will collect data that we need
to make the decision on how to proceed.
As the Transportation Research Board noted, ``Electronics
systems have become critical to the functioning of the modern
automobile.'' NHTSA recognizes the cybersecurity challenge and
have established the Electronic Systems Safety Research
Division to focus on these efforts. This division will oversee
research focused on evaluating the safety of electronic control
systems in five key areas: functional safety design; fail-safe
strategies; software reliability; diagnostic notification
strategies; and, finally, human factors considerations. We will
examine and apply lessons learned from other industries, such
as the aviation and medical industries, where loss of life is
the primary concern in electronic system failures.
Recently, traditional and non-traditional auto companies
have unveiled research projects to develop self-driving cars.
Unsurprisingly, people find this intriguing. Automated driving
is an exciting frontier for the industry, and we have
identified three key areas for preliminary research: human
factors research in human vehicle interface, initial system
performance requirements, and the electronic control of the
system. Our research will inform the agency for policy
decisions and assist in developing an overall set of
requirements and standards for automated vehicles.
The promise of advanced vehicles is very exciting. While
there certainly are risks with any emerging technology, I
firmly believe that when these risks are properly identified,
understood, and mitigated, it will help minimize those
particular risks and reap potential benefits. There are lots of
exciting innovations coming, and NHTSA is working very hard, as
it has done in the past and will continue to do in the future,
to ensure that all of the vehicles on the Nation's roadways are
safe and reliable.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I am
happy to take questions at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David L. Strickland, Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and members of the
Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you on what,
in my slightly biased opinion, is an extremely exciting subject--the
future of the automobile.
The future of the automobile is extremely bright. Increasingly, a
car's capabilities are determined more by its electronics than by its
mechanics. This is bringing countless innovations that improve driver
comfort, provide useful information and entertainment, and, most
importantly, advance safety.
As I have stated many times in prior testimony before Congress,
safety is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA)
top priority. Our programs are all designed to reduce crashes resulting
in deaths and injuries. According to early estimates, there were over
34,000 fatalities on America's roadways in 2012. This represents an
increase of about 5.3 percent as compared to the 32,367 fatalities that
occurred in 2011. If these projections are realized, 2012 will be the
first year with a year-to-year increase in fatalities since 2005. In
addition to the devastation that these crashes cause to families, the
economic costs to society reach into the hundreds of billions of
dollars. The advanced safety technologies we are discussing today can
help reduce these numbers significantly.
Crashworthiness to Crash Avoidance. We have done a lot to improve
vehicle occupant survivability, primarily by advancing the vehicle's
crashworthiness. Through technologies such as seat belts and air bags,
occupants are more likely to survive a crash than they were 20 or 30
years ago. The agency will continue working on improvements to
crashworthiness exemplified by recent final rules on roof strength and
preventing occupants from being ejected in crashes. Our current
research efforts are aimed at developing improvements to our child
safety standards; a new frontal crash test for adults, the elderly, and
pedestrians; advancing batteries and other alternative fuel research;
and improving our understanding of crash injury and impact mechanisms
through advanced biomechanics to develop future crash test dummies and
models.
At the same time, there are exciting prospects for improving
roadway safety through new crash avoidance technologies. Recognizing
the promise these technologies hold, the agency has been aggressively
pursuing many of the emerging technologies that are now deployed on new
vehicles. We believe these technologies can mitigate a crash or even
prevent it from occurring in the first place. For example, because of
the agency's research on electronic stability control (ESC), we issued
a rule requiring that technology on all new light vehicles since model
year 2011 be equipped with ESC to help drivers maintain control of
their vehicle in conditions where they might otherwise lose control.
Other technologies such as forward crash warning and lane departure
warning, both of which help drivers avoid dangerous crash scenarios,
are being recognized in NHTSA's vehicle rating program (the New Car
Assessment Program, known as NCAP) to help educate the public about the
life saving potential that they hold. We continue to evaluate even more
advanced technologies that are becoming available as options in
production vehicles today. For example, some of these technologies are
able to sense an impending crash and either apply the brakes for the
drivers if they fail to do so, or are smart enough to know when the
driver is not applying enough braking force and supplement the braking
force to avoid or mitigate the collision.
NHTSA believes it has the capabilities--and the responsibility--to
estimate the effectiveness of these crash avoidance systems, without
waiting for years of crash data, in order to make regulatory decisions
sooner and save more lives. Without a doubt, the potential for emerging
technologies to transform cars and improve safety is breathtaking.
Auto manufacturers are equipping cars with lasers, cameras, radars,
and various sensors that enable features unimaginable a few years ago.
NHTSA has been studying and evaluating many of the building block
technologies that will enable innovations, and this is just the
beginning. The automotive technologies that we see are rapidly
evolving, and NHTSA is working to understand the potential benefits as
well as identify new challenges that they will bring to drivers.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) published a report last
year titled The Safety Challenge and Promise of Automotive Electronics:
Insights from Unintended Acceleration.\1\ In this report, the TRB found
that ``electronics systems have become critical to the functioning of
the modern automobile'' and that these systems are interconnected with
one another. These interconnected electronics systems are creating
opportunities to improve vehicle safety and reliability, but are also
creating new and different safety and cybersecurity risks. Furthermore,
these electronics systems present new human factors challenges for
system design and vehicle-level integration. I am happy to report on
our efforts to address these challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13342
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash Avoidance Research. For the past several years NHTSA has been
engaged in research related to many types of crash avoidance systems,
including both those that warn the driver to take appropriate action
and those that automatically affect a vehicle control function. Much of
our early effort was focused on system performance and finding new ways
to estimate the effectiveness of these systems. That research led the
agency to mandate ESC and incorporate systems like forward collision
warning and lane departure warning as a recommended technology into the
NCAP program. We recommend that consumers look for these particular
technologies when a manufacturer demonstrates the technology on its
vehicle meets the NCAP performance specification. We are also
considering adding additional advanced crash avoidance technology to
the current list as a way to (1) inform the consumer and (2) enable the
market to pull these emerging technologies into the mainstream. Our
most recent analysis indicates that consumers do find the information
helpful and manufacturers are increasing the availability of these
technologies on new vehicles. We recently published a notice seeking
public input on what new technologies should be included in the program
and we plan to make a decision on the next advanced technology in FY
2013. Using a more naturalistic setting, our research is now evaluating
how our earlier estimates for the benefits of the collision warning
systems compare with the learning and improvements that manufacturers
have made over the years to these systems. We also hope to learn how
drivers are using these systems in their everyday driving.
NHTSA is also evaluating the newest technologies that incorporate
active braking in addition to warning drivers to avoid crashes. In
particular, NHTSA is focusing its efforts on dynamic braking and crash-
imminent braking systems. Such technologies employ radar, camera, lidar
or the fusion of these technologies to detect and track vehicles or
objects in the forward path and activate the brakes if the driver fails
to do so or supplement the driver's braking to avoid or mitigate
collisions. We are also evaluating whether enhancements to these
systems could be robust enough to detect and avoid pedestrian impacts.
NHTSA is currently evaluating system performance in a variety of crash
scenarios and under controlled test conditions to develop new ways in
estimating the real world benefits these advanced systems could
provide. We sought public comments on our initial findings in 2011 and
have now conducted additional analyses and research in response to
those comments. We will complete our work to inform an agency decision
later this year.
Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications. NHTSA, along with the Research
and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), and the Federal
Highway Administration, have greatly accelerated our efforts to
initiate and complete research on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-
to-infrastructure (V2I) platforms designed to increase driver
situational awareness and reduce and mitigate crashes. We believe V2V
technology will complement and ultimately merge with the advanced
braking systems and other crash avoidance technologies that we are
currently evaluating to shape the future of motor vehicle safety. V2V
will give drivers information needed to make safe decisions on the road
that cameras and radars just cannot provide. This added capability not
only offers the potential to enhance effectiveness of current
production crash avoidance systems, but also enables more complex crash
scenarios, such as those occurring at intersections, to be addressed.
We currently estimate V2V could potentially address about 80 percent of
crashes involving non-impaired drivers once the entire vehicle fleet is
equipped with V2V technology. This technology also holds great promise
for improving mobility and benefitting the environment by connecting
vehicles not just with each other, but also with road infrastructure.
The V2V program has been developed around Digital Short-Range
Communications (DSRC) technology that operates on Federal
Communications Commission licensed spectrum. Located in the 5.9 GHz
band, this spectrum is uniquely capable of supporting a number of
safety applications that require nearly instantaneous information
relay. Since this spectrum was first allocated, the Department has
conducted significant research developing the concept, supporting
consensus standards both in the U.S. and with other Nations, and
working with the auto manufacturers on coordinated V2V technology
development.
For passenger vehicles, we have established a collaborative
research effort with a consortium of automobile manufacturers to
facilitate the development and are exploring possible deployment of
models for V2V communication safety systems. This project is developing
several safety applications, addressing interoperability issues, and
evaluating safety benefits. We started by holding driver acceptance
clinics across the country between August 2011 and January 2012. The
evaluation included more than 700 drivers who experienced crash
warnings while driving vehicles. The feedback from drivers was
overwhelmingly positive, with over 90 percent expressing a desire for
such a system in their personal vehicles.
Last August, Secretary LaHood launched the Connected Vehicle Safety
Pilot Model Deployment in Ann Arbor, MI. The Model Deployment
encompasses various types of vehicles that include a mix of integrated,
retrofitted, and aftermarket vehicle safety systems. This program is
demonstrating V2V and V2I safety applications, interoperability, and
scalability in a data rich environment and provides real-world field
data that can be used to develop a better understanding of the
operational policy issues associated with V2V and V2I deployment. The
safety pilot program enlists approximately 3,000 specially equipped
vehicles to operate in day-to-day driving and provides an opportunity
to collect the first-of-its-kind real world data that cannot be
duplicated in a laboratory setting. It represents the largest test ever
of connected vehicles in a real-world environment. The data are
collected on a routine schedule and our researchers are already digging
into it. Given the potential of this transformative technology, we have
accelerated our efforts. NHTSA will use the results from the Safety
Pilot and other studies to decide this year whether to further advance
the technology through regulatory action, additional research, or a
combination of both. We expect to issue decisions on light duty
vehicles this year, followed by a decision on heavy-duty vehicles in
2014.
Vehicle Cybersecurity. As the TRB noted, ``electronics systems have
become critical to the functioning of the modern automobile.'' Over the
past several decades, the vehicle has evolved from primarily relying on
mechanical systems to one with an increasing reliance on computing
power and electronics. And with this evolution comes increased
challenges, primarily in the areas of system reliability and
cybersecurity--the latter growing more critical as vehicles are
increasingly more connected to a wide variety of products. Whether the
entry point into the vehicle is the Internet, aftermarket devices, USB
ports, or mobile phones, these new portals bring new challenges.
NHTSA recognizes this challenge and the growing potential for
remotely compromising vehicle security through software and the
increased onboard communications services. NHTSA has generally
regulated through performance standards developed for specific vehicle
systems or sub-systems to address a specific type of safety risk (e.g.,
frontal collision). However, with electronic systems assuming safety
critical roles in nearly all vehicle controls, we are facing the need
to develop general requirements for electronic control systems to
ensure their reliability and security.
To address this new frontier, NHTSA established within the Office
of Vehicle Safety Research the Electronics Systems Safety Research
Division that will focus on these efforts. To support the new division,
we have requested $2 million in our Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposal
for vehicle electronics and emerging technologies research. This
division provides NHTSA with a focal point that combines vehicle
electronics and automotive engineering to address electronics and
software technologies and their implications to vehicle safety. The
funding would begin initial research focused on evaluating the safety
of electronic control systems in five key areas--(1) functional safety
design; (2) fail-safe strategies; (3) software reliability; (4)
diagnostic and notification strategies; and (5) human factors
considerations. Additionally, we will need to quantify and assess risk
for both single vehicle and connected vehicle systems. We will examine
and apply appropriate lessons learned from other industries, such as
aviation and medical industries, where loss of life is the overriding
concern in electronic system failures. We will identify and evaluate
potential solutions and countermeasures and consider the need for
additional standards or regulations. This will involve collaborating
with a variety of stakeholders including the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department
of Defense, and many private industries.
The division is also focusing on issues related to cybersecurity.
Because we recognize their importance in developing safety-critical
systems, NHTSA will build off relevant voluntary industry standards and
evaluate what manufacturers are already doing. We have initiated
cybersecurity research, with the goal of developing a preliminary
baseline set of threats and how those threats could be addressed in the
vehicle environment. This work will complement and support the agency
research to develop performance requirements for automated vehicles.
For the V2V program, our research is evaluating a layered approach
to cybersecurity. Such an approach, if deployed, would provide defense-
in-depth, managing threats to ensure that the driver cannot lose
control and that the overall system cannot be corrupted to send faulty
data. In partnership with the auto companies and other stakeholders we
have developed a conceptual framework for V2V security. We are also
developing countermeasures to prevent these security credentials from
being stolen or duplicated. Additionally, we are developing protocols
to support a V2V security system that is designed to share data about
nefarious behavior and take appropriate action.
Automated Vehicles. Recently, traditional and non-traditional auto
companies have unveiled research projects to develop what some call
``autonomous'' (self-driving) vehicles that can perform certain driving
functions automatically. These companies identify safety as one of the
compelling factors favoring automation. They envision a system of
cameras, radar, lidar, and other sensors integrated with sophisticated
algorithms that can monitor the road in an increasingly wide variety of
roadway, weather, and traffic scenarios with greater awareness and more
rapidly and reliably make decisions than the average driver. Not
surprisingly, this vision has captured the Nation's attention. What was
once previously thought of as science fiction and decades away from
reality may now appear to be just around the corner, particularly as
some of these companies are touting that they will have a commercially
available vehicle in the next five years.
Vehicle manufacturers have already begun to offer and in some
cases, such as Electronic Stability Control, NHTSA has already
regulated what we call single function automated systems. Manufacturers
continue to develop these systems and are now combining functionalities
to achieve higher levels of automation. Some vehicle manufacturers
indicate that consumers will see some of these more advanced combined
systems in the U.S. in the next few years but full self-driving is
several years away. NHTSA has been actively involved in researching the
near term technologies because we already believe many of them hold
great safety promise. For example, NHTSA is engaged in research to
evaluate the effectiveness of currently available automated braking
systems in avoiding or mitigating crashes. As part of this research,
the agency is developing test procedures to evaluate the technologies
and methods to assess their safety benefits, as previously mentioned.
NHTSA conceives of these many and varied innovations as three
distinct streams of technological change and development that are
occurring simultaneously--(1) in-vehicle crash avoidance systems that
provide warnings and/or limited automated control of safety functions;
(2) V2V communications that activate various crash avoidance
applications; and (3) self-driving vehicles.
The confluence of these three streams of innovation has created a
fair amount of confusion in making distinctions between different
concepts and in finding commonly understood category descriptions.
NHTSA finds that it is helpful to think of these emerging technologies
as part of a continuum of vehicle control automation. The continuum,
discussed below, runs from vehicles with no active control systems all
the way to full automation and self-driving. While NHTSA is conducting
research along the entire automation continuum, our emphasis initially
is on determining whether those crash avoidance and mitigation
technologies that are currently available (or soon to be available) are
not only safe, but effective. Because these same technologies are the
building blocks that may one day lead to a driverless vehicle, we have
also begun research focused on safety principles that may apply to even
higher levels of automation, such as driver behavior in the context of
highly automated vehicle safety systems.
NHTSA has proposed definitions for five levels of automation to
allow for clarity in discussing this topic with manufacturers,
policymakers, and other stakeholders. The definitions cover the
complete range of vehicle automation, ranging from vehicles that do not
have any of their control systems automated (level 0) through fully
automated vehicles (level 4).
Level 0--No Automation. At the initial Level 0, the driver is in
complete control of the primary vehicle controls (steering, brake, and
throttle) at all times, and is solely responsible for monitoring the
roadway and for safe operation of all vehicle controls. Vehicles that
have certain driver support or convenience systems, but do not have
control authority over steering, braking, or throttle, would still be
considered Level 0 vehicles. Examples include systems that provide only
warnings (e.g., forward collision warning, lane departure warning,
blind spot monitoring) as well as systems providing automated secondary
controls such as wipers, headlights, turn signals, hazard lights, etc.
Although a vehicle with V2V warning technology alone would be
considered Level 0, that technology could significantly augment, and
could be necessary to fully implement, many of the technologies
described below. Furthermore, it would be capable of providing warnings
in several scenarios where sensors and cameras cannot (e.g., vehicles
approaching each other at intersections).
Level 1--Function Specific Automation. Level 1 automation involves
one specific control function that is automated (note: a Level 1
vehicle may feature multiple automated functions, but they operate
independently from each other). The driver still maintains overall
control, and is solely responsible for safe operation, but can choose
to cede limited authority over a primary control. Examples of Level 1
automation include:
adaptive cruise control, where the driver sets a specific
speed and does not have to continue pressing the accelerator;
electronic stability control, where the vehicle
automatically reduces power to the wheels and/or applies brakes
when cornering too aggressively; or
dynamic brake assist, where the vehicle automatically
provides additional braking power if it senses that the
driver's braking input is insufficient to avoid a collision.
The vehicle may have multiple capabilities combining individual
driver support and crash avoidance technologies, but it does not
replace driver vigilance and does not assume driving responsibility
from the driver. The vehicle's automated system may assist or augment
the driver in operating one of the primary controls--either steering or
braking/throttle controls (but not both). As a result, there is no
combination of vehicle control systems working in unison that enables
the driver to be disengaged from physically operating the vehicle by
taking hands off the steering wheel and feet off the pedals at the same
time.
Level 2--Combined Function Automation. Level 2 automation involves
at least two primary control functions designed to work together to
relieve the driver of control of those functions. Level 2 automated
vehicles share authority allowing the driver to cede active primary
control in certain limited driving situations. Combining adaptive
cruise control with lane keeping assistance would be an example of
Level 2 automation.\2\ The driver is still responsible for monitoring
the roadway and is expected to be available for control at all times
and on short notice. The system can relinquish control with no advance
warning and the driver must be ready to take control of the vehicle
safely. The major distinction between Level 1 and Level 2 is that, at
level 2, in the specific operating conditions for which the system is
designed, the driver can disengage from physically operating the
vehicle by taking hands off the steering wheel and feet off the pedals
at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Adaptive cruise control utilizes sensors (often radar) to
automatically adjust speed to maintain a safe distance from vehicles
ahead. Lane keeping systems will automatically take steps (through
steering adjustments) to keep the vehicle in its lane if sensors detect
that the vehicle will depart from the lane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3--Limited Self-Driving Automation. Level 3 automation
enables the driver to cede full control of all steering, brake, and
throttle functions to the vehicle. The driver is expected to be
available for occasional control, but with a comfortable transition
time that will enable the driver to regain situational awareness. The
vehicle is designed to ensure safe operation during the automated
driving mode, observing all rules of the road. An example would be an
automated or self-driving car that can determine when the system is no
longer able to support automation, such entering a construction area.
At this point, the vehicle signals the driver to reengage the driving
task. The major distinction between Level 2 and Level 3 is that, at
Level 3, the vehicle is designed so that the driver is not expected to
constantly monitor the roadway while driving and provides sufficient
time for the driver to reengage in driving.
Level 4--Full Self-Driving Automation. The vehicle is designed to
perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway
conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the
driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not
expected to be available for control at any point during the drive.
This includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles. By design, safe
operation rests solely on the automated vehicle system.
By ensuring that our research plan includes the entire automation
continuum, the agency strives to remain knowledgeable about the full
range of potential benefits and risks of increasing vehicle automation.
The agency's work on automated vehicles is designed to----
address safety questions about driver engagement and re-
engagement across levels of automation;
evaluate concepts of operation and development of system
requirements; and
provide guidelines for automated sensing and control.
As we continue our work on Level 1 automation and our efforts to
calculate the safety benefits that those single-function systems may
offer in the near term, we have begun new research on Levels 2-4. NHTSA
is working cooperatively with other DOT agencies on this research,
given its relevance to the intermodal Intelligent Transportation
Systems program. We are also engaged in a broader policy development
process across the Executive Branch. For our part, we have identified
three key areas for preliminary research--(1) human factors and the
human-vehicle interface; (2) initial system performance requirements;
and (3) electronic control system safety. NHTSA's research will inform
policy decisions, assist in developing an overall set of requirements
and standards for automated vehicles, identify any additional areas
that require examination, and build a comprehensive knowledge base for
the agency as automated system technologies progress.
Driver Distraction. In 2011, 3,331 people were killed in crashes
involving a distracted driver, compared to 3,267 in 2010. An additional
387,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a
distracted driver, compared to 416,000 injured in 2010. Driver
distraction is a very real problem on our roadways given the growing
use of cell phones and other such handheld devices in the vehicle. We
are also concerned whether new safety systems, with a variety of audio,
visual, or haptic warnings, are appropriately designed and sufficiently
effective. Additionally, we are concerned about non-safety applications
causing further distractions.
Connectivity and Portable Devices. Drivers perform secondary tasks
(communications, entertainment, informational, and navigation tasks not
required to drive) using in-vehicle electronic devices by interacting
with them through their user interfaces. The user interfaces of these
devices can be designed to accommodate interactions that are visual-
manual, auditory-vocal, or a combination of the two. Some devices may
allow a driver to perform a task through manual manipulation with
visual feedback, through voice command with auditory feedback, or a
combination of the two. Given the potential for distraction, NHTSA
focused new research in these two broad areas.
Last month, we issued voluntary guidelines for electronic devices
installed in vehicles (at the time they are manufactured) whose use
requires drivers to take their hands off the wheel or eyes of the road
to use them.\3\ Our goal in doing so is to encourage the design of in-
vehicle device interfaces that minimize driver distraction associated
with performing a non-driving task. The guidelines specify criteria and
a test method for assessing whether a secondary task performed using an
in-vehicle device may be acceptable for performance while driving. The
guidelines also seek to identify secondary tasks that interfere too
much with a driver's ability to safely control the vehicle and to
categorize those tasks as ones that are not acceptable for performance
by the driver while driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/
U.S.+DOT+Releases+Guidelines+to+Minimi
ze+In-Vehicle+Distractions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA will begin discussions very soon with the various stakeholder
groups and organizations affiliated with portable and aftermarket
devices. NHTSA values the input from the full range of stakeholders for
portable devices, including device makers, operating system providers,
cellular service providers, application developers, and industry
organizations that represent these different groups. We are eager to
listen to their input on how best to apply the visual-manual guidelines
to this important device category.
In-vehicle and portable devices that use auditory-vocal
interactions are on the rise and therefore must also be studied. These
involve the driver controlling the device functions through voice
commands and receiving auditory feedback from the device. NHTSA is
conducting work in this new and complicated area to determine if
guidelines are warranted. Because a single device's driver interface
could accommodate both visual-manual and auditory vocal interactions,
NHTSA is evaluating appropriate auditory-vocal test procedures and
acceptance thresholds that could be added to the visual-manual and
portable distraction guidelines.
Driver Vehicle Interfaces for Warning Systems and Automated
Vehicles. Recognizing the risks of driver distraction, vehicle warning
systems introduce a new set of challenges to the driver. Many current
crash avoidance systems provide a warning to the driver, expecting the
driver to take appropriate action (engage the brake or steer) to avoid
a crash. In order to determine if regulations or standardization is
needed, there are several issues we need to understand better, such as:
will the driver understand the warning systems when they activate given
the variety in the vehicle fleet, will the driver become startled if
the vehicle intervenes to avoid a crash, or is there a better way to
warn the driver?
We are conducting extensive human factors research with the goal of
developing requirements for the driver-vehicle interface for automated
vehicles. The objective is to ensure that drivers can safely and
seamlessly transition between automated and non-automated vehicle
operation, and that any additional information relevant to safe
operation is effectively communicated. The research will primarily
focus on Level 2 and 3 systems. As new automated driving concepts
emerge, we will evaluate the need for driver training in automated
systems. Additionally, NHTSA will be developing test and evaluation
tools (simulators, test vehicles, etc.) to evaluate driver and system
performance for various automated vehicle concepts.
As a first step toward completing research on these issues, the
agency is evaluating emerging Level 2 and Level 3 system concepts to
answer fundamental human factors questions. The evaluation will examine
how drivers react and perform in these types of automated vehicles. In
addition, we will consider driver vehicle interface concepts that may
be needed to ensure that drivers safely transition between automated
driving and manual operation of the vehicle. Ultimately, we want to
improve motor vehicle safety by defining the requirements for
automation in normal driving that are (1) operationally intuitive for
drivers under diverse driving conditions; (2) compatible with driver
abilities and expectations; (3) supportive of improving safety by
reducing driver error; (4) operational only to the extent granted by
the driver and always deferent to the driver; and (5) secure from
malicious external control and tampering. Through this research, we
hope to develop recommendations for specific requirements needed for
the driver-vehicle interface to allow safe operation and transition
between automated and non-automated vehicle operation.
As you can see, the promise of advanced vehicles that can avoid
crashes is extremely bright. While there are certainly risks with any
emerging technology, I firmly believe that, when this risk is properly
identified, understood, and mitigated, we can minimize it and fully
reap the potential benefits. There are a lot of exciting innovations
coming, and NHTSA is working hard, as it has done in the past and will
continue to do in the future, to ensure that all vehicles on the
Nation's roadways are safe and reliable. I thank you again for this
opportunity to testify, and I am happy to take questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Administrator Strickland, very
much.
Three years ago, you and Secretary LaHood sat at this
same--that same table for a hearing examining some unintended
acceleration of Toyota vehicles and NHTSA's investigation into
those incidents. At that time, I was concerned about NHTSA's
capacity to investigate electronic issues.
Two years later, the National Academies of Science released
studies demonstrating nearly the same concerns. And today we
are discussing the explosive growth of electronics in vehicle.
So my first question to you would be how well are you
prepared for this? I mean, your testimony was sort of general,
umbrella-like, and did not dig deep, which is what questions
are for. But I need to know how good--how you realistically
assess yourself and your staff in terms of the numbers of
people assigned, assuming that the cars are going to do this,
keep on adding things to make it more attractive, so that
safety will continue to be the main factor.
Mr. Strickland. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary and I are very
satisfied with the staff that we have on hand to deal with this
issue. Our budget request has given us adequate resources, and
we have the adequate talent on hand right now. As I mentioned
in my testimony, we have a new electronics office within our
Vehicle Safety Research team, which is specifically focused on
dealing with all issues regarding electronics. We have about 12
full-time employees with electrical engineering backgrounds and
this type of software background to deal with these issues, and
we are adding more every single day.
So in terms of our game plan, I will definitely submit a
more detailed answer for the record about the game plan for the
Electronics Research Office, but we really do have a very solid
plan on how we are going to be dealing with all of these
issues, including a process standard for looking at electronics
reliability, looking at vehicles fail--safe when the
electronics do fail; and those particular countermeasures.
In addition, as we did during the Toyota investigation, we
will always leverage the expertise of our sister agencies
across government, such as NASA or the Federal Aviation
Administration, to assist us in this task.
The Chairman. Well, I am well over my time, so I will yield
to my superiors. But I am not satisfied with the answer.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
follow up, if I might, and ask you, Mr. Strickland, with all
these cutting-edge automotive technologies, I am curious to
hear what changes, if any, you think may be necessary to the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards to ensure that we bring
these technologies to market safely.
Mr. Strickland. Well, at this point, we are going to be
doing a full policy analysis on looking at the current Federal
motor vehicle safety standards. You know, there are some things
clearly from a policy aspect that you have to consider, such as
those standards that deal with the driving position which
presumed that there is a driver that is constantly engaged in
managing the vehicle. So those particular standards are going
to have to be addressed, especially considering that you may
have some driving scenarios with technology where the driver
may be not necessarily fully within the loop for a period of
time.
In addition to that, Ranking Member, we are looking at
preparing ourselves and working with the industry, looking at
the research and development so that when we approach
commercialization we will be ready, if needed, to have
additional Federal motor vehicle safety standards on-board to
make sure that we have the certainty that we are not
introducing a technology that may pose an unreasonable risk to
safety. But that is very preliminary. We are clearly in the
research and policy phase at this point in making those
evaluations.
Senator Thune. And I think the vehicle safety standards
also help shape the automotive design process and can create
incentives and disincentives for firms to invest in new
technologies. This is especially true for those technologies
that have obvious safety benefits, but which may not conform to
the existing standards.
In your opinion, are the current standards flexible enough
to foster new innovations, while at the same allowing NHTSA to
meet its vehicle safety mandate?
Mr. Strickland. At this point, we believe that we have the
flexibility. But as I said, Ranking Member, we are looking at
this with a very sharp pencil, if you will.
The one thing that you have to think about is that some of
the Federal motor vehicle safety standards were written over 30
years ago. But we do believe that there is flexibility in terms
of dealing with how the particular safety systems that those
standards actually involve.
And what you are thinking of more as an application of
these particular technologies, brake application, and you are
thinking about directional control, human machine interface.
All of these things are already captured by the standards right
now. And the thing we want to make sure that we do is that we
have the correct pathway to encourage that innovation in a safe
way. Whether you are thinking about the testing or thinking
about the development, the last thing you want to do is to
chill innovation, but you should not have to compromise for
safety.
Senator Thune. OK. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield
to some of our other colleagues and then come back for a
question later.
The Chairman. All right then. Senator Nelson?
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, another
alum of the Commerce Committee makes good.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you, sir. Great seeing you again.
Senator Nelson. So, welcome. The Chairman in his opening
comments made reference to the kid in Indonesia suddenly
interfering. Let us take that a step further: cybersecurity
implications. Tell us about that.
Mr. Strickland. Well, there are several. And the Chairman
made a very excellent point in that looking at the advances in
the connectivity of vehicles and the opportunity for mischief
that can go well beyond pure mission. That can actually mean an
impact on life, possibly, if something that severe happens.
This is what we do know. At this point right now there has
never been an unauthorized access of a vehicle that is
currently on the road today. From our research at this point, a
person would need physical access to a vehicle in order to get
control of particular vehicle functions. However, recognizing
the future, there are going to be opportunities where there
will be chances for software linkages and Internet downloads in
vehicles. And for that, we have a very rigorous program looking
at the cybersecurity issues in terms of reliability, looking at
the proper standards of encryption, and how we deal with
certificate packages, and all of those other issues that we do
not want to be behind on.
We are relying upon, frankly, not only the work that we
have been doing with the auto makers, but also, in other parts
of the industry, FAA, et cetera, to be able to look through it
to help us gain a pathway forward as we think about these
cybersecurity issues.
Senator Nelson. Does it involve an allocation of part of
the spectrum that if you denied that spectrum, that you could
help yourself from a cybersecurity attack?
Mr. Strickland. Well, clearly one of the issues that are
involved within the vehicle-to-vehicle program is the security
protocol and that is clearly part of the spectrum. We are
working very hard with the Manufacturers Consortium on these
issues, and moving forward.
The question in regard to how much spectrum will be needed
to be able to help deal with the cybersecurity issues, I would
have to get back to you in more detail on that. But it is
clearly part of our analysis going toward the agency decision.
In any case, with the individual manufacturers, their decisions
on how to control vehicle mechanisms off board using software
is clearly the responsibility of the manufacturers, and I am
sure that Mr. Bainwol can address. But for us, we have to lay
down a process to make sure that there is a proper encryption
standard for every vehicle to be able to fight off such an
attack.
Senator Nelson. Have you ever requested assistance from
NASA?
Mr. Strickland. Absolutely, sir. Frankly, one of our best
collaborative relationships, since I have been in office for
sure, is how the NASA team helped us in the Toyota
investigation. They have really----
Senator Nelson. Tell us about it.
Mr. Strickland. Well, certainly. Well, we recognized that
we needed to have an outside verifier of the work that NHTSA
had done preliminarily on unintended acceleration and
electronics control. We felt that NASA having, you know, the
ultimate expertise in dealing with software issues, spin
testing and all of the other things that they do, and failure
mode analysis, we brought them in.
NASA worked shoulder to shoulder with the NHTSA engineers
and with Toyota. The Toyota Camry they looked at, I believe,
had over 300,000 lines of code, and their expertise verified
what NHTSA had contended all along, that there were no issues
regarding software electronics reliability in the unintended
accelerations. It was down to the two pedal issues identified
by NHTSA. But that work could not have been done without the
assistance of NASA.
Senator Nelson. Final question: are you working on a
technology that will not allow someone to text while driving?
Mr. Strickland. Sir, that is, frankly, one of my most
focused areas of emphasis. And the one thing that we are
interested in asking the Committee's support and help on is the
opportunity to pull together stakeholders across the industries
involved in this space, not only the automakers and us, but
also the handset suppliers and the wireless communications
companies. We believe that while we are very bullish on the
program on distracted driving, we think that a technical
solution that could identify the harm, that could differentiate
a driver's phone from a passenger's phone, interlock the
driver's phone (unless it is connected to the vehicle), is the
long-range technology shot to make sure that we end distracted
driving. And I am very focused on that.
Our hope is that we can pull these stakeholders together in
a public-private way for us to work on this technology in a
voluntary and collaborative way, and I think it is doable. But
we would love to have the support of this committee in putting
that type of stakeholder group together to work on this.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Johnson?
STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Strickland, I
am new to the Committee, new to this issue, so I will be asking
some pretty basic questions.
You mentioned the Highway Safety Act, 1970, so it is
actually 40 years old? I was not here then.
Mr. Strickland. There is the original Act from 1966, and
there is the update in 1970, which created NHTSA. We were
changed from the National Transportation Safety Bureau in 1966
to NHTSA in 1970. But, yes.
Senator Johnson. OK. Can you tell me which of the safety
improvements that we all enjoy today--air bags---- how many of
those are market driven, voluntary, versus what are imposed by
the Highway Safety Act?
Mr. Strickland. Well, basically the Highway Safety Act
created a base set of standards, and a number of those
technologies and innovations began within the automotive fleet
as innovations by the manufacturers. And as we learned over
time following data and effectiveness, they eventually evolved
into regulatory standards.
In terms of the ones that were mentioned specifically by
the Safety Act, there are actually initial frontal crash
standards and those types of things which were initially laid
out. We are talking about things such as air bags, and seat
belts. Seat belts were part of the original Act, I believe, in
1966, but clearly that has evolved over time. For example, we
actually had a regulation on seatbelt interlocks, which was
subsequently changed.
The original Act built a foundation and a process for the
agency to look at technologies which show promise in reducing
traffic injuries and saving lives. That foundation allowed us
to pull these additional innovations over the years into the
regulatory regime of NHTSA.
Senator Johnson. So what happens then? So it maybe is
driven by the--the innovations are driven by the auto
companies? You like what you see, and then over time that
becomes a standard that is imposed? I mean----
Mr. Strickland. Processwise, yes, sir. We really are a
data-driven, science-based agency, and we set performance
standards for vehicles. We do not ever pick design standards
because you may stifle innovation, and you may foreclose an
opportunity for safety in the future.
A classic example I would probably say in terms of process
is the mandate of the electronic stability control system,
which was an innovation that was put into vehicles starting in
1990. As we got more data over time on the effectiveness of
these particular technologies, we were able to prove the cost
and the benefits for us to move to a regulation, ultimately
mandating them to be in every vehicle starting in 2012.
That particular regulation has saved thousands of lives
since it has come into effect. And it is a classic example of
how you build your decisions upon data and science in order to
make the ultimate regulatory decision that can show the cost
and the benefits of the action.
Senator Johnson. Have you ever just done a study in terms
of what has been transformed over time from voluntary and
mandatory and what the cost of those mandatory safety standards
are per vehicle?
Mr. Strickland. Oh, in terms of every rulemaking we have to
do, we are obligated to show, the cost and the benefits. And we
can definitely do a comparative analysis for you, sir, that
tracks the movement of those technologies that were voluntarily
included in vehicle packages that ultimately became
regulations.
But the flip side of making something a regulation and
standardizing it across the fleet is that you actually get
learning. You decrease costs. You get economies of scale, which
actually makes those technologies much more affordable, and
ultimately you are democratizing safety. And that is the
benefit of being able to build rules on the basis of sound
data, sound science, and effectiveness.
Senator Johnson. So is your agency undertaking a study to
say today or whenever you might have conducted the study, this
is what the cost of the mandate and safety requirements are?
Mr. Strickland. Well, what we do in our notice of proposed
rulemaking is conduct an initial analysis of costs and
benefits.
Senator Johnson. That is a particular safety thing.
Mr. Strickland. Right.
Senator Johnson. And, again, I am just asking just in
general, just, you know, for a standard consumer. Are we
talking--has it added $5,000 to a standard car, all the
mandated safety items?
Mr. Strickland. Well, in terms of looking at the overall
cost, I think every decision that we make may add a particular
cost to the vehicle. But there are also ways to determine the
tipping point of those particular benefits and whether or not
you will be pricing out a particular segment of the buying
public from individual mobility.
We can definitely talk more in general about the history of
our rules and how they have done this. But in the decisions
made by the agency over the years, we have kept individual
mobility affordable, while also raising the margin of safety to
the point where we have actually decreased loss of life by 25
percent over the past decade or so.
Senator Johnson. An inquiring mind like mine would just
kind of want to know what that total cost per vehicle would be.
If you could--if you have something like that, I would be
interested in hearing it.
Mr. Strickland. We will definitely get back to you, sir.
Senator Johnson. Yes. One obviously government-imposed
standard is mileage standards, which at the same time then
reduces vehicle weight. Can you speak a little bit in terms of
the offset of that and really what, you know, what is the--what
is the criteria in terms of weight? I mean, I have heard things
like if in a crash, just a 10 percent reduction or differential
in terms of vehicle weight increases the chance of fatality by
10 times. I mean, is that the basic rule of thumb? Is that
accurate?
Mr. Strickland. Well, Senator Johnson, I have a group of
engineers that are way smarter than I on the particular physics
issues. Actually our new deputy administrator had that as one
of his areas of expertise in his old job, so I will let those
guys give you a more detailed answer off the record.
I will say that in finalizing the rules for 2017 to 2025 in
partnership with the EPA, we wanted to have the most aggressive
standard possible while ensuring that the benefits outweighed
the costs, and making sure that there was no impact on safety.
The work that we did for that rule, and the proceeding rule
(2012 to 2016) accomplished that.
We would be more than happy to talk about the math, size
and weight issues, and the impacts of light weighting. We
actually had a symposium earlier this week for 2 days talking
about mass and size issues as we go toward the mid-term review.
But our first priority is safety, sir. We are not going to
compromise safety. And we were very happy to have a safety-
neutral set of fuel economy standards. And I know the industry
is also very focused on that as well. We will definitely get
back to you in more detail off the record on those particular
issues.
Senator Johnson. OK, thank you.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you, sir.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Pryor?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator
Strickland, it is always good to be with you.
Mr. Strickland. Great seeing you again, sir.
Senator Pryor. How are you?
Mr. Strickland. Fine. Sorry that you changed subcommittees
on me, and now you are over in communications. You jumped to
the other tribe.
[Laughter.]
Senator Pryor. That is true, I did. Let me follow up on one
of Senator Johnson's questions there just in general. What we
are talking about today is advanced technology in vehicles. Is
that right now being driven by the industry, the auto industry,
or is it being driven by your agency?
Mr. Strickland. The industry innovates, and I have to say
that while we are very proud of the work that we do at NHTSA,
the hard work of the auto makers to improve vehicle safety has
driven the universe forward in terms of what the expectation is
of a vehicle.
Clearly we set the floor in terms of the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards, and manufacturers innovate and go
well beyond that. We create another incentive using the new car
assessment program, or NCAP, the five-star safety rating, which
is a market incentive to go beyond the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards.
But it is the auto makers that innovate for things such as
crash and braking systems, which we are continuing to study,
and those systems are on cars right now--adaptive cruise
control, lane departure warning. So it is that innovation that
gives us the opportunity to look at effectiveness and hopefully
find a path forward for those technologies that show promise
that may be put throughout the entire fleet.
Senator Pryor. Great. So let me follow up on that then. In
your opening remarks, you mentioned that once fully
implemented, vehicle-to-vehicle technology could potentially
address about 80 percent of the crashes involving non-impaired
drivers.
So can you give us an estimate of the timeline on which you
think this technology will be implemented on a mass scale, you
know, not just with the very highest-end cars, you know, mass
scale?
Mr. Strickland. Sure. Well, Senator, the agency will be
making a decision this year on how we are going to proceed on
vehicle-to-vehicle technology based upon the data we receive
from the safety pilot and other research that we are doing.
If--and I truly underscore ``if''--the agency decides to go
forward in a rulemaking posture to mandate V2V, it will take
some time for the vehicle fleet to turn over and have that
technology in every vehicle. The other part that we are looking
at is the provision of aftermarket beacon so that people can
actually, you know, put these beacons into their car and
receive benefits immediately.
But turning over the fleet takes decades. The average life
of a car now is well over 12 to 15 years, so thinking about
having the fleet turn over enough times to get that in every
vehicle will take some time.
Senator Pryor. Yes. OK. So let me ask another question a
little more specifically about the five gigahertz band. The
FCC, as you know, recently has talked about unlicensed use of
five gigahertz band, et cetera. Can you tell us how you are
working with the FCC to make sure everybody is on the same page
here and understands what the future of five gigahertz may be?
Mr. Strickland. Well, the Department provided comments to
NTIA, I believe earlier this week, about the work forward in
terms of their testing evaluation of compatibility of sharing
the spectrum. I will say that the Deputy Secretary in a
statement during a roundtable last week voiced, I guess, the
questions that we have at the Department of Transportation
about that the FCC sort of initiating its notice of proposed
rulemaking before the NTIA has had an opportunity to do the
technical work.
We felt frankly, that the process--the NTIA process should
have informed the FCC process before the FCC went forward. And
we made note of that in our comment.
Senator Pryor. So in other words, you, and I do not want to
put words in your mouth, but you may be concerned that some of
this new technology in vehicles may have interference issues
with, like, Wi-Fi and other things.
Mr. Strickland. The concern that we have is that as we are
allocated the use of this particular spectrum, it is incumbent
upon any other unlicensed user to not interfere with the
Department of Transportation's 5.9 gigahertz. It is a safety
function, and as a safety opportunity it could address up to 80
percent of crashes of unimpaired drivers.
The only thing that we are looking for is making sure that
the process actually is followed in the correct manner, which
is that we actually get the technical work done to determine
whether or not there is an interference issue before we go
forward to the next step for the FCC to issue a rule, which may
possibly preclude the notion of the technology advice.
Senator Pryor. And does NTIA do the work for you?
Mr. Strickland. They are working on that. That is the
process right now.
Senator Pryor. And do you know how long it will take them
to----
Mr. Strickland. I have to get back to you on the record on
that. I am not sure about the timeline for NTIA.
Senator Pryor. Mr. Chairman, thank you. That is all I have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Pryor. Let us wheel around
once again.
Let me just put it bluntly. We are talking about sort of
making cars into virtual offices because they are connected to
everything, including through the Internet to the entire world.
I want you to explain to me, and I do not want you to say I
will send you an answer--a written answer on that.
Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I want you to explain to me as best as you
can what is the tipping point when distractions that may have
to do with, you know, my music, or somebody's business, or
Internet capacity, or all the--you know, being wired up, all
the things that happen when you fulfill modern dreams of what a
car should be. At a certain point, that begins to work
absolutely at an uncertain--in certain terms, against the
interest of safety. It is an inevitable fact.
I would like you to give me a sense of where your sense of
that tipping point could be, or if you accept the concept. Your
job is safety. Your job is not trinkets.
Mr. Strickland. Absolutely right. Sir, it is not a question
of a tipping point to me. There is an absolute first value. The
first thing that anybody should do behind the wheel of a car is
drive. Everything else is ancillary, and not just ancillary,
frankly, disposable.
But through the work that we have done at NHTSA, in our
human factors research and our other research that has given
the zone of safety. What is an amount that could be handled
behind the wheel? That informed our in-vehicle guidelines that
were released a few weeks ago, which outline the zone of
safety. Basically any task within the vehicle that can be
completed within 2 seconds for an individual action or up to 12
seconds for back and forth continual actions, is safe. It is
the equivalent of tuning a radio in the vehicle, which we have
seen over the decades is a safe operation of an additional task
in the vehicle.
Additionally, we have taken a very hard look at those
additional things that we find could be dangerous, such as a
GPS system that does not lock out when the vehicle is underway.
You do not want people typing 2121 McGillicuddy Way doing 70
miles an hour down the road. We have suggested that the system
be locked out. We do not want social messaging to be happening
while the vehicle is underway. That should be locked out. And
frankly, it should be locked unless the vehicle is in park, not
just when the vehicle is moving at five miles an hour, which
the current voluntary standards allow for. We believe that we
have found the correct zone of safety for the human machine
interface and visual manual distraction, which we know are
incredibly dangerous.
So, sir, we are not playing the line. I think that we have
drawn a really clear line in the sand about what we think the
zones of safety are. And that is so that the automakers can
then innovate around that zone of safety. If they can do
particular tasks to provide information and services within
that zone of safety, that is space for innovation. If they
cannot, it should not be in the vehicle. And that is where the
line is.
The Chairman. Well, I am trying to parse your words to see
what your answer told me. Do you think that it--first of all, I
think it is a fact that increasingly younger people are not
buying cars?
Mr. Strickland. That is true.
The Chairman. And they are using other modes of
transportation. And that has some benefits to me in terms of
safety for the future because they want to be wired up. They
want to be, you know, a moving office, connected to everything.
Explain to me why the concept of a wired up automobile
which can do any kind of transaction, and you say it has to be
done in 2 seconds. I would actually question that because I
remember we were talking a few years ago, if you spend three or
4 seconds and you are on an interstate or highway, you have
gone the lengths of two or three football fields. And in West
Virginia, if you do that, you have crashed seven times just
because of the hilly territory.
So why do you have an accepting attitude, if you do, that
we are coming upon a time when cars will have the ability for
people to sit in the cars and have it as an office space? It
scares the heck out of me.
Mr. Strickland. Well, sir, we are not accepting that a car
is an office place while you are rolling. There are some things
that are analogous to current tasks which are within the zone
of safety, and we are happy to brief you in more detail about
our research that shows that you can complete a task safely
within 2 seconds. That is solid fact.
We want to lock out anything that resembles a driver trying
to input large amounts of text, or even small amounts of text.
Anything that is akin to radio, such as audio being read back
to you or the ability to be able to enter an address by voice
is an opportunity. Those things we think have possibilities,
and they are safe.
But you are absolutely right, sir. You have people that are
interested in surfing the Internet, typing large amounts of
text, anything of that nature, and you are right, it should be
out of the vehicle, and we encourage that auto makers interlock
and prohibit those particular practices. But we also recognize
that there is a large amount of information, and, frankly,
driver support that is provided by these systems. And those are
good things.
GPS is such a system. That is a good thing when properly
used. People being able to receive messages that their car can
actually speak back to them is like a radio. That is
potentially is a good consumer item that somebody could use
within the zone of safety.
But you are absolutely right: 95 percent of what you are
seeing in terms of the true social application of people
texting, and tweeting, and bouncing stuff back and forth,
watching streaming video, and all of those things, is not
appropriate for the vehicle, and we strongly would fight
against permitting that. But you cannot simply say that an
antiseptic environment in the vehicle is also a realistic one.
I think if we recognize those things that can be done safely
and are very strict about it, we encourage innovation; we
encourage the opportunity for good information and service to
be provided to the driver in support of the driving task; and
we allow the opportunities for things that we do not anticipate
to develop. And that is the balance that we are looking for,
and we feel very strongly about that.
The Chairman. OK. Senator Thune?
Senator Thune. Chairman, I really do not have any more
questions. I do want to say that if we did V2V connectivity
that we could probably listen to--we could listen to Bach with
you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. I do want to thank you, Mr. Strickland, for
something that you helped our office with, the B.A.T. Mobile--
--
Mr. Strickland. Oh, right.
Senator Thune. It is a new vehicle technology. It is a
breath alcohol testing mobile, and in getting one into the
Great Plains region, that will be very helpful in the mission
that we have of improving public safety on our Indian
reservations in our State. So, thank you for your help with
that.
Mr. Strickland. Well, thank you, Mr. Thune. There is an
area that we were very focused on, improving vehicle safety in
Native territories and reservations, because unfortunately
Native Americans are overrepresented in a lot of very bad crash
areas; lower seat belt use; higher drunk driving rates; higher
crash rates; and the worst fatality numbers. Anything that we
could do to help address those through countermeasures is
something that we are very strongly supportive of. We were
happy to help in getting you the B.A.T. Mobile.
Senator Thune. Appreciate that.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you.
Senator Thune. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No other
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Are there--Senator
Johnson? Senator Pryor?
Administrator Strickland, thank you very much.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity. I always appreciate it.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. All right. Now our next panel.
Mr. Mitch Bainwol, who is president and CEO of the Alliance
of Automobile Manufacturers here in Washington; Mr. Jeffrey
Owens, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer,
Delphi Automotive, Troy Michigan; Dr. Peter Sweatman, Director
of University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute;
and Dr. John Lee, Emerson Electric Quality and Productivity
professor, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Wisconsin.
Why do we not start with you, sir?
STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE OF
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS
Mr. Bainwol. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity to be here today to testify at this extraordinary
time for mobility. A decade ago, the CDC celebrated the
reduction of traffic deaths as one of the 10 great public
health achievements of the 20th century. Since then, deaths per
mile traveled are down another 25 percent.
These gains result from many factors, including an
increased use of seat belts and decreased incidents of drunk
driving, as well as crash worthiness technologies mitigating
the impact of accidents. Going forward, progress will come from
technologies that reduce driver error. Given that more than 90
percent of crashes result from human mistakes, the combination
of emerging driver assist features, connectivity, and
ultimately autonomous vehicles offer the promise of safer
mobility, as well as less congestion, less fuel consumption,
lower emissions, lower insurance costs, and higher
productivity.
We see a robust debate in the press, mostly with engineers
who agree with each other less often than lawyers, about when
self-driving cars will become a reality. That is the wrong
question. It makes safety about some magic moment in the future
rather than recognizing that technologies in the marketplace
today already are providing important benefits as they set the
foundation for tomorrow.
The premise of today's hearing is that technology will
yield highly material safety benefits for American drivers.
That invites two questions: one, what are the barriers
inhibiting the rate of life-saving innovation, and what can you
do to speed innovation in light of these barriers.
Ironically, technology is not the biggest obstacle to
deploying innovation. Rather, the bigger hurdles are, one,
consumer acceptance, two, product liability, three,
connectivity, and four, fleet mix concerns. Our polling shows
that consumers strongly equate technology with safety, and that
is very promising. But at least for now, these same consumers
are dubious about self-driving vehicles, splitting four to
three against the view that autonomous vehicles are a good
idea. The driving experience is deeply ingrained. Non-
incremental change is scary.
Liability is a huge problem, especially when aftermarket
solutions become available. Who is responsible if something
fails? What if a garage inventor produces a flawed at-base
solution? If liability flows inappropriately to the OEM, we
would see higher product costs, chilled innovation, and
probable reduction to manufacturing employment.
Connectivity is a critical component to safety progress, as
we have discussed. For full V2V and V2I connectivity, spectrum
integrity and investment in infrastructure are vital. Without
it, long-term driver technologies cannot realize their
potential.
Finally, how would we handle fleet mix challenges? We often
focus on the length of the industry's product cycle. The more
salient factor is the consumer cycle. Eleven is the age of the
average car on the road. We only turn over the fleet--half the
fleet in roughly a decade. Thus, at any given point in time, we
have a wide range of technologies on the road with different
crash mitigation and different crash prevention profiles.
So we have some recommendations. I would make these five.
First protect the spectrum. The most time sensitive
recommendation to a safety first future is ensuring that the
5.9 gigahertz radio frequency, now dedicated to V2V and V2I,
remains solely available for safety critical communications.
When two tons of metal are moving 100 feet per second,
communications must work instantly and accurately.
The FCC is now considering opening up a portion of the
spectrum, as we have discussed. The Agency should adopt a do no
harm strategy until testing is complete, and we are concerned
that the NTIA report is due after the FCC is likely to reach a
judgment.
Second, invest in infrastructure. Robust and life-saving
connectivity requires infrastructure build out that is costly
to communicate with vehicles. This will be a gradual process
because of the cost. But we need the vision and the motivation
to begin planning and implementing today.
Third, address consumer acceptance. We have to get ahead of
potential public concerns before we deploy. We will need to
tackle a range of tricky questions that are critical outside
and inside the car, including privacy, security, and comfort
with new technologies. Building consumer trust is imperative.
Fourth, maintain vehicle affordability. Public policy
should keep vehicles as affordable as possible by leveraging
market forces and letting data drive regulation. The best
technology in the world does nothing if cars are stuck in a
showroom because of mandate overload. Cars are lasting longer,
and new cars cost more than $30,000 a unit. We only replace
about 6 percent of the U.S. car park annually. Any policy that
slows the replacement cycle may compromise the greater good.
And finally, fifth, we need to preserve technology
neutrality. We all recognize the challenge of distracted
driving. You have talked about it with Mr. Strickland in
detail. That challenge has grown as connectivity has found its
way into cars.
The NHTSA guidelines are illustrative. Here, government
policy calls for restrictions of functionality of the built-in
systems without corresponding limitations of the portable
devices. The result: chilling innovation of the built-in system
and incentivizing the hand-held use. So if a driver is looking
for live nav guidance and they cannot plug it in their own
system, what do they do? Oftentimes they pull out their iPhone
or their Android, they look down below the dash, they plug in
the address, they fiddle with the keys, and potentially suffer
the consequences. We cannot wish the real world away. A policy
that is not comprehensive across technologies and across
devices produces unintended consequences.
So to close, the promise of future mobility has never been
brighter or safer. We stand ready to work with this committee
to maximize innovation and to save lives, and we thank you for
the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bainwol follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mitch Bainwol, President and CEO,
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
On behalf of the twelve automakers who are members of the Alliance
of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance),\1\ thank you for this
opportunity to testify today on our successes in enhancing vehicle
safety and the promise of emerging technologies for the future of
mobility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alliance members include BMW Group, Chrysler Group LLC, Ford
Motor Company, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz,
Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen Group of America and
Volvo. Alliance members account for roughly three quarters of all
vehicles sold in the U.S. each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more than a century, innovation in automotive mobility has been
our guidepost, producing technological advances leading to safer,
cleaner, more energy-efficient cars and light trucks.
Now, looking down the road, personal transportation is poised to
undergo revolutionary change, as dramatic as the introduction of the
first cars on our roads. Those first vehicles changed society by
connecting people to markets, to health care, and to schools.
Before us lies the potential to dramatically reshape the driving
experience and redesign the whole concept of personal mobility through
the combination of sensor-based safety systems, intelligent driving,
driving assist systems and communications-based connected vehicle
technologies.
The vision for the future is nothing less than amazing. New
technologies and systems will continue to provide enhanced safety
benefits, reduce environmental impacts, reduce congestion and improve
our quality of life in countless ways.
A review of the road already traveled demonstrates how much road
safety progress has already been achieved.
Historically, automakers have focused on engineering vehicles to
enhance occupant protection in the event of a crash. Today, automobiles
have a range of airbags--front, rear, side and even curtains--as well
as a long list of safety enhancements, from structural reinforcements
to the passenger compartment to advanced safety belts. Many of these
advances were designed and introduced by the auto industry voluntarily,
without any government mandate.
Our progress was recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, where experts described the results of automotive safety
advancements as one of the ten ``Great Public Health Achievements'' of
the 20th century.
And we are continuing to see progress in this century. In 2011, the
number of traffic fatalities was over 25 percent lower than in 2005.
Moreover, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
showed a similar decline since the beginning of the 21st century.
However, a preliminary statistical projection by NHTSA estimates that
over 34 thousand fatalities occurred in motor vehicle traffic crashes
in 2012--an increase of 5 percent compared to 2011. So, there is more
work to do.
What are some of the principle challenges to road safety today?
During the period 1997 to 2011, motorcycle deaths have more than
doubled, from about 2,000 to around 4,600, while overall traffic
fatalities fell in the same period by 23 percent. It now appears
motorcycle deaths may exceed 5,000 in 2012, accounting for over 14
percent of all traffic fatalities. More must be done.
Despite our many efforts, about 1 in 7 Americans still is not
buckling up. In recent years, about half of the passenger vehicle
occupant fatalities were unbelted. NHTSA estimates that safety belts
saved nearly 12,000 lives in 2011. The agency further estimates that
increasing safety belt usage to 100 percent would save more than 3,000
lives each year. Many automakers are installing seat belt reminder
systems to encourage drivers and passengers alike to buckle up.
Driver error is an overarching challenge to making our roads safer.
NHTSA estimates that driver error is involved in more than 90 percent
of crashes.
Impairment is a leading cause of driver error. Eliminating impaired
driving would reduce by one-third the number of people who die on our
roads each year. The Alliance supports requiring alcohol interlock
devices for convicted drunk drivers. In addition, for the past five
years, Alliance members have been working in partnership with NHTSA to
research advanced in-vehicle technology called ``DADSS''--technology
that holds promise to help eliminate drunk driving one day. The
Alliance appreciates the leadership role taken by this Committee last
year in continuing to fund this critical research during the
reauthorization of surface transportation.
Novice drivers are another source of driver error. Novice drivers
generally tend to make more mistakes than experienced drivers. New
driver education and training can help minimize the risk. We know motor
vehicle crashes are the number one cause of death and injury among
youth in this country, which is why the industry has invested in novice
driving programs and technologies that help new drivers gain more
experience and training behind the wheel.
The future of vehicle safety has expanded into ``crash avoidance''
technologies that help prevent or mitigate crashes. Crash avoidance, or
``driver assist,'' technologies employ sophisticated software to
interpret data from sensors, cameras, or radar-based technologies that
allow vehicles to sense the environment around them and assist drivers
to become aware of impending dangers, or in some cases may take over
for drivers to help prevent or mitigate accidents.
There are about twenty different ``driver-assist technologies''
available already on today's vehicles, with more coming. You can see
them in action on our YouTube channel at www.YouTube/DriverAssists.
What do we mean by driver-assist technologies?
Intervention technologies include electronic stability control and
anti-lock brakes that help keep the vehicle under control without
engagement by the driver. These two technologies are present in
virtually every new passenger car sold in America. In addition to these
systems, new technologies are being introduced to assist drivers to
avoid or mitigate crashes in emergency situations, such as crash
imminent braking and dynamic brake support. According to recent data
compiled by the Highway Loss Data Institute, vehicles that brake
automatically may offer significant safety benefits. Their drivers file
15 percent fewer property damage claims. They are 16 percent less
likely to file claims for accidents involving property damage. And,
their owners are 33 percent less likely to file claims for crash
injuries than the average owners of similar vehicles.
Warning technologies provide alerts to assist the driver, such as
blind spot warnings, lane departure warnings, cross traffic alerts, and
forward collision warnings. All of these systems provide drivers with
additional information to help them take corrective action to avoid the
risk of a crash. However, the driver has the means to operate the
vehicle safely without these features.
Driver Assistance technologies include lane keeping systems,
adaptive cruise control, and automatic high beams. Drivers decide when
to activate these systems, which then may assist the driver during
routine driving tasks, provided road and environmental conditions
permit.
This year, consumers will be able to visit dealer showrooms to see
``gee whiz'' technologies such as adaptive cruise control with
automatic braking and lane centering. This illustrates a beginning
stage in the development of future automated vehicles, which can
actively control or position their distance from other surrounding
vehicles.
As we move into the future, developing infrastructure and vehicles
that communicate with each other has the potential to be a game changer
for road safety. According to NHTSA, connected vehicle technology could
potentially benefit approximately 80 percent of crash scenarios
involving non-impaired drivers. That is why both automakers and the
government are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in research,
development and testing of connected vehicle technology. Connected
vehicles may help to enhance or enable a host of critical crash-
avoidance technologies.
The phrase ``connected car'' has become a bit of a catchall and
means different things to different people.
For some, connectivity in the car is about eliminating the gap in
access to people or information that occurs when commuting between
point A and point B. In our digital world today, drivers and their
passengers want to be seamlessly connected to the web and all its
functionality, including social media, communications, music,
navigation and a range of transportation-related content. They want to
be as connected in the car as they are everywhere else.
For others, connectivity in the car is about reducing the potential
of crashes by getting information on real-time risk factors outside the
vision of the driver--or the electronic eyes of the car. This
connectivity refers to the exchange of information either among
vehicles--called V to V--or information between vehicles and
infrastructure--commonly referred to as V to I.
Automakers view safety, mobility, environment, and road travel
convenience applications and functions to be within the connected
vehicle scope. Automakers consider other applications connecting people
to people and people to businesses as telematics functions.
Whether among cars or with infrastructure, the potential of
connected vehicles is mind-boggling. Cars may have the potential to
sense if black ice is on the road, if bridges are iced over, or if a
crash has occurred on the road ahead--all before the driver can detect
the impending challenge. With connectivity, the driver can be alerted
to take precautionary measures--and the car itself may be able to use
connected vehicle data, in combination with other vehicle sensor data,
to perform a range of anticipatory countermeasures like precautionary
braking or seat belt tensioning to address the looming risk. Or the car
may be able to direct the driver to an alternate roadway to avoid the
situation entirely.
The future of driving safety is very bright, and with the right
public policies put in place to support connectivity and the
replacement cycle, working together industry and government can support
the goal of increasingly safe mobility. Getting there will require many
pieces of a large puzzle to fit together in addition to technological
advancements: consumer acceptance, achieving critical mass to enable
the ``network effect,'' and establishment of the necessary legal,
regulatory framework and other policy issues. We can get there from
here.
Surveys of consumers' attitudes involving advanced technologies and
automated vehicles conducted for the Alliance indicate that a majority
(59 percent) believe that technological innovations such as driver
assist technologies are making cars safer. However, consumers are
currently dubious of ``self driving'' cars with only 33 percent
indicating that such cars are a good idea, 42 percent responding they
are a bad idea, and 24 percent unsure. Building consumer trust is
critical. Drivers are unlikely to cede control of their cars unless
they are convinced that automated technology is safe and reliable.
To realize the benefits of connected vehicle technologies, a large
network of vehicles equipped with these technologies, or at least
capable of working within this network, is needed. An aftermarket
system that consumers value, could help to speed establishment of a
critical mass of connected vehicles. Establishment of corridors of
connected operation may be another means for achieving critical mass
where it is most needed, in densely populated urban areas. Finally,
greater autonomy of operation dictates greater cooperation among
vehicles.
Consideration needs to be given to the needed legislative and
regulatory framework needed to spur development and adoption of
advanced technologies. A patchwork of state laws will negatively impact
the speed and trajectory of the technologies adopted. Federal
leadership is needed to establish a single, long-term national vision
for personal transportation in the future. However, care must be
exercised to ensure that development is facilitated--not frustrated--
while also ensuring that the appropriate performance criteria are
established.
Finally, perhaps the most challenging is the resolution of a litany
of complex legal issues that are associated with cars and trucks
capable of operating with increasing levels of automation. These
include insurance underwriting and liability issues. A greater portion
of liability may shift from individual vehicle operators and actors to
manufacturers and infrastructure providers (federal and state). The
question of who is responsible when, for what, will need to be
addressed.
We are pleased with the great vision of this Committee in focusing
today on the future. Like you, we share the goal of ensuring the public
policy pillars necessary to achieve the full safety value of
connectivity and other technological advances be identified and
protected.
We believe five pillars of policy are central to maximizing safety
through technology in the future are: (1) protect the spectrum; (2)
invest in infrastructure; (3) ensure consumer acceptance; (4) maintain
vehicle affordability; and (5) preserve technology neutrality.
Protect the spectrum: The first pillar is ensuring that the radio
frequency spectrum now dedicated to V-to-V and V-to-I--the 5.9 GHz
band--remains solely dedicated to auto communications technologies.
When vehicles are driving at highway speeds, communications must occur
virtually instantaneously, without delay and without interference. The
FCC is now considering whether to open this portion of the spectrum for
use by unlicensed wireless devices. While we understand the potential
benefits of expanding wireless access, regulators must be certain that
unlicensed users would not compromise the integrity of this vital
safety initiative. The FCC should maintain the spectrum for safety
critical systems until thorough testing is completed and all parties
are certain that the spectrum remains reliable and secure for its
primary V-to-V and V-to-I purpose, and can be shared without
interference.
Invest in infrastructure: The second pillar is building out the
infrastructure for the V-to-I component of connectivity. Surely this
will be a gradual process, but we need the vision and motivation to
begin planning today. As is the case with a range of technologies, such
as alternative powertrains for environmental gains, infrastructure
investment is essential to achieving the maximum safety benefit and
inducing buyers to purchase the V-to-I communications functionality.
Ensure consumer acceptance: The third pillar is proactively
addressing consumer acceptance by addressing in advance of deployment
potential public concerns. If the advent of connected vehicle
technology exposes drivers and owners of equipped vehicles to loss of
privacy, security breaches, and/or increased legal liability in the
form of automated law enforcement, we will not realize the many
benefits that might otherwise be gained by its widespread deployment.
Similarly, connected and automated vehicle systems entail interactive
technologies for which successful outcomes depend not only on drivers'
correct response to alerts and information, but on multiple entities in
both the public and private sectors correctly and consistently
performing their respective portions of the connected enterprise. This
creates new and unprecedented challenges that will need up-front policy
consideration.
Maintain vehicle affordability: The fourth pillar is keeping cars
and light trucks as affordable as possible by leveraging market forces
and utilizing a data-driven approach to regulation if and when needed.
The best technology in the world can only help if families are able to
replace their old cars with new vehicles. Today, the average age of a
car is 11 years old, and we only replace about 6 percent of the U.S.
car park every year. When the safety (and environmental) benefits of
new cars relative to old cars are sizeable, the public policy
imperative must be to avoid the temptation to mandate and instead
facilitate choices by families in the marketplace. Policies that
discourage the purchase of new technologies should be avoided--as a
matter of public policy, we need to encourage the ``virtuous cycle of
new car ownership.''
Preserve technology neutrality: The fifth pillar is supporting a
comprehensive approach to in-vehicle technologies. Decisions made today
can produce dramatic repercussions tomorrow. We all recognize the
challenge of distracted driving and how that challenge has grown as
connectivity has found its way into cars, primarily through
smartphones. The recently issued NHTSA guidelines on distraction are a
case in point. In this instance, government policy calls for
restrictions in functionality of in-vehicle systems without
corresponding functionality limitations in portable devices. As a
result, government policy will likely chill innovation and bias drivers
toward the use of handheld devices, rather than integrating devices
with in-vehicle systems. So, if a driver looking for live NAV guidance
is blocked from doing so while his car is in motion, he may predictably
pull out his smartphone, fiddle with the keys while looking down, and
retrieve the desired mapping guidance. That's the real world and as
much as we might want to wish that away, a policy that isn't
comprehensive across technologies and devices and responsive to
consumer needs is a policy that will produce unintended and undesirable
consequences.
Successful policy will recognize behavioral realities. We have
studied smartphone utilization in cars and found younger drivers are
especially resistant to abandoning connectivity while driving. Attempts
to modify behavior are unlikely to succeed. Rather, NHTSA has it right
when it says that the number one goal in distraction policy should be
to encourage drivers to connect their phones to the built-in systems
which can be controlled by voice and help drivers keep their eyes on
the road and their hands on the wheel.
The issues before us are complex. Even the Department of
Transportation (DOT) is struggling with information in cars. Under the
511 program funded by DOT and administered by the states, real-time
traffic video and tweets are available to drivers to avoid road
congestion. That's a good thing. But it also threatens to violate the
new distraction guidelines by urging drivers to use smartphones on the
road. So, the government is literally driving smartphone use in cars in
one program, while castigating their use in another.
The point is not to criticize government. The disconnect within the
DOT reveals the complexity of the challenge of managing information in
the driving context. As the connected car becomes a reality, we should
view information not as a distraction but as a critical foundation to
safety technology, especially as driver-assist technologies mature.
NHTSA has regulatory authority over OEMs. The agency believes it
has regulatory authority over personal electronic device (PED)
manufacturers, software developers and carriers when their technologies
are used in cars, although this authority has not been tested.
Regardless of the scope of its regulatory authority, it makes sense for
NHTSA to bring all the stakeholders together to forge a new set of
voluntary guidelines that are neutral across technologies, provide
consumers with the functionality they demand and move behavior away
from PEDs and to in-vehicle systems that help keep the driver's eyes on
the road and hands on the wheel.
We are living in an extraordinary moment in the history of
mobility. Over the next decade, automakers will put about a billion new
cars on the roads around the world--about 150 million of them in the
U.S. However, it is important to understand that, given the size of the
in-use fleet and the longer life cycles of today's vehicles, roughly
half of the cars that will be on the road in 2025 have already been
sold and put into service. Thus, deployment throughout the fleet will
be relatively gradual even though technology improvements may be rapid.
And that suggests that the fleet mix of the in-use fleet will reflect a
wide range of driver-assist technologies and connectivity for years to
come.
Now, just for a second, ponder the implications of cars that rarely
crash. More lives will be saved. Congestion caused by crashes will
become far less frequent. Fuel requirements will drop as traffic flows
more quickly--and cars become lighter. Additionally, insurance rates
will fall with the reduced incidence of fender benders and crashes.
Working together, we can make this vision reality.
Many thanks for this chance to share our perspective.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
And now, Mr. Jeffrey Owens.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY J. OWENS, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member
Thune, and members of the Senate Commerce Committee for the
opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of Delphi
Automotive.
As Chief Technology Officer, I am responsible for Delphi's
innovation strategies as well as research and development
focused on safe, green, and connected societal megatrends. As a
leading global supplier of electronics and technologies for
automotive, commercial vehicle, and other market segments,
Delphi invests $1.6 billion annually into global R&D
initiatives, and employ about 5,000 people in the United
States.
If I could leave you with one message today, it would be
this: 11,000 lives can be saved annually without a technology
mandate, without a broad new program, and without regulatory
requirements.
Every 30 seconds, there is a vehicle-related death
somewhere in the world, and that equates to about 1.2 million
people who die each year. That is a tragedy, and it can be
prevented. The World Health Organization projects traffic
injuries to be the fifth leading cause of death by 2030, even
more than AIDS or cancer. And while vehicle deaths in the
United States have declined with widespread adoption of passive
safety technologies, such as seatbelts and airbags, progress
toward further death and injury reduction has stalled,
resulting in more than--about 33,000 deaths annually in the
United States, and 200,000 serious injuries each year on our
roadways. Additionally, crashes continue to be the number one
cause of death for people ages four to 34, and we know--we
heard earlier over 90 percent of accidents are caused by driver
error.
Although passive safety technologies, like seat belts, have
helped more people survive crashes, we think the next frontier
of safety is to prevent the accidents before they occur. Active
safety technologies are the key to reducing accidents, injuries
and deaths. Government and industry groups have studied the
benefit of these technologies for over a decade. A study by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety states a 31 percent
reduction in deaths is possible. And once again, that is more
than 11,000 lives saved per year with full deployment of active
safety systems across the vehicle fleet. I am talking about
forward collision warning with collision imminent braking, lane
departure warning, blind spot detection.
The driving public wants vehicles with improved safety
features. No doubt, safety sells, but technologies are
currently available, and it is difficult for consumers to
understand their value. A key consumer awareness tool is the
New Car Assessment Program, or NCAP, which includes the star
rating system on all new vehicle window stickers.
Now today, NCAP is not structured to accommodate active
safety vehicle options. Delphi is recommending to the Committee
and to NHTSA that the U.S. amend the NCAP to require star
ratings for active safety collision avoidance technology, and
that it be incorporated into the window sticker on new cars in
the future.
Now we are talking about mature technologies that have been
on the road since 1999. They are ready to deploy in high
volume, and that will result in fewer accidents and deaths.
Many of these technologies are commercially available, but
relatively few vehicles are equipped with them. At the current
rate of acceptance, active safety technologies will not
significantly impact crash statistics for about 20 years. We
suggest that NHTSA focus on proven technologies, such as
collision imminent braking and lane departure warning for
inclusion in the NCAP five-star certification.
Now, there is no need to mandate measures or choose
technology winners and losers here. The best path forward is to
provide consumers with information in a form that they can use
and to which the market will respond. The sooner we increase
consumer awareness, the sooner we experience lower fatality
rates. With opportunities for distraction increasing, the
convergence of connectivity and active safety technology is
critical to allow safe connectivity and still allow drivers to
keep their eyes on the road, their hands on the wheel, and
their mind on the mission, and that is the mission of driving
safely.
Technology like Delphi's industry-first, integrated radar
and camera system combines radar sensing, vision sensing, and
data fusion in a single module. Similarly, our rear and side
detection system helps make drivers aware of approaching
vehicles while changing lanes or making turns by providing an
alert when a vehicle has entered a blind spot of the vehicle.
Our active safety human machine interface helps keep drivers
connected to the information they want while mitigating driver
distraction. It helps ensure the vehicle is never distracted,
even if the driver is.
So in conclusion, we are at a critical point in the
automotive industry. Consumers are demanding this 24/7
connectivity, and this dynamic directly impacts safety on
America's roads every day. At Delphi, we believe the foundation
for safer driving is the robust deployment of active safety
technologies.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Owens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey J. Owens, Chief Technology Officer and
Executive Vice President, Delphi Automotive
Thank you Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune and members of
the Senate Commerce Committee for the opportunity to testify before you
today on behalf of Delphi Automotive.
My name is Jeff Owens, and I am Chief Technology Officer and
Executive Vice President for Delphi Automotive. I am responsible for
Delphi's innovation strategies as well as leading development of the
company's advanced technologies focused on Safe, Green, and Connected
societal megatrends.
As a leading global supplier of electronics and technologies for
automotive, commercial vehicle and other market segments, we invest
approximately $1.6 billion annually into research and development
initiatives. In the U.S., Delphi operates major manufacturing
facilities, technical centers, and administrative facilities in
Michigan, Mississippi, Indiana and New York that employ approximately
5,000 people. Delphi's technology portfolio places us at the center of
vehicle evolution and innovation, making products smarter and safer as
well as more powerful and efficient.
Given our proven expertise with market-leading original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) around the world and our broad automotive systems
capabilities, we welcome the invitation to testify at this important
hearing on Advanced Vehicle Technology and its Implications.
This is an amazing time to be in the automotive space. As a Tier 1
vehicle technology supplier, we work closely with our customers,
automotive companies, to develop capabilities in vehicles demanded by
consumers. This effort has linked Delphi with many mobile technology
suppliers. In addition, Delphi works with thousands of suppliers, who
provide raw materials and components for our increasingly complex and
sophisticated components and systems. All of this is accomplished in a
compressed time-frame from conception to market. Delphi and the
automotive supply industry has adapted to this innovation challenge by
focusing on our customers' needs by offering relevant solutions. It is
becoming increasingly important, however, that consumers have ready
access to the most current information on the attributes that make a
vehicle safe.
Delphi identified the megatrends of Safe, Green and Connected as
the issues that would be most relevant to today's drivers and
particularly our OEM customers. Today's focus is narrowed to two of
those three measures, Safe and Connected. We would be happy to address
global megatrends related to clean and efficient powertrain (Green) at
a future time.
Right now, we are witnessing a convergence of issues. Consumers are
increasingly demanding to be connected in their vehicle, while
regulators are demanding that they connect safely. I would like to take
time this morning to briefly outline for you how Delphi is developing
advanced technologies to address these megatrends and what it means for
the future of our roadways. I think you will see there are technologies
that will virtually change the automotive landscape.
I'll begin with Safe.
Every 30 seconds, there is a vehicular fatality somewhere in the
world. That equates to 1.2 million people who die worldwide each year.
It's a tragedy, and can be prevented. According to the World Health
Organization, traffic injuries are projected to be the fifth leading
cause of death worldwide by 2030--surpassing HIV/AIDS, cancer, violence
and diabetes. The impact is not just on lives lost, but on our global
economy. Here in the United States, vehicle fatalities have declined
with the use and widespread adoption of passive safety technologies
such as seatbelts and airbags. However, progress toward further
fatality and injury reduction has stalled, allowing over 33,000
fatalities annually in the US, and more than 200,000 serious injuries
each year on our roadways. Additionally, vehicular crashes continue to
be the number one cause of fatalities for people ages 4 to 34, with
over 90 percent of accidents caused by driver error. The financial
impact is also staggering, with one study estimating the total annual
cost of road crashes in the United States alone to be over $231
billion.
Although passive safety technologies like seat belts have helped
more people survive crashes, we firmly believe that the new frontier of
safety is to prevent accidents before they happen with Active Safety
technologies, and we have worked hard to lead the way in this area.
Passive and Active Safety
Delphi is a leading global supplier of passive safety equipment as
well as Active Safety technologies that can sense the environment
outside the vehicle and inform the driver of imminent threats. Passive
safety has resulted in significant reductions in injuries and death on
U.S. roads. Delphi is proud to have been a pioneer in these products,
including seat belts, airbags, energy absorbing bumpers, active
suspension and occupant detection systems, to name a few.
The devices on today's vehicles, however, include radars, cameras,
and other sensors that can provide a full 360 degrees of sensing
coverage around the vehicle. In addition to warning the driver of
potential accidents, Active Safety systems can also react when drivers
cannot, applying vehicle braking or steering automatically to help
avoid or reduce the severity of accidents.
Active Safety technologies are the key to reducing accidents,
injuries, and fatalities on our roadways. Government and industry
groups have studied the benefit potential for these technologies for
well over a decade. In particular, a recent study by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) states a 31 percent reduction in
fatalities is possible with full deployment of Active Safety systems
across the vehicle fleet, namely, Forward Collision Warning with
Collision Imminent Braking, Lane Departure Warning, and Blind Spot
Detection. This reduction amounts to a potential savings of over 11,000
U.S. lives per year.
As we discussed, the driving public is very interested in buying
cars with improved safety features. There are numerous technologies
currently available, but it is relatively difficult for consumers to
decipher the value of various safety technologies. One of the best
consumer tools is the New Car Assessment Program, or NCAP--which
includes the star rating system on all new vehicle window stickers.
Unfortunately, NCAP is currently not structured to accommodate
active safety vehicle options. That is why Delphi is recommending to
the Committee and to NHTSA that the U.S. amend the NCAP to require star
ratings for active safety collision avoidance technology to be
incorporated into the window sticker in the future. These are mature
technologies that have been on the road since 1999 and are ready to
deploy in high volume, resulting in greater consumer awareness and
choice, and a reduction in accidents and fatalities. Many of these
technologies are commercially available, but relatively few vehicles
are equipped with the technology. At the current rate of acceptance, it
is estimated that active safety technologies will not significantly
impact crash statistics for 20 years.
Enacting an NCAP star rating for active safety by 2015 would help
save lives on the Nation's roadways. Focusing on Collision Imminent
Braking (CIB) and Lane Departure Warning (LDW), at least for initial
ratings will help drive consumer awareness and choice as well as enable
technology for future autonomous vehicles. Accelerating the development
and deployment of these technologies is key to preventing accidents,
reducing injuries, reducing health care costs, addressing driver
distraction and ultimately saving lives. I don't envy the job that
NHTSA has to keep pace with this dynamic marketplace. But it's critical
that they focus on the active safety technologies that have the most
potential to reduce fatalities on our Nation's roadways, including
forward collision warning with collision imminent braking, lane
departure warning, and blind spot detection.
There is no need to mandate measures or choose technology winners
and losers. The best path is to provide consumers with information in a
form that they can use and to which the market will respond. And the
sooner we provide these choices, the sooner we experience lower
fatality rates on our Nation's roadways.
Connected
Today, there are one billion smartphone users globally. That
translates into more consumers demanding to stay connected, even in
their vehicles. Not only are consumers buying more smartphones, they
are also accessing more content--via Twitter, Facebook, Instagram.
Consider this: Facebook hit 1 billion users last year--70 percent of
whom access their account from a mobile device!
Certainly there are situations where connectivity has been proven
to save lives. Emergency alerts, automatic 911, even global positioning
systems (or GPS) make driving and drivers safer. This trend will likely
continue as technology becomes more mainstream, allowing motorists to
communicate with roads to improve traffic flow and navigation.
But with opportunities for distraction increasing, the convergence
of connectivity and Active Safety technology is critical to allow safe
connectivity, keeping drivers'
Eyes on the road
Hands on the wheel, and
Mind on the mission--the mission of driving safely
Delphi's industry-first, integrated Radar and Camera System (or
RACam) combines radar sensing, vision sensing and data fusion in a
single sophisticated module. Similarly, Delphi's Rear and Side
Detection System (RSDS) helps make drivers aware of approaching
vehicles when changing lanes or making turns. By providing an alert
when a vehicle has entered a blind spot to the rear or side of the
vehicle, RSDS helps give drivers more time to react to obstacles that
may be difficult to see in the side mirror. Our Active Safety human-
machine interface (HMI) helps keep drivers connected to the information
they consider important while helping to mitigate driver distraction.
In conclusion, we are at a critical point in the vehicle technology
industry. 24/7 connectivity is prominent and happening all around us.
Market studies indicate that consumers will pay for connectivity--and
will pay to use it safely. These dynamics have significant potential to
impact the way we move about on America's roads every day. At Delphi,
we firmly believe that first step, the foundation for safe
connectivity, is the robust deployment of active safety technologies.
Delphi believes that Active Safety technologies hold great promise.
And that's why we have invested heavily in engineering and technology
research. We stand ready to assist this Committee as you forge the road
ahead in advanced transportation technology, and I'll be happy to
answer your questions.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
And now, Mr. Peter Sweatman, Director, the University of
Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
STATEMENT OF DR. PETER F. SWEATMAN, DIRECTOR,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Dr. Sweatman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
and members of the Committee. I am honored to speak with you
about new technology in vehicles and about a truly safe and
efficient roadway transportation system. This system is of
transformational importance for the citizens and economy of the
United States.
The University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute, UMTRI, is currently overseeing a mobile deployment
in Ann Arbor as we heard earlier. We are testing nearly 3,000
cars, trucks, transit buses, and motorcycles. They are equipped
for licensed wireless communication, enabling very promising
crash avoidance systems. This work is sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, and is carried out in partnership
with the intelligent transportation industry, including
automotive manufacturers.
I know of no other technology that could have the same
impact overall on safety. It has the potential to revolutionize
our transportation system by drawing drivers' attention to
risks more immediately and more reliably. Pervasively, this
will help us all to avoid crashes and to utilize roadways and
energy sources much more efficiently.
As we move beyond the research phase, a national ITS
strategy is needed to guide the deployment of the 5.9 GHz
platform benefiting all road users. We need dedicated short-
range communication at 5.9 for all classes of vehicle and at
key infrastructure locations. Despite the growing spectrum
demand for unlicensed uses, sufficient bandwidth must be
protected for exclusive use by vehicles and infrastructure.
Reliable and secure communication is non-negotiable.
Cybersecurity is one of the leading issues of our era. A
comprehensive strategy involving industry and government must
be established and carried out. Further field testing of a new
generation security system is needed to ensure that the
platform remains secure while maintaining the privacy of all
users. Once these systems are developed, we need automotive
consumers to embrace them, and we need attractive aftermarket
devices widely deployed.
But clearly, a further wave of technological development
will occur in vehicle automation. Then the benefits will reach
well beyond safety. The scale of the transformation is
important. The United States has the opportunity to leap ahead
in mobility technology supporting an improved way of life and
new mobility industries. An industrial ecosystem with new jobs
will be created by the automotive and information technology
industries, and there will be many winners across different
businesses and consumers.
So how do we prepare for and sustain this transformation? A
critical requirement is for all vehicles, manual or automated,
to be connected during a multi-decade transition, and connected
vehicles connect with drivers. The need for human machine
interface technology to focus the driver's attention is
crucial. As we move forward, vigilant technology will draw
attention to risky driving scenarios. Even so, the driver will
still need to take over in certain situations.
Here are four additional things that must occur. To start,
the United States must take the lead in standards development
and decide where mandatory safety standards are needed, and
where open standards are needed for the Nation's entrepreneurs.
Second, voluntary performance standards need to be solidified
for the connected vehicle platform, for vehicle sensors and
controls.
Third, we need to start now with connected infrastructure.
The operation of the roadway infrastructure will change
dramatically as more automated vehicles are deployed and co-
exist with conventional vehicles. Automated cars someday will
be capable of operating in narrow lanes much closer together,
and may park themselves without a driver. Finally, national
policy positions are needed on data ownership, access, and
privacy so that traffic system managers maximize the connected
vehicle data.
Obviously we will face new risks with large scale
transformation of our ground transportation systems, but the
rewards are huge, including an expanded 21st century mobility
economy with minimal safety and public health impacts and
sustainable energy use. Testing and certification need to be
taken to the next level, and responsibility for safety needs to
be redefined so that liability concerns do not stall
deployment.
In closing, the mobility technologies of the future will
emerge through a process built around connected vehicles,
automated vehicles, smart infrastructure, and improved driver
interaction with the automobile.
I do appreciate this opportunity very much and welcome your
questions. Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sweatman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Peter F. Sweatman, Director, University of
Michigan Transportation Research Institute
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the
Committee. I am honored to speak with you about key steps for creating
a much safer and more efficient roadway transportation system through
new and emerging vehicle technologies. My perspective is research,
development and deployment, and how to maximize the benefits of new
technologies for the citizens and economy of the United States, with
world-wide application.
I shall talk about the most promising technological advances with
the broadest scope for application, under the shortest time frames. My
commentary will include current vehicle technologies and trends as well
as the more transformational technologies on the horizon. I shall also
talk about how we need to get the job done through coordinated
technology development, purposeful deployment, and strong policy
guidance. We have entered a transformational period, and need to plan
for new technologies and their likely implications for public policy.
Our journey with advanced vehicle technology began when attention
moved from systems that protect people involved in crashes to systems
that help prevent crashes in the first place.
Such avoidance systems currently alert drivers and are beginning to
assist drivers by indicating the appropriate avoidance action. But
ultimately the driver is still totally responsible for taking action to
avoid the crash. We need more incentives and standards for the
performance of such systems, as well as independent data that
quantifies the effectiveness of these ``safety content'' features
already being used in the U.S. vehicle fleet.
At the same time as these very positive advances in vehicle safety
content are being realized, we are seeing an even stronger move to
infotainment and telematics in vehicles, particularly the ability to
connect and use personal devices in vehicles. For example, we are
seeing a mature level of usage of navigation and traffic information
systems, and such systems are migrating from those installed by
original equipment manufacturers to those available in smartphones.
Telematics services also include personal communication (often with
voice command), emergency assistance, and even smart insurance and
energy management. Such services connect the vehicle with the cloud,
increasing the range and power of available information being channeled
to the vehicle.
We are seeing unprecedented attention to the human-machine
interface in vehicles, in order to deal safely with the increased flow
of information to the driver, and to minimize distraction.
Increasingly, such interfaces may be customized by automakers,
providing them with some control over the presentation of content
entering the vehicle via personal devices, but not the content itself.
Responsibility for the safety of these in-vehicle transactions with the
driver is an interesting question. Because a range of manufacturers and
service providers combine to produce telematics, a ``chain of
responsibility'' approach is needed for safety.
While good design of physical interfaces can minimize distraction,
distraction is primarily a human issue that extends beyond vehicle
technology. The ultimate solution to distraction is to completely
replace human control with elements of automation, although this will
not happen for many more years. In the meantime, responsible design is
essential. Responsible design includes smart interfaces that can limit
access and interfaces that maintain eyes on the road and hands on the
wheel.
As we move forward, the technology will increasingly draw attention
to risky driving scenarios as they develop. This will apply whether we
are talking about the manual driving of today or the automated driving
of the future, where the driver will still need to take over in limited
situations. There is no better technology for purposefully identifying
risky driving scenarios than 5.9 GHz Dedicated Short Range
Communication (DSRC) connected vehicles.
The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
(UMTRI) is currently overseeing a model deployment of nearly 3,000
cars, trucks, transit buses, motorcycles and bicycles in Ann Arbor--
these vehicles are equipped for standardized and licensed 5.9 GHz
wireless communication enabling very promising crash avoidance systems.
This work is sponsored by the U.S. DOT and is carried out in
partnership with the automotive and intelligent transportation systems
(ITS) industries, and their technology suppliers.
This connected vehicle technology has the potential to
revolutionize our transportation system, by drawing drivers' attention
to risks more immediately and reliably, providing protection in cases
when driver attention is deficient, and giving drivers more time to
react. Pervasively, this will help us all to avoid crashes and to
utilize roadways and energy sources much more efficiently. I know of no
other technology that could have the same impact on safety, and
potentially in a reasonably short time frame.
And this technology will undoubtedly have very positive impacts on
mobility, energy use, and environmental aspects of our transportation
system, all of which will provide significant economic benefit to the
United States. Our transportation system will not remain
internationally competitive without it.
A golden era of automotive safety is within reach. The focus must
be deploy the connected vehicle technology, while ensuring that it is
reliable and secure, and bring about a rapid uptake by automotive
consumers.
We need to fully utilize and deploy Dedicated Short Range
Communication (DSRC) at 5.9 GHz for all classes of vehicle and at key
infrastructure locations (for example, intersections, interchanges and
curves). DSRC is equally effective for--and must be applied to--all
modes of roadway transportation, and in fact all road users. A national
ITS strategy is needed to guide the application of the 5.9 GHz platform
to all vehicle classes and recommended infrastructure locations,
benefiting all road users. Testing also needs to be done to understand
how this spectrum can serve to protect vulnerable road users, including
pedestrians and bicyclists. Furthermore, this is a technological
advancement that is being realized and explored by vehicle
manufacturers and governments around the world because of its great
promise.
The current V2X platform, which has been developed mainly through
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) R&D, needs to be deployed taking advantage of
vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) connectivity. Infrastructure is a
critical component of connected transportation. Consider the important
category of roadway intersection safety. Intersection crash risks are
more effectively recognized by combining the ``fixed'' viewpoint of the
intersection with the ``dynamic'' viewpoint of the moving vehicle. We
need a national strategy for vehicle-to-infrastructure communications.
The effectiveness of V2X relies on the shared use of data between
vehicles, infrastructure, and devices. But inherently there is risk for
any one manufacturer when the safety of their product is partially
dependent on another manufacturers product. There will be a wariness to
introduce these technologies in the United States due to our litigious
climate. Other countries may very well benefit first from the
technologies developed here. Because of this, it will be necessary to
consider shared-liability regimes, including limiting the liability of
automakers and other device makers.
The 5.9 GHz spectrum itself must be managed in such a way that V2V
and V2I applications continue to function with full effectiveness,
reliability and security, regardless of the burgeoning demand for
spectrum for unlicensed uses. Safety trumps convenience. Sufficient
bandwidth must be protected for exclusive use by vehicle and
infrastructure, to ensure safe and secure communication. Any competing
uses need to be sufficiently defined, and testing must be carried out
to ensure that safety functionality is not diminished or impaired by
any shared bands adjacent to the exclusive safety and security bands.
Reliable and secure communication is non-negotiable.
The overall reliability of the V2X platform will depend critically
on these exclusive 5.9 GHz bands, as well as the ability of the V2X
platform to scale up to large numbers of vehicles in the vicinity.
Further testing needs to be carried out to allow for the high traffic
volumes and densities of the future, as well as longer-range DSRC
deployments.
Nothing is more critical to the success of the V2X safety platform
than cybersecurity. Further field testing of a new generation security
system is needed to ensure that the platform remains secure, while
maintaining the privacy of all users, under all conditions encountered
in a full scale field test. And cybersecurity for vehicles in general
is an area of growing awareness and concern, and a comprehensive
strategy involving industry and government must be established and
carried out.
In order to accelerate the uptake of the platform by automotive
consumers, it is essential to provide infrastructure-based
functionality that offers useful applications to users from day one.
This needs to be part of the national ITS strategy. Equally
importantly, attractive aftermarket devices, developed with the active
support of the automotive manufacturers, are needed to expand access to
safety and mobility benefits and increase the density of deployment of
the platform. These devices will need to have the active support of
automakers. Further field testing of aftermarket devices will also be
needed.
Clearly, a further wave of technological development will occur in
vehicle automation. Automated vehicles will develop partly from current
experimental self-driving vehicles, and will also build upon a
successfully-deployed connected vehicle and infrastructure platform.
Automation will occur progressively and in stages of decoupling from
the driver. Automation will also increasingly affect the layout and
operation of the roadway infrastructure.
Automated vehicles will result from a convergence of current driver
assistance technology, the connected vehicle and infrastructure
platform, and self-driving vehicle technology, including advanced
vehicle-based sensors. But automation will also be part of a larger
transformation to a new 21st Century Mobility System. Other elements of
this transformation are likely to include a new transportation service
economy, multi-modal trips, shared vehicle use, alternative energy
sources including electrification, data-intensive system management and
more tailored vehicles built with new materials and manufacturing
techniques.
The scale of the transformation is important. The United States has
the opportunity to leap ahead in mobility technology supporting an
improved way of life and new mobility industries. An industrial
ecosystem will be created by the automotive and information technology
industries and there will be many winners.
Our new mobility system will need to operate on, and make highly
efficient use of, our existing roadway network. Automated cars will be
capable of operating in narrower lanes, with much reduced headways,
creating much more efficient use of roadway space. And they may park
themselves without a driver.
As part of the need to reduce the cost of the infrastructure, the
stresses placed on roadways and bridges by large freight trucks will
need to be reduced substantially. A productive new system of less
driver-intensive, modular, close-headway freight units will help lead
the way in vehicle automation. Traffic system management will utilize
extensive data generated through the connected vehicle and
infrastructure platform.
The operation of the roadway infrastructure will change
progressively as more automated vehicles are deployed and co-exist with
conventional vehicles. Eventually, the usage of our infrastructure will
change dramatically as cars and trucks are provided with more effective
traffic lane configurations and conventional vehicles become the
minority.
How do we prepare for, and sustain, this transformation?
The problems we have been working on are the right problems for the
long haul. A critical requirement is for all vehicles, whether manual
or automated, to be connected during a multi-decade transition. And
connected vehicles provide the all-important connection with drivers.
Connecting all elements of roadway transportation--vehicles, drivers
and infrastructure--represents an historic step forward and a vital
platform for innovation.
The need for human-machine interface (HMI) technology to focus the
driver's attention is a core competency today, tomorrow and the day
after. As we move forward, vigilant technology will draw attention to
risky driving scenarios. And the driver will still need to take over in
certain situations.
The United States must take the lead in standards development and
decide where mandatory safety standards are needed and where open
standards are needed for the Nation's entrepreneurs.
Voluntary performance standards for vehicle safety systems are well
advanced and need to be solidified for the connected vehicle platform,
vehicle sensors and controls.
We need to start now with connected infrastructure. Changes in the
operation of the roadway infrastructure, as more automated vehicles are
deployed, will eventually be profound. These changes will be driven by
timely and reliable operational data, driven by connected vehicle data
sources. National policy positions are needed on data ownership,
access, and privacy. Traffic system managers need guidance in order to
exploit the extensive data generated through the connected vehicle and
infrastructure platform.
What new risks do we face with a large-scale transformation of our
ground transportation systems? The rewards are huge, but do
bring new
security risks.
We are on the threshold of a very large-scale transformation of our
ground transportation systems. We are now moving towards a system that
will achieve much more for our consumers and industries, and create a
new mobility economy, with minimal safety and public health impacts,
and sustainable energy use.
The huge rewards of the new mobility system will also entail new
risks that must be dealt with. Automated, high-density movement at
speed has the potential for large scale disruption and harm as a result
of systems malfunction, cyberattack or human error. We will need to be
willing to develop breakthrough capabilities in the testing and
certification of automated systems, cybersecurity, and human machine
interface design. Responsibility for safe operation will need to be
shared by industrial partners in such a way that none bears an
unreasonable level of liability.
National strategies, performance standards and testing requirements
for the connected vehicle and infrastructure platform, vehicle sensors,
levels of automation, and HMI will be required.
Attention in the form of policy or legislation will be needed to
the assignment of responsibility for safe vehicle operation. This will
transfer from the driver towards the vehicle manufacturer as levels of
automation increase over time. The vehicle manufacturer will carry
considerably more responsibility, under conditions of greater
uncertainty, including shared data and decision making. It will be
necessary to consider a ``chain of responsibility'' approach, to ensure
that the risk is commensurate with the benefit for each party, and to
limit the liability of several partners.
Cybersecurity is a new and difficult problem. It will be necessary
for the government to convene thought leadership in transportation
cybersecurity, develop a defined action plan, and lay out protocols for
cybersecurity that address the required level of security, testing
standards, updates, and responsibilities of all relevant parties.
In closing, I wish to emphasize that the mobility technologies of
the future will emerge through a process built around connected
vehicles and infrastructure. Successful new technologies, of national
importance, must be accommodated by:
National testing, standards and certification for connected
and automated vehicles;
Progressive innovation within our infrastructure;
Scientific solutions for engaging driver and machine;
Limited transfer of responsibility for safety, from drivers
to private companies; and
A defined action plan and enduring set of protocols for
transportation cybersecurity.
I appreciate this opportunity very much and welcome your questions.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chairman. Is that it, sir? Thank you very much.
Dr. Sweatman. That is it. Thank you.
The Chairman. And then Dr. John Lee, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN D. LEE, EMERSON ELECTRIC
QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING,
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
Dr. Lee. Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My
comments address the human side of vehicle technology.
To put vehicle technology in context, consider driving
safety as an important health problem. Approximately 34,000
Americans died in motor vehicle crashes last year. These
crashes are the most likely cause of death for those between
four and 34 years of age, and account for more than 30 percent
of teen deaths. The coming years will bring increasingly
complex distractions and increasingly complex vehicles to
drivers who may be unprepared for either. This technology can
dramatically improve or degrade driving safety.
Vehicle technology affects driving safety because your car
is essentially a computer. A typical luxury car requires over
100 million lines of computer code. Software and electronics
account for 40 percent of the car's cost and 50 percent of
warranty claims. We think of cars as mechanical systems, but
they are actually rolling computers.
These computers are changing what it means to drive. They
already enable cars to take over many important driving
operations with features such as adaptive cruise control,
automatic parking, and autonomous braking. Entertainment
systems now enable drivers to connect social networks, hear
text messages, and choose from thousands of songs. From these
changes, a critical safety threat may emerge: the technology
automating driving much of the time, drivers have the freedom
to focus on entertainment systems, but the vehicle can then
unexpectedly hand control back to the distracted driver.
Drivers are particularly error prone in such situations.
Changing vehicle technology may make such unexpected handoffs
even more likely.
Moore's law suggests the capacity of automation and
entertainment systems will change rapidly, doubling every 18
months. This exponential increase means that in 15 years we are
likely to be discussing whether people should be allowed to
drive because the autonomous vehicles may be so much less error
prone than people.
Until cars assume complete responsibility for driving, the
critical challenge is to design vehicles so that drivers
clearly understand what it can and cannot do. This is
particularly challenging because even small design changes can
violate drivers' expectations and confuse them. In this way,
automated cars are like paper towel dispensers: using a manual
paper towel dispenser is not confusing. You grab and pull.
Automatic and semi-automatic paper towel dispensers can be
confusing. Some use motion--are motion sensitive and
automatically roll out a towel when you wave a hand in front.
Others require that you press a button to trigger a motor.
Fruitlessly waving at a dispenser before you realize that it
requires a button press can be embarrassing. Such confusion in
a car can be deadly.
Like paper towel dispensers, push button ignition systems
can be confusing. When the car is stopped, you only need to
push the button to turn off the engine, but when in motion, you
must press and hold the button. The need to press and hold can
confuse drivers and could have tragic consequences when the
driver tried to stop an unintentionally accelerating vehicle.
Such mode confusion represents an important challenge for
increasingly automated vehicles.
One benefit is that technology may counterbalance the
threat of distractions. Distraction represents a longstanding
safety problem that the explosion of entertainment systems
threaten to exacerbate. Fortunately, other emerging
technologies can detect distraction and direct drivers'
attention to hazards. Soon cars will be able to know when you
look away from the road, when the car had brakes, and when to
call your attention back to the road. Over time, the car can
even help you appreciate and avoid risks on the road.
The road ahead. As an engineer, I am very optimistic about
the future of vehicle technology. As a researcher focused on
the psychology of human technology interaction, I see
substantial challenges. I hesitate to offer recommendations,
and so I draw upon the wisdom of the Committee on Electric
Vehicle Controls and Unintended Acceleration. I paraphrase
several of their recommendations.
First, assess whether electronic interfaces, such as push
button ignition systems, delay responses in emergency
situations. Second, promote government and industry
collaboration to create designs that communicate vehicle
capability and status to drivers. Third, identify when drivers'
expectations of vehicle automation diverge from designers'
intent. And finally, establish electronic data recorders and
associated information infrastructure to catch design errors
that will escape even the most thorough design process.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. John D. Lee, Emerson Electric Quality and
Productivity Professor, Department of Industrial and Systems
Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison
1. Driving safety is an important health problem. Approximately
34,000 Americans died in motor vehicle crashes last year. These crashes
are the most likely cause of death for those between 4 and 34 years of
age, and account for 30 percent of teen deaths. The coming years will
bring increasingly complex distractions and increasingly complex
vehicles to drivers who may be unprepared for either. This technology
can dramatically improve or degrade driving safety.
2. Your car is a computer. A typical luxury car requires over 100
million lines of computer code. Software and electronics account for 40
percent of the car's cost and 50 percent of warranty claims. We think
of cars as mechanical systems, but they are actually rolling computers.
These computers are changing what it means to drive. They already
enable cars to take over many important driving operations, with
features such as adaptive cruise control, automatic parking, and
autonomous braking. Entertainment systems now enable drivers to connect
to social networks, hear text messages, and choose from thousands of
songs.
From these changes a critical safety threat may emerge: with
technology automating driving much of the time, drivers have the
freedom to focus on the entertainment system, but the vehicle can then
unexpectedly hand control back to the distracted driver. Drivers are
particularly error prone in such situations. Changing vehicle
technology may make such unexpected handoffs more likely.
Moore's law suggests the capacity of automation and entertainment
systems will change rapidly, doubling every 18 months. This exponential
increase means that in fifteen years we are likely to be discussing
whether people should be allowed to drive--because autonomous vehicles
may be much less error prone than people. Until cars assume complete
responsibility for driving, the critical challenge is to design
vehicles so that drivers clearly understand how the car works and what
it can and can't do. This is particularly challenging because even
small design changes can violate drivers' expectations and confuse
them.
3. Automated cars are like paper towel dispensers. Using a manual
paper towel dispenser isn't confusing: you grab and pull. Automatic and
semi-automatic dispensers can be confusing. Some are motion sensitive
and automatically roll out a towel when you wave a hand in front;
others require that you press a button to trigger the motor.
Fruitlessly waving at a dispenser before you realize you need to press
the button can be embarrassing. Such confusion in a car can be deadly.
Like paper towel dispensers, push button ignition systems can be
confusing. When the car is stopped you only need to push the button to
turn off the engine, but when in motion, you must press and hold the
button. The need to press and hold can confuse drivers, which can have
tragic consequences when a driver tries to stop an unintentionally
accelerating vehicle. Such mode confusion represents an important
challenge for increasingly automated vehicles.
4. Technology may be particularly problematic for teen drivers.
Vehicle technology may confront teen drivers with a ``perfect storm''
of challenges. New entertainment systems encourage multitasking. Teens
are notorious multitaskers, which would seem to make them more able to
handle distractions. But that's only what they think. The opposite is
actually true: heavy multitaskers are more distractible. Teens are also
less able to anticipate roadway hazards, and so are unlikely to
anticipate limits of vehicle automation. The combination of
increasingly distracted and distractible drivers managing imperfect
vehicle automation may severely undermine driving safety.
5. Technology may counterbalance the threat of distractions.
Distraction represents a long-standing safety problem that the
explosion of entertainment systems threatens to exacerbate.
Fortunately, other emerging technologies can detect distraction and
direct drivers' attention to hazards. Soon cars will know when you look
away from the road, when the car ahead brakes, and when to call your
attention back to the road.
6. The road ahead. As an engineer, I am very optimistic about
future vehicle technology. As a researcher focused on the psychology of
human-technology interaction, I see substantial challenges.
I hesitate to offer recommendations, and so I draw upon the wisdom
of the Committee on Electronic Vehicle Controls and Unintended
Acceleration. I paraphrase several of their recommendations:
1. Assess whether electronic interfaces, such as push-button
ignition systems, delay responses in emergency situations.
2. Promote government and industry collaboration to create designs
that communicate vehicle capability and status to drivers.
3. Identify when drivers' expectations of vehicle automation diverge
from designers' intents.
4. Establish electronic data recorders and associated information
infrastructure to catch design errors that will escape even the
most thorough design process.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Johnson, you have been
sitting there deep in thought and reading. And, therefore, I
think it is important that you ask questions.
Senator Johnson. I am up for it, thanks.
Tell me how this technology is going to roll out. I mean,
we obviously have got to do some infrastructure building.
Everybody--this is not going to be one car, you know. I mean,
the whole fleet. Can somebody just describe, A, the total cost
just of infrastructure building?
Mr. Bainwol. That is a profoundly tough question. Even
defining what this is, I think, is tricky. I think maybe a
simple way to break this down begins to introduce the
complexity and the evolution that we are about to go through.
So in today's world, if a driver needs to brake, he makes
or she makes a choice to apply the brake. With assisted--with
driver assists that are in the market right now, if the driver
does not react in time, he may get a warning, and that is
fairly prevalent.
Senator Johnson. I have got that.
Mr. Bainwol. So you have got that. And then the next way,
which is also in the market, is that if you do not react in
time, the car will actively engage for you. The next step
really is when big data goes beyond what the car can see. So,
so far we have been operating with what the driver can see and
what the car can see with its suite of sensors.
Connectivity really is about seeing what we cannot see and
having every car within a mile radius or so benefiting from the
probability of a challenge. They are all informed. Big data
informs everybody, distills it in some fashion so that it is
actionable. And I think as Administrator Strickland indicated,
getting to a point where we have a connected fleet is a very
long time away. The average age of the car is 11 years old. It
is going to take forever to get to a point where this is--has
permeated the mainstream.
But the value of it is enormous, and unlike a situation
like ESC, or automatic braking, or automatic high beams where
car makers innovate and then government responds and decides at
some point that perhaps it should permeate the fleet, the
connected space is a joint initiative where it does not go
anywhere unless government and the private sector come together
to make it a reality.
So the time and the money is a function of how much you are
willing to spend and when you are willing to spend it.
Senator Johnson. Let us back up. I have got a Ford Taurus.
I have had it brake for me. What about lane departure warning?
How does that one work? I mean, what is it keying on? What is
the sensor doing?
Mr. Owens. I hope you like your Ford Taurus because we have
some product in there that is hopefully helping you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Johnson. I do like it. I have got two of them.
Mr. Owens. Good. Lane departure warning is--the usual
implementation of that is looking at the lane boundaries with a
vision system and determining when you cross or you are about
to cross the boundary. And then the OEM, the automobile
manufacturer, will typically decide what to do with that
information. It can give you an alert. It can send an audible.
It can shake your seat.
Senator Johnson. OK. So what it is looking at, paint? Is it
looking at reflectors?
Mr. Owens. All that. With today's digital signal processors
being as fast and as affordable as they are, it will--even if
you do not have painted boundaries, it will define a lane
boundary for you and let you know when you are approaching that
at a speed you should not be.
Senator Johnson. Professor, I live in Wisconsin, and some
of those sensors, they break down. I mean, we get snow and
slush. So where does that system break down? What are the
problems with that?
Mr. Owens. Well, a vision system will have problems in a
heavy snow or heavy wet rain environment. The radar sensors
like you have on your Ford Taurus sees through that. That is
almost weather independent. So there are a variety of
vulnerabilities to the technology, but radar operates in
virtually any environment. The vision systems you can operate
in most environments. Even on a snow packed road you can define
lane boundaries.
Senator Johnson. So are you thinking it is going to be
pretty minimal in terms of actual highway infrastructure
spending on this? It is all going to be pretty much sensor with
the vehicles?
Mr. Owens. I mean, there are many paths to get there. An
infrastructure-based system would be--is the compelling
argument to get you all the information that you could possibly
have to ensure a safe ride. You can do the individual car
implementation as you have and get a lot of the way there
without have any kind of infrastructure dependency.
So you would have an individual machine that could operate
with a higher degree of safety, less fatalities on the road
today for sure.
Senator Johnson. Dr. Sweatman, you raised your hand there.
Dr. Sweatman. Yes, thank you, Senator. I think your
question was getting at the infrastructure cost side of it as
well. And so, we need to be very strategic about that. Clearly
there could be a large cost if we deploy throughout the
infrastructure. So we must target--think about intersections,
which is our main safety problem. If we were able to come up
with a system where traffic control cabinets, which have to be
there, were actually fitted with this wireless communication,
we start to see a much lower cost solution. So we need a very
strategic approach with the infrastructure.
On the vehicle side, the vehicle as we talked about can do
a lot by itself. And also it was originally conceived as being
a low-cost solution. So the wireless communication itself is
affordable. It is really the infrastructure where the cost
issue comes in. And we think we can be very strategic about how
we roll it out.
Senator Johnson. Dr. Lee, would you like to add something?
Dr. Lee. Yes. I would like just to add a quick point, and
that is the time constant and the development in these
different industries. If you take the iPhone for instance, the
original iPhone was just declared vintage. What is the age of a
vintage car, maybe 60 years? So the difference between the
fleet turnover in the automotive sector and the fleet turnover
in the cell phone sector is dramatically different. And what I
see because of that is the influx of distractions may be
overwhelming the ability of the manufacturers to create
vehicles that can counteract some of those effects and maintain
safety.
Senator Johnson. But just real quick, if I may, Mr.
Chairman----
The Chairman. Senator Johnson, you are on a roll, sir. You
take all the time you want.
[Laughter.]
Senator Johnson. The strategic nature of the rollout I
think is key to this because what you want to do is--again, if
you have infrastructure in place, you can add the cost in a low
cost fashion. Then you can start taking advantage of the
opportunities and test it where you are not overloading the
system. So is that pretty much how you see--rather than all of
a sudden trying to put something down every strip of every
highway, which would be incredibly expensive, as well as go
obsolete potentially when new technologies come on board.
Is that how people are thinking this thing through? And is
government not going to interfere? That would be my biggest
problem. And let me ask that question as long as the Senator is
giving me leeway. What concerns you about government
interference potentially in that strategic rollout?
Dr. Sweatman. Well, I think the rollout of the
infrastructure obviously has got to be local. We have to lay
that out throughout the country. So we need the capability to
incorporate it at the lowest cost possible with systems that
are already being deployed.
I think the industries that are producing the traffic
control signals, the intelligent transportation industries, are
very aware of this. And I think we will be very ingenious in
the way we can incorporate it. You know, we can even tag black
spots. We know where the crash black spots are in every state,
in every city. So we can do some targeting.
Senator Johnson. OK. Again, so what I am looking for is who
is talking to who, who has to talk--you know, which entities
have to talk to each other. And, again, what concerns you about
government's involvement? I am always concerned about
government involvement.
Mr. Owens. Well, I would offer--certainly the subject of
vehicle-to-vehicle is going to be infrastructure dependent, and
as fast as we can cooperate on the standards and get that
unified amongst the industry, I mean, that will be a pacing
item for that.
On the driver assistance systems, the product like you're
experiencing there, the collision imminent braking, the lane
departure warning, I think the key, as I mentioned, is to make
that visible to the consumer, that it is available, that it is
there. That worked extremely well for the airbag rollout. That
worked extremely well for stability control.
Where the consumer saw that, saw the value of safety and
brought that into the market faster than regulation required
it, I think we have the same opportunity here. Let the market
work. Let the market create the higher launch. Make people
aware as you are. I would hope with your experience, certainly
mine, I will never have my wife or my kids in anything other
than an active safety-equipped vehicle if I have a choice, but
only if I know it is there on the vehicle, and I know what it
does. You have to experience it to get the value of the
technology.
So I think we can let the market work, and I think the--I
think NHTSA and the NCAP system is a key ingredient to doing
that.
Senator Johnson. We do need to be always be mindful of the
cost. I mean, I can afford the upgrade. Not everybody can. And
you have to be very careful in terms of cost-benefit
calculation on that as well.
Mr. Bainwol. But there two different activities here. One
is the driver assist which will be market driven, and the costs
will come down over time, and there the individual makes the
choice. When you get to the connected car, it is a different
animal. That is where government has to get involved, and there
are two responsibilities. One is to make sure the spectrum
works because you cannot have metal flying down the street at
100 feet a second and have the communications go faulty. And
the second part of that is infrastructure. And because it is
government funded, the rollout will in large part be dictated
by government.
So, two different paths. They connect in terms of
convergence.
Senator Johnson. That one I am skeptical of.
[Laughter.]
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I am very sad.
Senator Johnson. I am kind of an old dog.
The Chairman. No, I love it. I love it. Your questions were
great.
Let me just ask a couple. We had a whole series of hearings
in the last several years having to do with television, and,
you know, what I call the rapid descension of content. And so
the question was, it was not just, you know, violence, but also
unhealthy things that kids were seeing or watchers were seeing.
But then we turned with great satisfaction to the ability
of the parent to monitor what was going on and to be able to
use the controls at that time available and now available to
allow their children not to see what they should not see. Now,
I think that is reasonable because just basic television today
has--obviously the later in the night. But, I mean, there is
some really bad stuff on it. And it has consequences.
But that is not my point. My point is, I do not think we
ever really got a sense of confidence that the average parent,
whoever that would be, throughout the country knew how to work
the--you know, the promoter, I mean, the little machine that
would set parameters. And if you cannot have that, then
everything else fails.
Now, just moving to what we are talking about, I will make
a terrible confession, and since my colleagues have basically
disappeared, C-SPAN has not, so I am in some trouble but I've
got a new, much gadgetized car because I am large, and the car
is large, and it is a very happy coincidence. But we have just
come out of winter, and I discovered that the air conditioning
just did not seem to work. And I did what I remembered from
previous iterations of automobiles, what would happen to make
the air conditioning work.
Well, I had befallen to--I think the classic American
tradition of failing to read the manual. And I think Americans
will go to almost any length to avoid manuals, including, you
know, diet and all the rest of it. I mean, we are just
wonderful at avoiding things that we ought to read. And then I
discovered to my incredible embarrassment there was this little
white button fairly low on the panel that was meant to look
like a snowflake, I guess, therefore, implying cool. I had no--
that was not a judgment I made, but I was told to push it. I
pushed it, and all of a sudden the air conditioning came on.
Now, I think that is a very sad American story of which I
am the villain. But I just raise the question of how
sophisticated are people growing in technology in automobiles
as they have to get it in and get to work or get to some--the
dentist or whatever it is. And several people use the car, so
who really reads the manual? Are manuals read? Are manuals
read? I think there are substantial portions of that car that I
still cannot work, but I do not need to. Well, now we are
coming to a point where I may need to, you know, if over the
next 10 years a variety of things, as you indicated, happen.
So I want to put that question to you. How reliable do you
think drivers are these days in understanding some of the new
electronics? Whoever.
Dr. Sweatman. Mr. Chairman, in Ann Arbor where we are
testing 3,000 connected vehicles and the Secretary of
Transportation said, you are testing these with ordinary
Michiganders. And in many cases, they are parents in the public
school system driving their kids to school and so on.
And so we have been running this for more than six months
now, and we have regular contact. And there are no buttons on
the connected vehicle system. So they are only getting
information, and, in some cases, warnings, when the need
arises. We are finding that the reaction from our ordinary
Michiganders is incredibly positive. They thank us for the
systems that we have deployed. And we have not come across any
of those kinds of issues to do with confusion about the
technology.
With connected vehicles, there is a lot going on in the
background, but in the foreground, relatively little because
these safety problems only occur infrequently.
The Chairman. Well, that is an extraordinary statement, and
I have to accept it listening to it from you. But any comments
further?
Mr. Bainwol. Mr. Chairman, I have a confession to make,
too.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bainwol. I cannot operate my TV very well, and my kids
make fun of me. But when I get in the car, I found that the
driver-assist technologies are really intuitive, and I think
that is the trick.
One of the reasons why Apple is so successful is that
everything is very intuitive. And when you get in the car in
today's world, even the guy who cannot operate the TV and
program it to record a show later on can get in the car, drive
it, and benefit from driver assist because it really is
incredibly simple, and it basically does it for you. So if I am
driving down the highway--and this happens every morning--if I
put my blinker on to go to the left, my blind spot warning will
notify me and just chimes. It is there for me, and it says
there is something in the way, do not go. And I do not have to
do anything. I just know it.
If I am going too fast it will alert me that the distance
between the car and my car--the car in front of me and my car
is too close for the speed I am going, and it will chime, and
it basically says wake up and be careful. If I set it on
adaptive cruise control, it manages that distance precisely.
So that is the trick. The engineering function and
challenge is to make it intuitive. People ought to be
responsible and read the manuals, but when they do not, the
system should work. And, in fact, these technologies are doing
that.
The Chairman. You referred to the technology, which means
the ability to drive the car if you slip over into another lane
to be forewarned about that. And I look forward to that very,
very much. What about that part which is entertainment?
Mr. Bainwol. The information in the car has an upside and a
downside. The upside ultimately plays out in the context of
connectivity and big data warning the car and all the car's
systems that there is a potential challenge. The challenge with
information is managing it in the car. And the discussion I
thought with Administrator Strickland was very instructive, but
I think it missed a bit of the point, if I can take a minute
here.
There are 5.5 million crashes in this country pretty much
every year. Seventeen percent of those are distraction related.
That is about a million of those. Two percent of those happen
as a consequence of using the internal built-in integrated
system of the car. That is 2 percent of the five and a half
million crashes. I am sorry, 2 percent of the million.
Ninety-eight percent are a function of distraction from
some other cause. The guidelines that NHTSA issued deal with
the 2-percent, but do not touch the 98 percent. So I think what
the administrator did today was really important in talking
about the stakeholder briefing, the stakeholder's meeting,
where he would bring together or propose bringing together
manufacturers, software folks, OEMs, social media companies, to
deal with the issue of how you manage information in the car,
because the guidelines deal with two percent, not 98 percent.
And if we are serious about dealing with distraction in this
country, we have got to focus where the real battle lies.
The Chairman. I totally agree. Dr. Lee?
Dr. Lee. Yes. I would like to go back to your original
question and take a bit of a different perspective than some of
the optimistic panelists here.
I think your experience is more common than not. I think
there is great potential for confusion with these new systems.
I saw an article just the other day discussing a new vehicle
that came out and had a larger expanded glove box the author is
arguing to accommodate the user's manual that was so large.
These cars are incredibly complicated, and there is some
good data that suggests that drivers do not always understand
what these systems do--adaptive cruise control, for example.
People think it has capabilities that it may not actually have.
Another example, I think of that, goes back to my towel
dispenser. Such a simple thing. You put a little computer
behind it, and now it becomes mysterious. And we have got a car
with 70 to 100 interconnected computers. That is incredibly
complicated and, in some cases, quite mysterious. For my
vehicle, for example, there are 165 different parameters that I
can adjust, all keyed to my key fob, so I get into the car, and
the car is a different care for me. My wife gets in, and 165
parameters change, and it is a different car for her. What
happens if I grab her key fob? Now, I am driving her car, which
might be quite different than my car. Those sorts of
confusions, I think, are new and did not exist before the car
became a computer.
One more example. Going back to the confusion with the on/
off switch. In the past, starting your car, stopping your car,
you did it with a key. You turned the key off and pulled it
out. You could not pull it out before the car was turned off.
With these key fobs, you can take your key fob, get out of the
car, close the door, walk away, and it is still running. And
this has actually happened, and poisoned with carbon monoxide
the occupants of the house after they left the car in the
garage running.
The Chairman. Interesting.
Dr. Lee. So I think there is confusion. There is new
potential for error. I do not want to be too negative because I
think there is huge potential for enhanced safety, but there is
a negative side, and we have to acknowledge that.
The Chairman. I will take both of your answers, but first I
want to ask another question. I am not sure to which extent--
well, my final question is going to be, what do you think the
role of NHTSA ought to be. I want each of you to answer that.
But I am not sure of the swiftness of the younger
generation, whatever that means, declining to buy automobiles
because of the cost, and the economy, and efficiencies. You
know, driving in Washington almost any time of day makes you
want to take Amtrak right down 16th Street----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--and just bowl over everything in sight. I
mean, it is so frustrating. And now--and then that makes sense
because then you have to get big buses because you can put a
lot more people on big buses and, therefore, take a lot of cars
off the road. But those buses cannot make turns without holding
up traffic for 10 or 15 minutes as they try to wiggle a turn.
In other words, it is all very, very complicated.
America is in love with automobiles. That will never cease.
I am in love with automobiles. That will never cease. However,
I do not want to die. I am not technologically gifted, as the
staff behind me can very well tell you. But I am very serious
about my work, and that is why I come back to the mission of
NHTSA, that this hearing is one about what the car of the
future is going to be like. And actually I get the impression
from several of you that the car that is coming about is not
going to come about for another maybe five or 10 years, that we
are not talking quite as quickly as we think we are, but I am
not sure that is correct.
So the role of plain safety of when you put your hands on a
steering wheel and it reads your blood alcohol content, the
saving of--I come from a coal state, but, you know, so what? I
mean, I think that it is very important to really crack down on
carbon monoxide, and I do not think this country will survive
unless we find a way to take 90 percent of the carbon dioxide
out of coal, which we have found, but declined to use or fund.
So those are problems.
So to me, basic safety is important. I love--one of the
reasons I really like my new car--it is 3 years old--is because
it is big, and it is really fun, OK? But when I get down to it,
the--what I really want to do is just drive, and I want to
listen to my music. I mean, one, it calms me down when I go to
work, and it calms me down when I come back from work. And I
like driving. I like driving a lot. So I am not really into the
gadgets, but then again, I am of another generation.
So let me just simply say, what do you think the role of
NHTSA ought to be? Please.
Mr. Owens. That is the $64,000 question, right? I mean,
that is what we are talking about. So, you know, the industry--
the automobile manufacturers and suppliers, we are going to
work very hard to take what is already the most complicated
piece of electronics you own--your car--and work to make it
simpler, work to make it more intuitive, work to make it more
seamless.
But just as you have your desires, the 25-year-olds and
below have their desires, and they want to interface with that
vehicle in an entirely different way. And yet the product has
to service all of those demographics, and that really is our
challenge--to provide the technology that is less distracting,
that keeps the driver in the loop, and keeps the driver safer
tomorrow than he or she is today.
There is a lot of media coverage about autonomous vehicles
today and driverless vehicles, and I think that may happen at
some point in the far future. But for a lot less money and a
lot quicker application--and I am not talking 10 years. Active
safety technology can be applied today and have significant
benefit to the statistics of both accidents and fatalities in
the United States. The technology is mature.
I think NHTSA would recognize it as mature enough to
consider that, and I really do think letting the market work
here, no mandate required, no regulation required, just let
the--let it be visible to the consumers now, immediately, and
you will see the market forces start to self-select because
safety does sell.
We have a lot of other things to work on. There is no doubt
about it. And we are dedicated to solving those problems. But
we can get a lot of the benefit of an autonomous vehicle today
in a semi-autonomous mode in a couple of years if we have the
fortitude to stay with it.
The Chairman. Would you--if it were a financial body, would
you have applied NHTSA to Wall Street in recent years?
Mr. Owens. I am sorry. Could you repeat?
The Chairman. Would you apply--if NHTSA were a financial
body to Wall Street in recent years? In other words, the idea
to let the market work, and, oh, yes, you are going to get all
those hundreds of billions of dollars, and you can spend it on
mortgages and low income housing or whatever, and none of it
got--and not one dime got spent. I mean, people just line their
pockets, and making no comparison between that and automobiles.
But, you know, I just--I worry about that. I worry about
safety. I do not want people to die. We have really twisted
roads in West Virginia, and actually so do a lot of--most rural
states. Interstates are more rare. So I am just trying to find
something besides let the market work. When I hear ``let the
market work,'' I start thinking about coal mines and, you know,
all kinds of things, and I get very uncomfortable.
Mr. Bainwol. Can I add to this? We are saying let the
market work in one sense, but it is different than the Wall
Street context.
The Chairman. Good.
Mr. Bainwol. What we are really saying here is the
marketplace for all sorts of reasons, for reasons of commitment
to safety, for reasons that safety sells, for reasons of
liability, is producing today driver assist technologies that
will deal with the accident rate in West Virginia. We are on
the precipice of a golden age in safety. The news is good news.
The longer term question is when we get to the connected car.
Now, the role of NHTSA, the role of NHTSA is to do exactly
what they do. It is a relatively small agency of really
grounded, committed public servants who focus through data on
safety issues. We work very closely with them and in an
appropriate way. There is no hide the ball. We share
technologies. We do many studies together.
The exercise on the connected car is a joint effort of
suppliers, OEMs, and NHTSA. That is a very proper role about
defining a brighter future for safety. Same thing with that in
terms of drunk driving.
So NHTSA engages with the industry properly. We engage with
NHTSA. But NHTSA also has regulatory authority and it has a
hammer, which has been used. And at times that is appropriate.
So we have the right relationship. It is, we hope, data driven.
And I think we are on course to a great outcome. This is a good
news hearing. The future promises really massive gains in
safety if we make the right public policy choices, especially
on the spectrum issue.
The Chairman. Yes, which actually brings us--in other
words, we have congressional oversight. I am also on the
Intelligence Committee, and we are meant to have congressional
oversight of intelligence. And let me tell you, that has been
about the most impossible job because government does not want
to turn anything over. They all want to protect themselves. And
I do not think car companies are necessarily that way, and, in
fact, when we had the so-called sudden unintended stop crisis,
you remember, with Toyota and other companies, the work was
quite good I thought. The result was good. People changed
habits. The culture of safety of a different sort was
developed. And, you know, I not unoptimistic about the
automobile industry. I just want to be certain. And I have kept
you all too long.
Dr. Lee, you look like you need to say something.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Lee. I do not know whether I need to say it, but I
will. I come from a different perspective, so weigh that
accordingly. And you may want to discount it entirely.
I think one of the things that we see in the automotive
industry is a dramatic change, a really dramatic change.
Because computers underlie things, change is occurring at an
exponential rate. And we project--as people we project change
linearly, so we are thinking in 10 years these smart cars will
be 10 times better, maybe 15 years 10 times better. But, in
fact, in 15 years, they will be 1,000 times better, dramatic,
qualitatively different than we might expect.
So I think change is happening extremely quickly, and this
is a very different environment than NHTSA grew up in where
cars turned over every 6 years. Now you are working a computer
industry where models are turning over every six months, so 10
times difference.
I think the vehicle and the car and how people treat cars
is also changing dramatically. I think the generation that grew
up with Bruce Springsteen, and the romance of the road, and
using the cars as a way to get away from the parents, that is
changing. Kids get away from their parents with their phones,
with texting. Cars are a distraction to them. And so I think
they may be shifting their patterns in a way that is also
surprising.
So the role of NHTSA in this new environment--I think there
is an important role, and I hesitate to offer any strong
recommendation. But from the report regarding the Toyota
unintended acceleration events that occurred years ago, from
the National Academies, one of the things that came out of that
I thought was really interesting, and that is that the vehicle
environment is changing qualitatively, as I mentioned, and,
therefore, the regulatory environment may need to change
accordingly.
And they suggested looking at other agencies, like the FAA,
or the FDA, as models for how NHTSA may want to adapt to this
new environment. So I think there may need to be a qualitative
shift in the nature of what NHTSA does, its business.
And I think one sort of concrete example that came out of
that that I thought was very good, and that is in medical
products. The FDA has a system that provides feedback when
there is an unintended event, a misuse, or an inadvertent use,
or a malfunction in a medical product gets fed back to the
agency and then to the industry to enhance reliability. And I
think that that sort of mechanism is necessary.
So in the future, when cars become smarter, more capable,
they will do things for the driver. They will surprise the
driver. And increasingly, drivers will blame the car for doing
something crazy. And that blame, as we saw with the Toyota
events, is difficult for NHTSA and the industry to understand.
There was a long period of failing to understand what was
underlying those events. That is injurious to the government,
it is injurious to the manufacturers, and it is worrying to the
consumers. And so I think what we need is a better information
infrastructure to help NHTSA identify and understand the
inevitable failures that will come out of these computerized
vehicles.
The Chairman. All right. I want to end the hearing. If you
have got something to say, it has got to be so incredibly good.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Sweatman. No problem.
The Chairman. All right.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Sweatman. I think NHTSA has an incredibly important
role because transportation has become a team sport. So there
is a convening as well as a regulatory role. And one of the
very important issues that is going to need convening is
liability and responsibility for crashes because we are going
to continue to have crashes for a very long time.
Is that shifting in some way? We have always said that is
the driver's responsibility. Is there some shift there? So I
think that kind of question is something that NHTSA really
needs to convene and make some policy guidance on as we move
forward because that will become a very important issue.
I hope I lived up to your expectation.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. You did. You did, in fact. In fact, you all
did. And I do not see a whole lot of people sitting at this
dais, but that does not matter. It is a hearing. Everything is
recorded and written down, and I think some very interesting
and good ideas came out of all of this. And you were all very
good witnesses.
So, having said that, I do not like to bang a gavel. It
looks superficial to me. So I will just declare the hearing
adjourned. And thank you.
Mr. Bainwol. Thank you.
Dr. Lee. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senator from New Jersey
Mr. Chairman,
As a long-time leader in the fight to save lives on our nation's
roads, I believe it is critical that we utilize technologies to make
sure that Americans can safely get where they need to go. Road deaths
were up more than five percent in 2012, and drunk driving in America
takes a life every 53 minutes. We must use the technologies available
now that we know save lives, such as ignition interlocks to prevent
deaths from drunk driving. We shouldn't wait to deploy them. And, as we
look to the future, there are a number of exciting, new technologies
being developed that have the potential to transform the way we drive
and make our roads much safer.
Drunk driving continues to take thousands of American lives every
year--9,878 in 2011 to be exact. Nearly a third of all vehicle deaths
involve alcohol. And studies show that 50 to 75 percent of drunk
drivers whose licenses are suspended continue to get behind the wheel.
The bottom line is there is a clear need to do more to stop drunk
driving, especially to keep repeat offenders off the road, and we have
the technology available to do just that.
Ignition interlock systems can prevent drunk driving and save
lives, yet they are used sparingly. That's why I plan on re-introducing
my common-sense bill to require convicted drunk drivers to install
ignition interlocks in their cars. These devices do not let a vehicle
start if the driver is drunk--and they are proven to work. In fact, a
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that re-arrests
of convicted drunk drivers dropped 67 percent when ignition interlocks
were installed in their cars. It's no wonder then that the National
Transportation Safety Board has recommended just what my legislation
proposes. We should move on my bill immediately so we can save the
lives of more drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.
There are other technological innovations and resources currently
available that can increase safety on the roads. Speed limiters can
make our highways safer by keeping trucks at safe speeds. As we know,
driving slower can help motorists avoid collisions. And when paired
with Electronic On-Board Recorders, which I mandated for all commercial
truck drivers in the 2012 surface transportation law, we can ensure
that truck drivers who are fresh and rested don't then drive at
dangerously faster speeds to cover more miles within their time limit.
And lastly, helmets--which are simple but important safety tools--can
help halt skyrocketing motorcycle fatality rates. In 2012, motorcycle
fatality rates increased by 14.7 percent--the largest increase ever.
Head injury is the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes--and
helmets don't need to be a fancy, expensive new technology to be an
effective safety tool. So we must move forward on motorcycle helmet
requirements. It would be a simple, reasonable step that would slow the
repeated and growing number of tragedies on our roadways.
Technological achievements like ignition interlocks and speed
limiters show us why it is critical for us to continue to look for new
technologies that have the potential to further improve safety in the
future. New driver assist systems are being developed, for example,
that can automatically brake a car and control steering to avoid
collisions--saving drivers from serious accidents and the more minor,
but often expensive, fender bender. Driverless cars--which I had the
opportunity to experience last year--could reduce human error by
monitoring and automatically responding to roadway conditions, a change
with the potential to save thousands of lives. And vehicle-to-vehicle
communications are being tested that would allow cars to talk to each
other and coordinate movements that could, if deployed system-wide,
potentially reduce up to 80 percent of crashes involving non-impaired
drivers.
The technologies of tomorrow hold the potential of revolutionizing
driving to make today's roadway catastrophes a thing of the past. And
if we effectively deploy the tools we have now, we won't have to wait
to realize safety gains.
I thank the Chairman for calling this hearing to offer a glimpse of
how technological innovations can create safer roadways in the future.
And I thank our witnesses for offering their expertise on these
incredible advances.
______
Prepared Statement of Isaac Litman, CEO, Mobileye Aftermarket
Chairman Rockefeller and Senator Thune, and all the members of this
Committee, thank you for this opportunity.
I don't have to tell about the 5 million yearly vehicle crashes in
the U.S. with annual deaths of well over 30,000--34,000 in 2012--and
with over 2 million injured persons a year. And that 20 percent of the
traffic injuries involved reports of distracted driving.
A growing concern is the rising numbers of pedestrians and bicycle
riders killed or injured. Rear-end collisions account for just under
half of all crashes and unintended lane departure is the major cause of
fatal crashes. Among all fatal crashes in 2009, 16,265 were caused by
lane departure. The National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration notes that the Human Factor is the cause of over 90
percent of crashes.
The National Transportation Safety Board's ``Ten Most Wanted''
solutions for 2013 included collision avoidance technologies for lane
departure and forward collisions, and addressing distracted driving
issues. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has similar
concerns--including bus accidents with pedestrians; a growing problem
in urban areas. It noted in its recent report on ``Benefit-Cost
Analysis of Onboard Safety Systems'' the benefits of collision
avoidance technology on buses.
A growing proportion of new cars have electronics and computer
systems which may permit drivers with various options to avoid
accidents.
My company, Mobileye, with offices in New York, makes inexpensive,
optical collision avoidance devices which have been adopted worldwide
by vehicle manufacturers such as GM, Ford, Volvo, BMW, Honda, Hyundai,
Nissan and many others. Other companies offer similar solutions based
on various other technologies, so there are options for consumers and
the Federal Government.
However, most of these options are only for consumers who buy new
vehicles. According to the IIHS, with the normal ``turn-over'' rate, it
will take 30 years to have these technologies in widespread use in the
U.S. Mobileye has developed additional, inexpensive solutions that can
be retrofitted into existing vehicles. The Mobileye Aftermarket
solution is the same as the solution used by the OEMs but with the
ability to retrofit. Mobileye Aftermarket meets the standards and
qualifications set by NHTSA for these technologies: NHTSA Lane
Departure Warning standard and NHTSA Forward Collision Warning
Standard. Unlike airbags or ESC this Collision Avoidance System can be
retrofitted on any car, truck, or bus; meaning that implementation of
these technologies in the U.S. can be much faster; as it prevents many
injuries and avoidable deaths.
The Mobileye vision-based collision avoidance system has multiple
features: pedestrian collision warning, bicycles collision warning,
unintended lane departure warning, vehicle collision warning, headway
monitoring, following time violation, speed limit indication (the
ability to read speed-limit signs and warn the driver of excessive
speeding), and intelligent high-beam control. This single device is
also very easy and quick to install in the aftermarket in cars, trucks,
and buses.
Our technology, and the technology of other companies, has been
tested and proven effective. One Mobileye-equipped U.S. fleet opted to
share their data and reported a nearly 40 percent reduction in their
incurred-incident cost per mile and an impressive 25 percent reduction
in accidents since adopting Mobileye solutions, with well over one
billion miles driven with the systems to date.
Imagine eliminating 25 to 40 percent of all vehicles accidents with
inexpensive, aftermarket technology. It not only reduces deaths,
injuries, and the use of judicial and police resources; it will
eliminate thousands of ``routine'' crashes that create traffic jams.
So for $900 or so, trucks, buses, and cars can be equipped with
devices that prevent accidents with pedestrians, bike riders, and other
vehicles, and stationary objects. Affordability and ease of
installation in the aftermarket are both very important since many
collision avoidance systems can cost over $10,000 and Americans only
replace about 6 percent of our cars each year (the average car is over
10 years old). Thus, affordability and ease of installation is very
important to the typical American family. One study estimates that the
total annual cost of road crashes in the U.S. is over $200 billion.
Why is this technology important to the Federal Government and the
Congress? Think of the massive savings to federal fleets of vehicles
because, unlike American businesses and families, the Federal
Government is not allowed to insure their vehicles. Depending on
liability, taxpayers pay a lot of the costs of those medical injuries,
deaths, and lost wages, and the damage to, or destruction of, federal
vehicles.
Fortunately, the Comptroller General of the United States has been
asked in a bipartisan request by Members of Congress to determine the
savings to the Federal Government by installing these types of devices
on federal vehicles. I assure you, those savings will be enormous. The
Federal Government could save billions of dollars by simply having
inexpensive, aftermarket collision avoidance devices installed on 10 to
20 percent of the federal vehicles, a year.
This is about more than saving billions of dollars for the Federal
Government; collision avoidance systems save lives, prevent
debilitating injuries, save families, and can reduce the number of
incidents police and other emergency response teams have to address.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Hon. David L. Strickland
Question 1. As the vehicle becomes more reliant on electronics and
electronic safety systems, NHTSA must be able to address the changing
safety landscape. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-
21), which was enacted into law last year, directed NHTSA to establish
a Council on Vehicle Electronics and Emerging Technologies and to
conduct research into electronic safety systems. In response to my
questions on this topic at the hearing, you stated that NHTSA has a
solid game plan for a newly established Electronics Research Office,
and you offered to provide additional detail for the record.
Question 1a. Please detail how NHTSA will fulfill the requirements
of MAP-21 in this area, and how it is addressing the new safety
challenges that will arise from the growth of vehicle electronics.
Answer. Increased use of electronic controls and connectivity is
enhancing transportation safety and efficiency. However, these new
technologies may result in new failure mechanisms and cyber
vulnerabilities. NHTSA recognizes these new challenges and is
addressing them through research, rulemaking, enforcement and data
collection and analysis.
In the area of research, NHTSA created the Electronic Systems
Safety Research Division in 2011 to address potential safety risks. We
believe electronic control systems in vehicles raise concerns for
driver safety in the areas of system reliability and cybersecurity and
is conducting new research in these areas. The programs are closely
related and intertwined. The agency believes that a motor vehicle
cannot be safe if it is not secure. The overarching goal of both
programs is to inform potential regulatory options.
The goal of the electronics reliability research is to enhance the
functional safety of emerging safety-critical electronic control
systems. In the near term, the reliability research program will seek
to:
(1) Define and prioritize automotive electronic control system
safety issues;
(2) Assess functional safety requirements;
(3) Evaluate the use of prognostics and diagnostics; and
(4) Identify fail-safe/fail operational mechanisms.
The goal of the cybersecurity research is to harden motor vehicles
against potential cyber threats and vulnerabilities. The cybersecurity
program seeks to:
(1) Identify the potential cyber threats and vulnerabilities;
(2) Conduct a security assessment;
(3) Develop a threat model and matrix; and
(4) Identify and evaluate potential solutions and countermeasures.
To coordinate and manage agency activities in the area of vehicle
electronics, the agency has established, as required by MAP-21, a
Council on Vehicle Electronics, Vehicle Software and Emerging
Technologies. The Council meets on a bi-monthly basis to discuss and
share information. The mission of the group is to broaden, leverage and
expand the agency's expertise in motor vehicle electronics and to
continue ensuring that these technologies enhance vehicle safety.
Currently the Council is assessing the need for safety standards for
vehicle electronics by overseeing a data analysis of the types and
frequency of electronic control system failures. The results will be a
key input to the report to Congress on the need for safety standards in
the electronics area. We expect to deliver this report in 2014.
The Council has representatives from all of our vehicle safety
offices including research, rulemaking, enforcement and data collection
and analysis. Our Office of Enforcement continues to provide their
technical expertise in the areas of electronics based upon their
experience with compliance testing and defects analysis. Our Office of
Rulemaking is evaluating existing safety standards and is ready to act
when regulatory action is needed. The National Center for Statistics
and Analysis is considering how to meet new data needs related to crash
avoidance technologies and electronic control systems through its data
modernization project. At the same time, all our vehicle safety offices
are working towards strengthening their expertise in this important
area.
Question 2. Since the enactment of the Highway Safety Act, the
vehicle has become demonstrably safer, with both the number of deaths
per year decreasing as well as the rate of deaths per hundred million
vehicle miles traveled. Please provide some context to the role that
NHTSA and its predecessor, the Transportation Safety Bureau, played in
decreasing highway deaths.
Question 2a. Please describe the downward trend in highway deaths,
the role of key safety mandates in accelerating this trend, and an
approximation of the number of lives saved by each of these key
mandates.
Answer. In 1966, 39,131 occupants of passenger vehicles (cars,
pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans) died in crashes. That number increased
to an all-time high of 42,117 in 1969. The number of passenger vehicle
occupant fatalities dropped to 32,843 in 2002; and that number dropped
to 21,253 in 2011.
In 1966, passenger vehicles were driven 856 billion miles; that
number increased to 2,625 billion miles in 2002 and 2,646 billion miles
in 2011.
The occupant fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles of travel
was 4.57 in 1966, 1.25 in 2002, and 0.80 in 2011. The fatality rate had
dropped by 73 percent from 1966 to 2002 and by 82 percent from 1966 to
2011.
The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), mandated by the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, accounted for a
large portion of the fatality reduction. A NHTSA evaluation published
in 2004 estimated that the FMVSS saved 22,999 lives in 2002; an
additional 1,562 were saved by voluntary safety improvements to the
vehicles (not required by a FMVSS or implemented before the effective
date of a FMVSS) This total of 24,561 lives saved corresponds to a 42
percent reduction in occupant fatality risk per mile of travel from
1966 to 2002 (a large portion of the overall 73 percent reduction).
NHTSA is currently updating the evaluation through model year 2011.
The effectiveness of certain motor vehicle safety equipment
addressed by FMVSS, such as seat belts, child restraint systems and
motorcycle helmets, is dependent on their use by motorists. The
following table illustrates the effectiveness of these devices at use
rates achieved in recent years alongside estimates of lives saved by
other safety advances.
NHTSA's behavioral grant programs have also been a major
contributor to improved national highway safety performance. A review
of NHTSA grant programs conducted in 1998 found that ``the Federal
grant program has achieved the intent of Congress when it passed the
Highway Safety Act of 1966. Federal grants which represent less than
two percent of the funds expended on highway safety programs have led
the states in addressing the most important safety issues and leveraged
funds to provide many services to a wide public.'' ``Highway Safety
Assessment: A summary of Findings in Ten States'' (DOT HS 808 796).
Question 3. Administrator Strickland, as you know, I am terribly
concerned about the risks of distracted driving. I am becoming
increasingly worried about these systems built right into the car. The
touchscreens offer to keep drivers ``connected'' but are distracting to
drivers who should be focused on the task at hand. At the hearing, we
discussed NHTSA's new guidelines to limit driver distraction from these
systems.
Question 3a. Auto companies tell us that if the built-in systems
are too restricted, drivers will just bypass those systems and pick up
their phones. Do you agree?
Answer. The NHTSA Phase 1 Distraction Guidelines, published in
April 2013, apply to original in-vehicle electronic device interfaces.
The Guidelines recommend that visual-manual activities (i.e., those
activities involving looking at a device interface and manipulating it
with one's hand) that are not suitable for performance while driving
should be locked out.
We are aware that some have expressed the opinion that by having
our Phase 1 Guidelines only cover built-in devices, consumers would
shift to the less-restricted (and possibly less safe) hand-held
devices. We believe this opinion is based on the assumption that safer
in-vehicle systems will not be sufficiently functional to attract
drivers away from use of hand-held devices. On the contrary, vehicle
manufacturers are rapidly expanding the voice-command and hands-free,
eyes-free capabilities of their in-vehicle systems. These systems are
engineered to encourage hand-held users to pair those devices with the
vehicles' displays and controls. NHTSA sees no evidence that drivers
would un-pair the devices from the vehicle system simply to obtain
marginally increased functionality in very limited situations. As a
result, the agency believes that there would be little incentive for a
driver to revert to the hand-held device simply to perform a locked-out
function such as texting. Therefore, should manufacturers choose to
conform to the NHTSA Phase 1 Guidelines, the agency believes the more
likely outcome is that drivers will pair their hand-held devices to the
vehicle systems during all driving situations with a net benefit for
safety.
We are currently developing our Phase 2 Distraction Guidelines,
which will address visual-manual distractions for hand-held portable
and aftermarket devices, and will soon begin discussions with the
various portable and aftermarket device stakeholder groups and
organizations. We are eager for their input as we develop guidelines
for hand-held devices.
Question 3b. How can NHTSA best address distracted driving, and do
you have all of the authority you need to do this vital work?
Answer. In April 2010, NHTSA published a ``Driver Distraction
Program Plan'' that serves as the Department of Transportation's
guiding framework in its efforts to eliminate crashes related to driver
distraction. The plan lays out strategies for better understanding the
distracted driving problem, minimizing the distraction potential from
in-vehicle and portable devices, avoiding crashes that might be caused
by distraction and improving driver behavior. Building upon this plan,
in June 2012, NHTSA released a ``Blueprint for Ending Distracted
Driving'' that describes the steps that NHTSA and the rest of the
Department have taken to address distracted driving and the future
steps we intend to take to eliminate crashes attributable to driver
distraction.
NHTSA's efforts include raising public awareness, developing public
policies on distraction, and conducting research and development.
Regarding NHTSA's public policy work, the agency has engaged in efforts
to minimize the potential for distraction from devices through Driver
Distraction Guidelines. The Phase 1 Guidelines, published in April
2013, apply to original in-vehicle device interfaces and recommend that
visual-manual activities not suitable for performance while driving
should be locked out. In the area of research and development, NHTSA
has conducted research analyzing driver distraction and its effect on
driving performance. For example, the agency recently published a
report analyzing data from a naturalistic driving study and examining
the differences between hand-held, hands-free and integrated hands-free
cell phone use.
NHTSA is currently developing its Phase 2 Guidelines, which will
address visual-manual interfaces for hand-held portable devices and
aftermarket devices not originally installed in vehicles, including
aftermarket GPS navigation systems, smart phones, electronic tablets
and pads, and other mobile communications devices. NHTSA also continues
to conduct research related to driver distraction, including the effect
of distraction on driving performance and whether advanced crash
warning and driver monitoring technologies could help address crashes
related to distraction.
In addition, the agency supports the enactment and enforcement of
distracted driving laws. In the area of State enforcement, NHTSA is
currently developing high-visibility enforcement programs for
distracted driving laws. In 2011, the agency initiated pilot programs
in Hartford, Connecticut, and Syracuse, New York, that promoted the
message, ``Phone in One Hand, Ticket in the Other.'' These programs
showed that increased law enforcement efforts combined with targeted
media can lead to decreases in texting and hand-held cell phone use
while driving. In 2012, the agency expanded the pilot program to
Delaware and the Sacramento Valley of California. Also in 2012, NHTSA
announced a new grant program authorized by MAP-21 to provide grants to
states with conforming laws banning distracted driving.
Under NHTSA's existing authorities, the agency will address
distracted driving by continuing to raise public awareness, including
better educating young drivers, develop public policies on distraction,
conduct research and development, and support State efforts to enact
and enforce distracted driving laws.
Question 4. The vision of cars that drive themselves--safely
maneuvering down the road while occupants busy themselves with other
tasks--has certainly captured the imagination of many people in this
country. If this vision comes to pass, it certainly will be a long ways
off. Administrator Strickland, I want to give you the opportunity to
think creatively about a future in which the driver is no longer
essential for a vehicle to function.
Question 4a. How will truly autonomous cars change the American
relationship to the car? How would auto companies and the government
need to adjust?
Answer. Fully automated or self-driving vehicles could drastically
change how Americans relate to their vehicles. A vehicle with full
self-driving automation would need to be designed to perform all
safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an
entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide
destination or navigation input but is not expected to be available for
control at any time during the trip. This concept could include both
occupied and unoccupied vehicles. By design, safe operation rests
solely on the automated vehicle system.
Motor vehicle automation can potentially improve highway safety by
providing early detection of unsafe conditions, initiating precise
vehicle control during normal driving and maintaining appropriate
driver attention to traffic and roadway conditions. It is likely that
in the near-term, automation in motor vehicles will involve a driving
experience that transitions between automatic and manual control of the
vehicle in complex and rapidly changing traffic conditions.
At the same time, vehicle manufacturers have begun or have
announced plans to offer certain types of automated crash avoidance
safety systems as features on new vehicles. NHTSA has been actively
involved in researching these advanced technologies, which rely on in-
vehicle sensors and cameras to obtain safety-critical data. For
example, NHTSA is engaged in research to evaluate the effectiveness of
currently available automated braking systems in avoiding or mitigating
crashes. Also, NHTSA and other Department of Transportation agencies,
in conjunction with the auto industry, have been conducting in-depth
research and demonstration of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications
technology, which offers substantial crash avoidance possibilities,
particularly when linked to active in-vehicle crash avoidance systems.
As part of this research, the agency is developing test procedures to
evaluate these technologies and methods to assess their safety
benefits. The results of this research may suggest novel techniques
that differ from our traditional procedures and methodologies.
NHTSA believes that automation runs along a continuum, from
vehicles with no active control systems to fully automated self-driving
vehicles. While NHTSA is conducting research along the entire
continuum, our initial emphasis is on determining whether crash
avoidance and mitigation technologies that are currently or imminently
available could provide safety benefits. For example, we expect to make
agency decisions on automatic braking systems and V2V technology later
this year. Because these same technologies may be the building blocks
for what may one day lead to a self-driving vehicle, we have also begun
research focused on safety principles that may apply to higher levels
of automation. NHTSA's research approach will define the requirements
for automation as a vehicle safety subsystem, which promotes safety by
continuously optimizing vehicle and driver responses.
Question 4b. Are there changes that we need to start making in the
near term to allow for progress in this area?
Answer. NHTSA recently issued a Preliminary Statement of Policy
Concerning Automated Vehicles. We issued this statement to clarify
relevant concepts, outline NHTSA's planned research on vehicle
automation and help states implement this technology safely so that its
full benefits can be realized. Articulating our views on these safety
issues now is a very important element of charting that course, as
confusion or disarray on the safety issues would be a significant
impediment to the development of these technologies. Moreover, as
several states step forward to become test beds for some of the most
innovative automotive technologies, they, as well as companies seeking
to develop the technologies, have asked NHTSA to provide
recommendations on how to safely conduct such testing on public
highways. Accordingly, while the larger dialogue with the many
stakeholders progresses and takes further shape, the statement
presented our views on the major safety issues related to the
development of vehicle automation.
While NHTSA does not see any regulatory impediments to the
introduction of automated vehicles at this time, we have initiated
automated vehicle research to ensure that as automation is introduced
into the marketplace, American drivers, passengers, and all those who
share the roadways with them will remain safe. In the near term, our
research program will focus on the following activities:
(1) Investigating human factor principles that are supportive of the
driver and would help ensure a safe transition between an
automated driving mode and manual driving;
(2) Identifying key use cases that automated vehicles will need to
address and developing performance requirements and test
procedures; and
(3) Performing research on the underlying electronic control systems
to develop functional safety requirements and potential
reliability requirements in the areas of diagnostics,
prognostics, and failure response (fail safe) mechanisms and to
support requirements in the area of vehicle cybersecurity.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Hon. David L. Strickland
Question 1. In 2011, 9,878 people were killed in alcohol-impaired
driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third of all traffic-related
deaths in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found
that re-arrest rates for drunk driving decreased by 67 percent for
convicted drivers with ignition interlocks as compared to those who
just had their license suspended. The National Transportation Safety
Board released a recommendation on May 14 that ignition interlocks be
required for all first time offenders, and I plan to reintroduce
legislation that would do just that.
Question 1a. What would the safety benefits be of requiring
ignition interlocks for all first time drunk drivers?
Answer. Ignition interlocks have been shown to be highly effective
in preventing repeat drunk driving offenses when installed on vehicles
driven by drunk driving offenders. This preventative effect has been
demonstrated for both those who have been convicted for their first
drunk driving offense and those who have had one or more previous
offenses. While it is clear that the safety benefit of ignition
interlocks increases as more offender vehicles are equipped, estimates
of potential lives saved are dependent on several other factors, such
as the length of time during which they are installed.
Question 1b. Should ignition interlocks be mandatory for all
convicted drunk driving offenders?
Answer. States can extend the benefits of ignition interlocks by
requiring their use by first-time offenders as well as repeat
offenders. MAP-21 includes an incentive grant for states that enforce a
mandatory alcohol-ignition interlock law for all individuals convicted
of driving under the influence of alcohol or of driving while
intoxicated.
Question 1c. Some opponents of my legislation claim that this would
place an undue financial burden on states to meet the requirement. What
are the costs to states for highway crashes related to drunk driving?
Answer. Preliminary research indicates that crashes involving an
impaired driver (.08+ BAC) may cost states and localities over $2
billion annually in medical payouts, insurance administration,
adjudication, lost revenues, incident management, police, fire
department, and other crash related costs.
Question 2. For the first time since 2005, more people died on U.S.
roads last year than the year before. Total fatalities increased by
more than five percent in 2012, and motorcycle deaths have increased by
almost three times that--14.7 percent.
Question 2a. What is the biggest contributing factor for these
motorcycle fatalities?
Answer. A number of factors contribute to changes in the number of
motorcycle fatalities including the number of vehicle miles travelled
and the use of helmets that comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards. Motorcycles continue to increase in popularity. While
registration information is not yet available for 2012, states report
that registrations increased more than 5 percent between 2010 and 2011.
Registrations increased by more than 70 percent between 2001 and 2011.
Question 2b. What would the safety benefits be of requiring helmets
for all motorcycle riders?
Answer. NHTSA estimates that in 2011, 703 additional motorcyclist
lives could have been saved if all riders had been wearing helmets
meeting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
Question 2c. Would you support a requirement that all motorcyclists
wear helmets?
Answer. NHTSA supports the use of motorcycle helmets by all riders.
Motorcycle helmet laws covering all riders, often referred to as
universal helmet laws, are the most effective method of increasing and
maintaining helmet use and avoiding fatalities and disability due to
head injuries. Over the past 30 years, research has consistently shown
the negative effects of weakening or repealing motorcycle helmet use
laws. The weight of the evidence is that repeal of helmet use laws
decreases helmet use, and that states that repeal universal helmet use
laws experience increased fatalities and injuries. Conversely, states
that have adopted or reenacted universal laws have experienced
significant increases in helmet use and declines in motorcyclist
fatalities and injuries.
Question 2d. In addition to a mandatory helmet law, what other
steps would help reduce motorcycle fatalities?
Answer. Increasing helmet use and decreasing impaired riding could
have substantial effect on reducing motorcycle fatalities. In 2011, 30
percent of fatally injured motorcycle riders (1,298 riders) had a blood
alcohol concentration of .08 or greater. This rate is higher than for
drivers of any other type of vehicle. States can address impaired
riding with education and law enforcement programs. Other measures that
can affect motorcycle safety include rider training and ensuring that
riders have proper license endorsements. Finally, NHTSA is pursuing
rulemaking to establish an enforcement policy regarding ``novelty''
motorcycle helmets, which are noncompliant helmets that provide
inadequate protection. The rulemaking would also add an appendix to
FMVSS No. 218 to serve as a guide for motorcyclists and local law
enforcement personnel in identifying compliant motorcycle helmets.
Question 3. Speed limiters can make our highways safer by keeping
trucks at safe speeds; heavy commercial trucks have been equipped with
speed limiting capabilities since 1992. The Federal Motor Carrier
Safety [Administration] published a study last year that found a heavy
truck without an engaged speed limiter is twice as likely to be in a
highway crash as one that has a speed limiter. NHTSA has been
considering a rulemaking to require the installation of speed limiting
devices on heavy trucks since 2011.
Question 3a. When can we expect to see a final rulemaking?
Answer. DOT expects to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking by the
end of this year and will consider public comments as we work towards a
final rule.
Question 3b. Will you commit to working with me to ensure that this
rulemaking is completed in a timely manner?
Answer. I commit to working toward the completion of this
rulemaking as expeditiously as possible.
Question 3c. How do speed limiters and electronic logging devices
work together to prevent crashes?
Answer. The two devices work together to improve safety in the
following way:
(1) Speed limiters will slow heavy trucks currently driving at
higher speeds; and
(2) Electronic logging devices will deter truck drivers from making
up the difference in miles traveled at slower speeds by driving
extended hours.
Requiring both devices will increase public safety by limiting the
speeds of heavy trucks and the likelihood of fatigued drivers operating
these vehicles on roadways.
Question 4. Many companies are already investing in advanced
technologies, such as automatic braking systems.
Question 4a. Does the agency have adequate staffing and funding to
ensure these rapidly changing technologies are safe and appropriate?
Answer. Safe vehicles are a vital component of preventing roadway
fatalities, and NHTSA has a long history of ensuring that the vehicles
on our nation's roadways are the safest they can be. NHTSA already has
substantial and growing expertise in technologies related to advanced
vehicle automation. However, with new sophisticated electronic control
systems and alternative fuel systems of varying types emerging in the
market, we need to expand our ability and capacity to test, monitor and
trouble-shoot new technologies as expeditiously and efficiently as
possible. With many new crash avoidance technologies under development,
expanding our capability to test human interactions with these systems
is also imperative. We will further explore ways for NHTSA to address
these new challenges across the spectrum of our vehicle safety program
responsibilities. The President's FY 2014 budget proposed to undertake
activities to provide the capability of advanced testing of emergent
technologies at our Vehicle Research and Test Center and to hire
additional electronics and electrical engineers.
Question 5. Approximately every 50 minutes, one life is lost to
drunk driving. Beginning in 2008, the auto industry entered a five-
year, cooperative program with the National Highway Safety
Administration (NHTSA) to invest in emerging technologies that would
stop drivers from operating a vehicle if drunk, such as Driver Alcohol
Detection System for Safety (DADSS) technology. The 2012 transportation
reauthorization law, MAP-21, provided funds to NHTSA to continue this
research.
Question 5a. What funding levels are needed to adequately support
this research?
Answer. The program is currently in the Phase 2 development phase,
which will result in research prototypes in 2014. While impressive
progress has been to date, significant additional development is needed
before the technology is ready for mass-production. Additional research
is needed to continue the technology development, perform sub-system
development and validation, address circumvention concerns, increase
the amount of usability testing, improve standard calibration devices
and perform reliability, repeatability and durability testing on actual
vehicles. This effort is currently estimated to be ready for auto
industry handoff and integration in 2018. At least $5 million per year
for each of the upcoming five years is needed to perform the required
research.
Question 5b. The designated five-year cooperative program between
the auto industry and NHTSA runs through 2013. What will the auto
industry's commitment to this technology be beyond 2013?
Answer. NHTSA is currently in discussions about a new research and
development agreement with auto industry partners, and new cooperative
agreement is expected to be finalized. The new agreement will represent
a significant increase in the Department's investment in technologies
that could prevent drunk drivers from operating vehicles. We are now
working with our partners to determine the level and type of support
they will provide as part of the new cooperative agreement.
Question 6. According to testimony, vehicle-to-vehicle technology
has the potential to prevent 80 percent of crashes, when fully
deployed. However, it will be more than 10 years before this technology
is deployed.
Question 6a. What are the safety benefits of this technology during
the scale-up of deployment?
Answer. Vehicle-to-vehicle or V2V technology has the potential to
address 80 percent of crashes of unimpaired drivers. This statement
indicates that the technology can be applied to 80 percent of the
crashes, but it does not suggest that every crash will be avoided. The
current research is collecting data and conducting analysis and
evaluation to estimate the effectiveness of the technology and the
benefits that would result with consideration given to various
percentages of fleet penetration. However, even as deployment of V2V is
scaling up, safety benefits would be substantial for vehicles equipped
with the technology, particularly where vehicle to infrastructure
applications also are deployed.
Question 6b. What can be done to take advantage of incremental
safety benefits?
Answer. Given that a message from one vehicle needs to be received
by another, the benefits will depend on the level of technology
deployed. DOT is analyzing various deployment scenarios to estimate
incremental benefits over the scale-up period. The primary benefits are
from warning a driver and avoiding a crash. However, in the scale-up
period some vehicles may only transmit a message through the
installation of aftermarket devices. Vehicles with these devices would
provide the benefit of being able to be ``seen'' by vehicles with
devices that both receive messages and provide warnings. The mixture of
original equipment and after-market devices is likely to produce
significant safety benefits even early in the scale-up period.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Hon. David L. Strickland
Question 1. Administrator Strickland, following incidents in 2009
and 2010 of Sudden Unintended Acceleration in Toyota vehicles, this
Committee found that NHTSA lacked the authority, expertise, and
resources to fully investigate possible electronics-based defects. A
NASA/NHTSA report in 2011 noted ``. . . features such as vehicle-to-
vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications will
likely require further increases in software complexity.'' MAP-21 took
steps to address this lack of electronic expertise and capacity at
NHTSA by establishing a Council for Vehicle Electronics, Vehicle
Software, and Emergency Technology to improve the agency's expertise in
passenger motor vehicle electronics and will focus on reliability,
cybersecurity, and emergency technologies.
Question 1a. I understand NHTSA recently convened the Council, so
what can you tell me about the group's work and what it will mean for
NHTSA's ability to properly detect defects in these complex systems,
assess their potential causes and propose solutions?
Answer. According to National Academy of Science's (NAS) report The
Safety Promise and Challenge of Automotive Electronics, NHTSA's
decision to close its investigation of Toyota's electronic throttle
control as a possible cause of unattended acceleration was justified.
Furthermore, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA)
report on unintended acceleration did not find any evidence
contradicting NHTSA's conclusions in its investigation. The agency has
issued standards for some electronic safety systems, such as electronic
stability control or ESC, and has successfully conducted many
investigations involving defective or noncompliant electronics. At the
same time, NHTSA continues to take steps to further increase our
expertise in this important field.
To coordinate and manage agency activities in the area of vehicle
electronics, the agency established the Council on Vehicle Electronics,
Vehicle Software and Emerging Technologies, as required by MAP-21. The
Council meets on a bi-monthly basis to discuss and share information.
The mission of the group is to broaden, leverage and expand the
agency's expertise in motor vehicle electronics and to continue
ensuring that these technologies enhance vehicle safety. Currently the
Council is assessing the need for safety standards for vehicle
electronics by overseeing a data analysis of the types and frequency of
electronic control system failures. The results will be a key input to
the report to Congress on the need for safety standards in the
electronics area. We expect to deliver this report in 2014.
In addition to the Council, NHTSA has expertise it can access both
within the agency and outside specialists in the area of vehicle
electronics. As supported by the findings of the NAS and NASA reports,
the agency believes it has the needed expertise to address defects
issues that may arise in the near term. However, in the long term, we
will need to expand our ability and capacity to test, monitor and
trouble-shoot new technologies as expeditiously and efficiently as
possible. We will further explore ways for NHTSA to address these new
challenges across the spectrum of our vehicle safety program
responsibilities. The President's FY 2014 budget proposed to undertake
activities to provide the capability of advanced testing of emergent
technologies at our Vehicle Research and Test Center and to hire
additional electronics and electrical engineers.
Question 2. Administrator Strickland, NHTSA oversees the NCAP
program which is a rating system for vehicle safety uses by consumers
in the market for new cars. The current system rates vehicles on
frontal- and side-crash resistance, electronic stability control, lane
departure warning, as well as other safety systems. I know NHTSA is
considering an update to the NCAP program and recently released a
request for comment seeking input on which advanced safety systems
should be included in the new NCAP rating system.
Question 2a. Can you tell me what the agency looks at when it
considers adding new safety systems to the NCAP program?
Answer. When considering a new advanced safety system for possible
inclusion into NCAP, NHTSA analyzes the following:
Is there a safety benefit that could be obtained and that
can be demonstrated in the form of projected lives saved,
injuries prevented and crashes reduced?
Are there objective test procedures or industry standards
that would measure performance differences?
Is the technology mature enough for mass production?
Would the technology create the market forces necessary to
encourage the adoption into NCAP?
Question 2b. Do you find the NCAP system to be a useful way to
create incentives for auto manufacturers?
Answer. Yes, NCAP is useful and successful in creating safety
incentives for auto manufacturers. When the agency began rating
vehicles for frontal impact safety, fewer than 30 percent of vehicles
tested received the 4 or 5 star frontal crash safety rating for the
driver seating position. By 2006, this increased to 98 percent.
Implementation of side crash and rollover resistance NCAP ratings
programs achieved safety improvements even more quickly.
Therefore, in 2010, we raised the safety bar by incorporating more
stringent crash tests, making it harder for vehicles to achieve 4 or 5
stars. Since then, vehicle manufacturers have responded positively with
additional safety improvements. NCAP's advanced technology
recommendations have also increased the installation rates of advanced
crash avoidance features. For example in 2010, 10 percent of the new
vehicle models sold in the U.S. had lane departure warning or forward
collision warning systems as optional safety features. By 2012, this
increased to 25 percent.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Coats to
Hon. David L. Strickland
Question 1. In each year from 1992 to 2007, 40,000 lives were lost
and nearly 3 million people were seriously injured in vehicular
crashes. The rate of fatalities per crash per miles driven has remained
nearly constant for 15 years (approximately 11 fatalities per billion
miles driven per year) at an estimated economic cost of nearly $231
billion annually. There is evidence that increased utilization of
active safety technologies, including collision imminent braking,
radar, driver monitoring and workload management, could significantly
improve safety on our roads. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) estimates the measurable benefits of crash avoidance features on
passenger vehicles as a 32 percent reduction in crashes, a 21 percent
reduction in injuries and a 31 percent reduction in fatalities. That is
well over 10,000 lives saved per year. Many of these technologies are
in use, but they are in relatively few vehicles. At the current rate of
acceptance, it is estimated that active safety technologies will not
significantly impact crash statistics for 20 years.
What steps are being taken by NHTSA to examine active safety
technologies through the NCAP program?
What is NHTSA doing to improve consumer understanding of the
benefits of active safety technologies?
Answer. NHTSA has undertaken several steps to examine active safety
technologies through the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). These steps
include the following:
We published a ``Request for Comments'' notice on April 5,
2013 (78 FR 20597), requesting public input to help identify
the potential areas for improvement to NCAP that have the
greatest potential for producing safety benefits, including
crash avoidance technologies. We will review the comments and
use this input to guide further decisions on providing crash
avoidance technology information through NCAP, including
developing a draft 5-year research plan as well as longer term
upgrades that the agency intends to pursue making to NCAP.
Concurrently, NHTSA is conducting research and working
towards agency decisions on the next actions for certain
advanced technology systems such as crash imminent braking and
dynamic brake support. If research involving a particular
safety technology indicates that it is sufficiently developed,
the agency may decide to pursue a requirement through a new
safety standard instead of or in addition to recommending the
technology through NCAP.
NHTSA has also undertaken several steps to improve consumer
understanding of the benefits of active safety technologies. These
steps include the following:
Beginning with model year 2011, the agency added to NCAP
information about the presence of advanced crash avoidance
technologies in vehicles. Technologies shown to have a safety
benefit and that meet NHTSA's performance criteria are
recommended to consumers on www.safercar.gov, where all NCAP
ratings are posted.
Recently launching a ``SaferCar'' mobile application. This
application includes information about the availability of
recommended advanced technologies.
Developed videos, vehicle illustrations and fact sheets to
educate the public and promote advanced crash avoidance
technologies.
Working with our partners, such as independent automotive
websites, to increase awareness and promote certain advanced
crash avoidance technologies.
Conducting comprehensive consumer research on advanced crash
avoidance technologies to gauge understanding of these
technologies and develop effective approaches for communicating
these technologies to consumers.
Publishing the agency's Automated Vehicles Policy Statement
concerning vehicle automation, including plans for research on
related safety issues and recommendations for states related to
the testing, licensing, and regulation of ``autonomous'' or
``self-driving'' vehicles.
Question 2. Congress expanded the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
with the creation of the Passenger Motor Vehicle Program in 2012
(Section 31305 of MAP-21, P.L. 112-141). Specifically, The Passenger
Motor Vehicle Program directs the Secretary of Transportation to
maintain a program that develops information on passenger motor
vehicles, including crash avoidance and other areas that will improve
the safety of passenger motor vehicles. The Secretary is directed to
provide this information to consumers, and the Secretary also may
require auto dealers to distribute this information to consumers. What
are your plans for implementation of the Passenger Motor Vehicle
Information Program's requirements on crash avoidance?
Answer. Currently, three advanced crash avoidance technologies
(Lane Departure Warning, Forward Collision Warning, and Electronic
Stability Control) being recommended as part of NCAP. The agency added
to NCAP information about the presence of advanced crash avoidance
technologies in vehicles. Technologies shown to have a safety benefit
and that meet NHTSA's performance criteria are recommended to consumers
on www.safercar.gov. We also distribute comprehensive vehicle safety
information at various auto shows across the country, including
factsheets, media templates, decals, banners and logos for dealers and
manufacturers to use in educating consumers. NHTSA is developing an
infographic (animated schematic) to describe the advanced technologies
and educate the general public, and we plan to conduct a comprehensive
consumer research program to understand how best to convey to consumers
the importance of advanced crash avoidance technologies. As noted
above, we also published a ``Request for Comments'' notice on April 5,
2013 (78 FR 20597) requesting public input to help identify the
potential areas for improvement to NCAP that have the greatest
potential for producing safety benefits, including crash avoidance
technologies.
Question 3. In its FY13 budget request, NHTSA states: ``NCAP is
also considering adding additional crash avoidance advanced technology
to the current list of crash avoidance technologies. NCAP recommends
Lane Departure Warning, Forward Collision Warning, and Electronic
Stability Control to consumers, when a manufacturer demonstrates the
technology on its vehicle passes the NCAP performance specification. We
plan to make a decision on the next advanced technology in FY 2012.''
What progress has been made in this effort?
How is this information communicated to consumers?
Will NHTSA include the results of these tests on the
Mulroney sticker to ensure that consumers are fully informed
about the advantages of crash avoidance technologies? If so,
when? If not, why not?
Based on the test criteria for these features already
developed in Europe for pending EuroNCAP updates for active
safety, and additionally for pending IIHS ratings, are there
plans at NHTSA to work with these organizations to harmonize
test criteria?
Answer. The agency has been evaluating several advanced
technologies that may potentially be added to NCAP. Specifically, NHTSA
has established a multi-disciplinary project team to evaluate crash
imminent braking and dynamic brake support. We also published a
``Request for Comments'' notice on April 5, 2013 (78 FR 20597)
requesting public input to help identify the potential areas for
improvement to NCAP that have the greatest potential for producing
safety benefits, including crash avoidance technologies.
As described above, information regarding the three recommended
crash technologies (Lane Departure Warning, Forward Collision Warning,
and Electronic Stability Control) is communicated to consumers via the
agency's website (www.safercar.gov), the agency's ``SaferCar'' mobile
application, and various independent websites.
With respect to the Monroney label, we published a final rule on
July 29, 2011 (76 FR 45453) revising the safety rating information
section of the label. At that time, we stated that, due to a lack of
space, we did not include advanced technologies on the Monroney label.
In addition, we indicated that we would conduct a comprehensive
consumer research program to determine whether consumers would like to
have this information at the point of sale. As consumers become more
aware and interested in the advanced technologies, we may consider
including these technologies on the Monroney label. In the meantime, we
have launched a ``SaferCar'' mobile application to allow consumers to
access advanced crash avoidance technology information from mobile
devices.
NHTSA is the first entity in the world to have performance test
procedures for the three advanced technologies that are recommended in
NCAP. We published performance-based test procedures for these
technologies in 2008. As we are currently developing test procedures
for forward collision avoidance and mitigation, we have discussed and
shared our test procedures with other entities that have relevant test
procedures. For example, our test procedure for forward collision
avoidance and mitigation was presented to the World Forum for
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). Overall, we seek to
harmonize with other rating programs similar to NCAP where possible, as
long as the harmonization does not detract from the safety benefits
that would result from vehicle designs passing the NHTSA performance
test procedures.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Mitch Bainwol
Question 1. Approximately every 50 minutes, one life is lost to
drunk driving. Beginning in 2008, the auto industry entered a five-
year, cooperative program with the National Highway Safety
Administration (NHTSA) to invest in emerging technologies that would
stop drivers from operating a vehicle if drunk, such as Driver Alcohol
Detection System for Safety (DADSS) technology. The 2012 transportation
reauthorization law, MAP-21, provided funds to NHTSA to continue this
research. What funding levels are needed to adequately support this
research?
Answer. The current five-year cooperative program will culminate
late this year with each of the competing DADSS technologies (one
breath-based and one touch-based) being incorporated into a single
research vehicle for further evaluation. At this juncture, the DADSS
technologies have not fully achieved the key performance specifications
established that will be necessary to help garner consumer acceptance
of the technologies, i.e., speed, accuracy, and precision of
measurement. The gaps in performance are being quantified, and more
importantly, the research remaining to close these gaps will be
identified. At present, it is anticipated that an additional 5 years of
research and testing (including on-road, real-world testing and human
subject testing) is needed to be able to determine whether one or more
DADSS technologies can be commercialized. Until side by side testing
and validation of the two competing technologies in the research
vehicles are completed and the gaps in performance are quantified,
consistent funding of these research activities will be required. An
informed assumption is that at least $5 million a year through Fiscal
Year 2018 is needed.
Question 2. The designated five-year cooperative program between
the auto industry and NHTSA runs through 2013. What will the auto
industry's commitment to this technology be beyond 2013?
Answer. The automakers involved in the current cooperative effort
represent roughly 99 percent of new light vehicle sales in the U.S.
Their commitment to the current effort has been to provide intellectual
support (e.g., development of the DADSS performance specifications and
the current effort's 5-year research plan) in addition to funding
support. These automakers are encouraged that the current effort has
transformed a highly speculative idea into a robust technology concept
with potential for commercialization. The technical and public
acceptance challenges in commercializing the DADSS technology are
considerable, but the potential safety benefits are promising. An
analysis by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that
if driver blood alcohol concentrations were no greater than 0.08
percent--the legal limit in all 50 states--7,082 of the 10,228 alcohol-
impaired road user fatalities occurring in 2010 may have been
prevented. Given this, automakers remain committed to completing the
research needed to be able to determine whether one or more DADSS
technologies can be commercialized and accepted by the driving public.
Question 3. According to testimony, vehicle-to-vehicle technology
has the potential to prevent 80 percent of crashes, when fully
deployed. However, it will be more than 10 years before this technology
is deployed. What are the safety benefits of this technology during the
scale-up of deployment?
Answer. According to a NHTSA report, connected vehicles may have
the potential to address 80 percent of non-impaired crashes in the
light-vehicle fleet once sufficient market penetration has been
achieved (another 10+ years). In addition, we can anticipate
environmental benefits from the congestion mitigation opportunities and
potential fuel savings associated with the technology. Deployment on a
wide array of light duty and medium/heavy duty vehicles is possible. In
the interim, as the technology is implemented on a more piece-meal
basis, we will see benefits associated with greater warnings for
drivers of potential crash situations and which technologies which may
assist with avoiding an accident (such as application of brakes and
adjustable cruise controls).
Question 4. What can be done to take advantage of incremental
safety benefits?
Answer. One of the most important things that can be done to take
advantage of the incremental benefits associated with this technology
is to ensure that the spectrum band associated with this technology,
Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC), be highly secure and
protected from any potential harmful interference. Given the potential
life-saving applications of DSRC and inherent chaotic nature of roadway
travel it is imperative that the signals and warnings that DSRC systems
provide be free from harmful interference.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Jeffrey J. Owens
Question 1. According to testimony, vehicle-to-vehicle technology
has the potential to prevent 80 percent of crashes, when fully
deployed. However, it will be more than 10 years before this technology
is deployed. What are the safety benefits of this technology during the
scale-up of deployment?
Answer. Delphi believes the most effective active safety
technologies to prevent crashes are sensing devices such as radar and
cameras that can provide full 360 degree sensing coverage around the
vehicle with a high degree of accuracy. These sensors can warn drivers
of potential accidents and can allow vehicles to react when drivers do
not, regardless of whether the threat is another vehicle, pedestrian,
or other object.
The addition of vehicle to vehicle (V2V) technology is an
enhancement to these sensors that enables vehicles to share information
dynamically about their position, direction, and mass--not just to each
other but also to the surrounding traffic network. Use of V2V
technology independently (without vehicle sensors) would require that
all vehicles have the technology to be effective and to ``see'' each
other. V2V alone would not protect drivers from other vehicles without
V2V technology, nor would the systems work with pedestrians or other
moving objects.
The benefits that could be achieved with the implementation of
sensors such as radar and cameras would be to enable drivers to be
informed of potential collisions with any object or lane departure
event, and for the vehicle to react when the driver cannot. These
technologies, on the road today, can lead to measurable reductions in
collisions and related injuries and fatalities.
Question 2. What can be done to take advantage of incremental
safety benefits?
Answer. A roadblock to the widespread usage of advanced active
safety technology is consumer awareness. Although these technologies
have been on the road since 1999, relatively few vehicles are equipped
today with these features, despite their availability on multiple
vehicles and lower costs. The enhancement of today's NHTSA New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP) to include ratings for these crash avoidance
technologies would help to drive consumer awareness, giving drivers an
informed choice for their vehicle purchase. These ratings should be
clearly included on the vehicle Monroney label, along with consumer
information campaigns to inform the public of the benefits of these
life-saving technologies.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Dr. Peter F. Sweatman
Question 1. Despite many improvements in road safety in the U.S.,
the current safety level is far below the level of the best-performing
countries. For example, speed limiters are compulsory for heavy trucks
in Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, but there is
currently no such requirement in the U.S. In addition, while ignition
interlock technology is currently utilized in the U.S., ignition
interlocks are not required for all first-time drunk driving offenders
despite the fact the NTSB has recommended such a requirement.
Question 1a. Would a speed limiter ``top-speed'' requirement on
heavy trucks improve safety on our Nation's roads?
Question 1b. Would expanded use of ignition interlocks improve
safety on U.S. roads?
Answer. While it is true that the overall U.S. fatality rate (both
by population and by distance traveled) is higher than the best-
performing countries, we find some interesting variations when we
consider fatality rates for specific categories of vehicles such as
cars and heavy trucks. In terms of international comparisons, the U.S.
heavy truck fatality rate fares considerably better than the rate for
cars. This is partly because a relatively high proportion of U.S. heavy
truck travel occurs on high-standard divided roadways. Such roadways
have lower heavy truck crash rates than two-way undivided roads. So the
U.S.'s performance in heavy truck fatality rates is better than its
performance in passenger car crash rates, which represent the bulk of
the Nation's highway safety performance.
Having said that, technological means of controlling truck speed
would reduce heavy truck crash risks. Experience in other countries has
shown that the severity of heavy trucks crashes can be reduced when
speed limiters are compulsorily fitted. Such improvements will occur on
higher-speed roadways such as interstates. I would note that the
positive impact of a requirement to fit speed limiters would be reduced
somewhat by the fact that a significant number of the larger fleets
already voluntarily fit speed limiters, and overseas experience shows
some propensity to tamper with speed limiter settings. A speed limiter
requirement is therefore desirable, but would not have as high priority
as requirements for other safety technology, such as electronic
stability control, forward collision warning or collision mitigation
braking.
Alcohol impairment has a very significant impact on the U.S.
highway fatality rate. Not enough is being done to reduce the very
serious societal consequences of drink-driving. Experience in other
countries has shown that deaths and injuries caused by drink-driving
can be reduced through behavioral interventions, including media
campaigns and stringent, purposeful enforcement with very serious
consequences, even for first-time offenders. Technological
interventions, such as interlocks, have not yet been fully perfected in
the sense that the reliability may not be commensurate with the gravity
of the intervention for fleet-wide installation. If current-technology
interlocks were fitted to the majority of the U.S. car fleet, normal
automotive levels of reliability could result in many legitimate trips
being prevented, and hence significant consumer/public dissatisfaction.
However, it makes sense for drink-driving offenders to be required to
fit current-technology interlocks, regardless of the reliability issue.
Such a requirement would likely improve safety on U.S. roads.
Additionally, NHTSA and a group of automakers are currently
researching the potential for a much higher-performing interlock, which
could result in vastly improved capability and reliability, and could
therefore reduce or eliminate the chance for ``false-positives''. This
research should be continued, as it could have very significant benefit
for vehicle safety.
Question 2. According to testimony, vehicle-to-vehicle technology
has the potential to prevent 80 percent of crashes, when fully
deployed. However, it will be more than 10 years before this technology
is deployed.
Question 2a. What are the safety benefits of this technology during
the scale-up of deployment?
Question 2b. What can be done to take advantage of incremental
safety benefits?
Answer. The potential safety benefit for V2V is significant. As
such we should proceed swiftly and diligently with finalizing the
research and moving into a regulatory and deployment stage for V2V.
The effectiveness of nearly every safety technology is dependent on
its introduction curve and the sale of equipped new vehicles, and in
many regards V2V is no different. Of course, since it is a cooperative
technology, V2V effectiveness will follow a ``delayed'' curve. But this
delay will be largely overshadowed by the overall effectiveness of the
technology, and should not be a reason to stall or disrupt deployment.
The safety benefits of the technology at relatively low densities
of V2V-equipped vehicles are being probed in the Ann Arbor Safety Pilot
Model Deployment, where many thousands of useful interactions have been
generated with less than 3,000 equipped vehicles.
While the density of V2V-equipped vehicles in the traffic stream is
clearly a governing factor in the magnitude of the safety benefit,
other factors affect the rate of beneficial safety messages. In
situations where traffic streams interact, the rate of safety messages
increases exponentially with the density of equipped vehicles.
Having said that, we should not rely solely on the new-vehicle
fitment of V2V technology to provide the large safety benefits offered
by connected vehicle technology. We should be accelerating research
into deployment of Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) safety
through Vehicle Awareness Devices (VSDs), which act as a beacon for
other equipped vehicles to ``see'', and Aftermarket Safety Devices
(ASDs), which can provide warnings and information to the driver as
long as they are designed and installed properly. These devices can be
incorporated into many existing products, such as retrofitted
communications and navigation systems, and potentially even cell
phones. These devices, if proven to be effective for safety, could
provide a very short path to safety effectiveness. Additionally, these
devices can potentially provide safety applications and benefits for
vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists.
The deployment of retrofit and aftermarket devices in existing
vehicles is therefore a critical tool in accelerating the safety
benefits.
Importantly, there will be a need for government-supported efforts
to continually maximize and accelerate the benefits for the owners of
both equipped and retrofitted vehicles. These efforts need to include
vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), through large regional deployments,
and address the incidence and usefulness of information broadcast to
the vehicle. The fitment of equipment in the infrastructure is a
critical factor in accelerating safety benefits. And there is
exponential benefit to be found in selectively fitting equipment at
infrastructure ``black-spots'' such as high-accident-rate
intersections. The U.S. Government must accelerate the pace of V2I
research and take the lead to ensure the earliest deployment of
connected infrastructure.
As the rate of beneficial safety messages increases rapidly in
large regional deployments, we will be in a stronger position to design
more powerful V2V safety applications, and to more fully appreciate
their benefits. We will also begin to see whether community-based
influences could come into play. For example, we have found that
members of the Ann Arbor community see common cause in having their
vehicles fitted. Unlike all previous safety systems, V2V not only has
potential benefit for those who travel in your vehicle, but also for
every other vehicle you encounter in your community and out on the
highway.
Larger-scale regional deployments of V2V and V2I are needed to
bridge between model deployments, such as in Ann Arbor, and a national
deployment. Such regional deployments would benefit from utilizing
large company and government vehicle fleets, and should be enhanced
with roadside equipment in the infrastructure. Federal funding will be
needed to support the design and execution of such deployments,
including interoperability of equipment, promoting the uptake of
aftermarket devices, data collection and analysis, community outreach,
and the preparation of any additional standards, protocols and
incentives required to accelerate mainstream deployment.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Dr. John D. Lee
Question 1. According to testimony, vehicle-to-vehicle technology
has the potential to prevent 80 percent of crashes, when fully
deployed. However, it will be more than 10 years before this technology
is deployed. What are the safety benefits of this technology during the
scale-up of deployment?
Answer. Although the turnover of the U.S. automotive fleet delays
the full deployment of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure
technology for many years, substantial safety benefits might be seen
much earlier. Two factors might accelerate the safety benefits before
full-scale deployment:
(1) Aftermarket devices could make it feasible to equip existing
vehicles with some elements of vehicle-to-vehicle technology.
Just as aftermarket navigation and entertainment systems enable
drivers to upgrade their existing vehicles, aftermarket
vehicle-to-vehicle systems could provide drivers with advanced
technology before they purchase a new car. Even advances in
cellphone technology might serve to provide some features
associated with full deployment of vehicle-to-vehicle
technology, as seen in the Waze app, and in a recent
demonstration of how vehicle-to-bicycle alerts can be provided
through cellphones (Dozza, M., & Gustafsson, P. (2013).
BikeCOM--A cooperative safety application supporting cyclists
and drivers at intersections. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference
of Driver Distraction and Inattention, Gothenbrug, 4-6
September, 2013.).
(2) Substantial benefits of vehicle-to-vehicle technology accrue to
the traffic stream rather than the individual driver. The most
obvious beneficiary of vehicle-to-vehicle technology is the
driver who receives its warnings; however, the surrounding
drivers can benefit as well. A driver who brakes in response to
a vehicle-to-vehicle warning of a crash on the road ahead will
lead surrounding drivers to slow even through they might not
receive the warning. Likewise, a simulation of traffic showed
that when 20 percent of vehicles engaged adaptive cruise
control traffic jams were avoided. Not all cars need to have
the same technology for everyone to benefit. Davis, L. C.
(2004). Effect of adaptive cruise control systems on traffic
flow. Physical Review E, 69(6), 066110. doi:10.1103/
PhysRevE.69.066110.
Question 2. What can be done to take advantage of incremental
safety benefits?
Answer. (1) Evaluate and promote technology that complements the
traditional automotive model--technology incorporated by the automotive
manufactures--such as aftermarket technology and technology that can be
carried in on smart phones and similar devices.
(2) Evaluate and promote technology based on its benefit to both
the driver whose car is equipped and on the benefit to the surrounding
vehicles that are not equipped.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Mitch Bainwol
Question 1. In your testimony you state that connected vehicle
spectrum in the 5.9 gigahertz band must remain ``solely dedicated to
auto communications technologies.'' This does not leave open the
possibility that connected vehicles could share the spectrum with
unlicensed Wi-Fi, even if Wi-Fi devices are found not to cause
interference with connected vehicles. I believe, however, that the best
possible public policy outcome is if the engineers can find a way for
both technologies to co-exist in the 5.9 gigahertz band. If it turns
out that Wi-Fi will not interfere with connected vehicles, do you still
believe that Wi-Fi should not be allowed to operate in the 5.9 band?
Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposes to make
available an additional 195 MHz of spectrum for use by unlicensed
wireless devices. This would equate to a 35 percent increase in the
amount of spectrum currently allocated for such use. Approximately two-
thirds of this proposed increase would be achieved by opening the 5.4
GHz frequency band (5.35-5.47 GHz). The balance of this increase would
come from the 5.9 GHz band (5.85-5.925 GHz).
The 5.9 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis to Department of
Defense (DOD) radar systems for military surveillance and test range
instrumentation systems, fixed satellite (earth to space) uses by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of
Energy (DOE), and non-federal operations limited to Dedicated Short
Range Communication Service (DSRC) systems.
Given these critical safety and security uses, the Alliance
believes that the FCC should adopt a ``do no-harm'' strategy until
testing is complete. Auto manufacturers, suppliers and the Department
of Transportation (DOT) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on
research and development using DSRC systems to make connected vehicles
a reality and achieve the potential safety, mobility and environmental
benefits for the American transportation system, as discussed at the
hearing. At the same time, we recognize the potential economic benefits
from expanding wireless access; therefore, we are not opposed to
sharing the 5.9 GHz spectrum provided that can be accomplished without
harmful interference or channel congestion for safety-critical systems.
The Alliance's fundamental concern is that the timelines announced
by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) for testing for potential interference with these systems (mid-
2014) and the FCC for completing the 5.9 GHz rulemaking (end of 2013)
are out of sync. We agree with you that potential exists to achieve a
good public policy outcome both for vehicle safety and for expanded
wireless access, but the requisite testing must be completed, and any
outstanding issues must be resolved before a final rule is issued.