U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–767 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–279 

PAVING THE WAY FOR SELF-DRIVING VEHICLES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 14, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 14, 2017 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Peters ................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Moran .................................................................................. 31 

Statement of Senator Cortez Masto ....................................................................... 33 

Statement of Senator Gardner ............................................................................... 36 

Statement of Senator Young ................................................................................... 38 

Statement of Senator Inhofe ................................................................................... 39 

Statement of Senator Hassan ................................................................................. 41 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 43 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 44 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 46 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 47 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 49 

WITNESSES

Mitch Bainwol, President and Chief Executive Officer, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers ...................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Rob Csongor, Vice President and General Manager of Automotive Business, 

NVIDIA Corporation ............................................................................................ 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Colleen Sheehey-Church, National President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving .......................................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

John M. Maddox, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Center 

for Mobility ........................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

APPENDIX

Jacqueline S. Gillan, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 53 

Statement from American Car Rental Association ............................................... 74 

Statement from Continental ................................................................................... 76 

Statement from Property Casualty Insurers Association of America ................. 78 

Letter dated June 13, 2017 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill Nelson from 

Eric Meyhofer, Head of Advanced Technologies Group (ATG), Uber Technologies, Inc. ......................................................................................................... 79 

Article from Reuters dated March 29, 2016, entitled ‘‘Moody’s forecasts U.S. 

adoption of self-driving cars ‘several decades’ away ’’ by Reuters Staff .......... 83 

Letter dated June 13, 2017 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill Nelson from 

Electronic Privacy Information Center: Marc Rotenberg, EPIC President; 

Caitriona Fitzgerald, EPIC Policy Director; and Kim Miller, EPIC Policy 

Fellow .................................................................................................................... 84 

John Bozzella, President and CEO, Association of Global Automakers, Inc., 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 87 

Statement from the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies ...... 88 

Letter dated June 14, 2017 to Sen. John Thune and Sen. Bill Nelson from 

Consumer Watchdog: Harvey Rosenfield, Founder; John M. Simpson, Privacy Project Director; and Joan Claybrook, Former President, Public Citizen and Former NHTSA Administrator ............................................................ 90 

Page

IV 

Response to written question submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to: 

Mitch Bainwol ................................................................................................... 114 

Response to written question submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to: 

Rob Csongor ...................................................................................................... 115 

Response to written questions submitted to John M. Maddox by: 

Hon. Ron Johnson ............................................................................................. 115 

Hon. Brian Schatz ............................................................................................ 116 

Hon. Tammy Duckworth .................................................................................. 117 

(1) 

PAVING THE WAY FOR 

SELF-DRIVING VEHICLES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Wicker, Fischer, Moran, 

Heller, Inhofe, Capito, Gardner, Young, Cantwell, Klobuchar, 

Blumenthal, Markey, Booker, Udall, Peters, Baldwin, Hassan, and 

Cortez Masto. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. Before we begin this morning, our thoughts and 

prayers are with the members, staff, Capitol Police, and others who 

were at the congressional baseball practice this morning. Capitol 

Hill is something of a community, and while details are still coming in, we already know that this despicable act has affected people 

that we know and their families. 

I know that many of us in this room have already sent and/or 

received text messages or e-mails to and from friends and family 

that are checking in. So we obviously want to know what happened, but the well-being of our friends and colleagues, especially 

those wounded, are first in our minds. We’re also very grateful to 

the Capitol Police, who work diligently to protect us and, as I understand, saved many lives this morning. 

This morning, we’re here to talk about self-driving vehicles. Selfdriving vehicles have the potential to make transportation smarter, 

safer, and more accessible. A little over a year ago, we held the 

first hearing ever in Congress focusing on this technology and had 

the opportunity to see some of these new vehicles in action. 

Today, we’ll be discussing the great potential of this technology, 

but also the numerous policy questions we will need to address in 

order to facilitate the testing and safe deployment of these vehicles 

without delay. Self-driving vehicles are poised to bring enormous 

disruption to our transportation networks that will improve our 

lives and our society. Indeed, the CEO of General Motors has said 

that she envisions more change in the auto industry in the next 

five years than have occurred in the last 50. 

For many Americans, that change can’t some soon enough. In 

2015, over 35,000 people died in motor vehicle crashes in the 

2 

United States, or nearly 100 people per day. That includes car and 

truck drivers, passengers, motorcyclists, and pedestrians. Worldwide, we lose on average 3,500 people per day. 

With more than 90 percent of those deaths attributable to human 

error, self-driving vehicles—which, after all, can’t fall asleep, use 

drugs or alcohol, or get distracted by texting—have the potential to 

reduce these tragic numbers dramatically. Drunk driving, in particular, has been a significant challenge, and I appreciate Mothers 

Against Drunk Driving for being here today to discuss this issue. 

Self-driving vehicles also have the potential to improve mobility 

for many Americans and fundamentally change the way many of 

us get around. Offering a new means of accessible transportation, 

including for our nation’s seniors, and lessening congestion will improve productivity and efficiency in all of our lives. Strategy Analytics and Intel predict self-driving technology will enable a new 

global passenger economy worth $7 trillion by the year 2050, representing an incredible transformation of the world economy. 

Self-driving vehicles are no longer a dream of science fiction. The 

stepping stones to self-driving vehicles are already in cars on the 

road today. Technologies like automatic emergency braking and 

lane keeping are proving their worth. 

While technology challenges still exist, manufacturers are becoming increasingly confident that the technology for fully self-driving 

vehicles will be ready by 2021, just a few short years away. In fact, 

just last week, I rode in a Level 3 Audi A7 prototype. The company 

plans to release a Level 3 vehicle to the public next year. 

Manufacturers are asking for regulatory certainty now so that 

when the time comes, they will be able to deploy these vehicles. 

These great changes are coming fast, and the Federal Government 

must be ready to keep pace. As other countries devote significant 

attention and effort to stimulating this technology, strong Federal 

leadership will be necessary to maintain our position as a global 

leader of this innovation. There are several hurdles to achieving 

this goal, and Senator Peters, Ranking Member Nelson, and I are 

working together on possible legislative solutions. In fact, just yesterday, we released principles for bipartisan legislation to guide 

this effort. 

The transportation laws and regulations currently on the books 

did not contemplate the concept of self-driving vehicles. Current 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not address automated 

technologies, and in some cases directly conflict with them. We are 

looking for ways to address these conflicts in dated rules without 

weakening the important vehicle safety protections they provide. 

We also must be careful to avoid picking winners and losers in 

this space. Self-driving vehicles may employ different technologies, 

and their deployment may follow varying business models. So it is 

important for Congress not to favor one path before the market figures out what really works best. 

While we look for ways to help self-driving vehicles get on the 

road quickly, we need to make sure that safety remains our number one priority. Industry must find ways to show the technology 

is safe and reliable to address public skepticism. 

The Federal Government must also recognize that it does not 

have all the answers. Instead, it must seek outside technology exVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
3 

pertise to begin the hard work of updating existing standards and 

setting new rules. As I’ve said before, government needs to challenge itself to overcome the traditional 20th century conception and 

regulation of a car and a human driver. 

AVs will, over time, bring changes to jobs, insurance, law enforcement, infrastructure, and many other things we cannot yet 

foresee. Similar to when the car was first invented, these challenges are not insurmountable. I remain committed to a thoughtful 

discussion with today’s panelists, who share my goal to maintain 

American innovation leadership and make safety paramount. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee 

as we move forward with potential legislation, and I now turn to 

our Ranking Member for the hearing today, Senator Peters from 

Michigan, for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Chairman Thune. It’s an honor to 

be here, and I appreciate the opportunity to sit in for Senator Nelson. Unfortunately, Senator Nelson needed to attend to some other 

matters and could not be here. But I know he is very much committed to this issue, and I appreciate him working with you, Mr. 

Chairman, to bring this hearing together. 

I also appreciate the opportunity to work very closely with you 

and your staff, who have been intimately involved in these sometimes very complex issues, to bring this technology forward. I’m 

looking forward to, hopefully, introducing bipartisan legislation 

very soon to create a space for this incredible innovative technology 

to move forward while also being very concerned about safety as 

we move down that path. 

As Chairman Thune mentioned, this technology is without question one of the most transformative technologies to come out of the 

auto industry probably since the first car came off of the assembly 

line. I believe it is in every way equal to that innovation, we know 

what happened when that first automobile came off of the assembly line. It literally transformed America. It created the American 

middle class. It changed the places where we live, how we get from 

point A to point B. It created new industries, creating jobs all 

throughout the economy and driving incredible innovation in the 

process. 

That’s going to happen again here at the beginning of the 21st 

century, and as the Senator representing the great state of Michigan, the center of the auto industry, it definitely brings great pride 

to me and fellow Michiganders. When we think about this history, 

it’s interesting to think that in the beginning of the 20th century, 

it was the automobile that really propelled incredible innovation in 

the economy, and, once again, it’s going to be the automobile that 

moves innovation forward in the 21st century. 

I say that because the technology necessary to move these vehicles through a very complex environment on the street with all 

sorts of potential hazards will mean incredible computer power, 

particularly developments in machine learning and artificial intelligence, and I look forward to hearing from the panel as to where 

they see this technology moving beyond automobiles. What is hapVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
4 

pening in the auto industry today will have transformative effects 

in nearly every industry. Certainly, safety is paramount. If we can 

save the lives of the nearly 40,000 people dying on our highways, 

that’s perhaps the most significant factor of this great technology. 

I will have further comments entered into the record, if I may, 

Chairman Thune, because of my unexpected assuming of this position here with an opening statement. We will have additional comments put into the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

When Henry Ford first installed a moving assembly line in a Michigan factory in 

1913, he couldn’t have predicted how this technology would transform American mobility, help to create the American middle class, create new industries and jobs, and 

drive innovation for the next several decades. Self-driving vehicles have the potential to be the next transformative technological development in the automotive industry, and perhaps the most significant since the assembly line over 100 years ago. 

As a senator from Michigan, I take great pride in representing a state that was the 

center of the automotive revolution in the early 1900s and which promises to be the 

center of innovation in the self-driving vehicle revolution in the early part of the 

2000s. 

Self-driving vehicles represent the proverbial ‘‘moon shot’’ of the automotive industry. They have the potential to save tens of thousands of the more than 35,000 

lives lost each year on the road, the vast majority of which are caused by driver 

error. They will provide mobility for those who cannot drive themselves to the grocery store or to a doctor’s appointment, greatly improving the quality of life of millions of Americans and making them less dependent on assistance for routine travel. 

The development of self-driving vehicles will require increases in computing power, 

development of advanced machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies, 

and increased cybersecurity. These technologies have the potential to impact a broad 

number of industries beyond just the automotive industry, and could lead to new 

products and jobs that we haven’t even imagined yet. 

I believe that it is critical that we ensure American leadership as the center for 

automotive innovation in the world. We must act now to solidify our Nation’s position as the world leader in the future of mobility. Congress can help by making sure 

that efforts to develop self-driving vehicles aren’t unnecessarily delayed or deterred 

by regulations that were designed for a different generation of automobiles, while 

remaining primarily focused on the safety of passengers. 

I appreciate the opportunity to work with Senator Thune and his staff on this 

matter. We plan to introduce bipartisan legislation that will allow self-driving technology to continue moving forward while ensuring that it is done in a safe, responsible, and secure way. The current regulatory regime requires that carmakers certify that their vehicles comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 

which assume the presence of a driver and refer to components like steering wheels, 

brake pedals, and rearview mirrors—all of which may be unnecessary in a self-driving vehicle. Left unchanged, these standards would make it challenging for manufacturers to test and deploy these potentially life-saving vehicles, threatening America’s position as the global leader in automotive innovation. 

Yesterday, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and I released principles 

for bipartisan legislation that will address these problems. This legislation will create a space for innovators to develop new self-driving vehicle designs while 

prioritizing innovation and remaining tech-neutral, allowing for a variety of different forms or technologies in the vehicles of the future. It will remove barriers to 

development that exist today, while working towards a more comprehensive set of 

standards as the industry develops and matures. I greatly appreciate the constructive efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member throughout the process of developing this legislation, and I look forward to its introduction. 

A key part of the process of developing new safety standards and industry norms 

will be research, development, and testing of self-driving vehicles in more realistic 

environments. This will require proving grounds like the American Center for Mobility in Ypsilanti, Michigan that can simulate the variety of conditions that these 

vehicles will have to deal with, including busy streets, weather conditions, pedestrians, and more. I believe that public-private partnerships between the Department 

of Transportation, industry, academia, and proving grounds will help ensure continVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
5 

ued American leadership in innovation while speeding the process of developing 

safety and testing standards. 

America’s great innovation engine is poised to lead the world into a new age of 

mobility with the development of self-driving vehicles. Michigan’s automotive manufacturers and suppliers, excellent educational institutions, and now the American 

Center for Mobility will be at the center of this disruptive technological revolution. 

I look forward to continuing to work with this committee and Chairman Thune to 

develop legislation that will help transform mobility and create jobs in Michigan 

and around the country. 

Senator PETERS. I want to take this opportunity to introduce one 

witness, and then Chairman Thune will introduce the other three 

witnesses. 

As I mentioned, my home state of Michigan is definitely leading 

the way in innovation, and we have an incredible concentration of 

both automotive industry manufacturers and suppliers. We have 

engineering talent and research and development facilities, and I 

think these are really the focal point of this technological development. 

That’s why I’m honored to welcome to the Committee Mr. John 

Maddox, who is the President and CEO of the American Center for 

Mobility in Ypsilanti, Michigan. This facility is a U.S. Department 

of Transportation designated automated vehicle proving ground 

and one that will play an essential role in testing and validating 

the technologies powering connected and self-driving cars. 

John brings a suite of unique experiences to his leadership at the 

American Center for Mobility. John started his career in automotive safety engineering in NHTSA’s Office of Defect Investigation and later served as Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety 

Research from 2008 to 2012. Originally from Baltimore, John has 

strong ties to Michigan, living there with his wife, Magda, and son, 

Ben, and working at several companies, Ford Motor Company, 

Volkswagen Group, as well as now at the University of Michigan’s 

Mobility Transformation Center. 

John, we’re lucky to have you testify today. Because of the expertise of the American Center for Mobility, we’ll definitely save thousands and thousands of lives every year and fundamentally change 

the way we get from place to place in the future. Thank you for 

sharing your expertise, and I know the entire Committee looks forward to your testimony today. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Peters, and I’ll mention the 

other panelists we have before us today: Mitch Bainwol, who is 

President and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 

Incorporated; Mr. Rob Csongor, who is Vice President and General 

Manager of automobile business for NVIDIA Corporation; and Ms. 

Colleen Sheehey-Church, who is the National President of Mothers 

Against Drunk Driving. 

We want to welcome you all here as well and appreciate you taking the time to inform this committee in our deliberations with 

your thoughts about this important subject. So we’ll start on my 

left and your right with Mr. Bainwol, and if you could confine your 

oral remarks to five minutes or as close as possible, that will give 

us time to ask questions. 

So, Mr. Bainwol, please proceed. Welcome. 

6 

STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS 

Mr. BAINWOL. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Senator Peters, and 

members of the Committee. I testify here today on behalf of auto 

manufacturers who built 80 percent of the cars on the road today 

and who are investing billions of dollars in automation. 

I’ve got to confess I’m a bit distracted by the events that occurred 

earlier. Our thoughts and prayers are with the members and the 

staff and the security. It puts everything into perspective. 

Let me start by commenting on the bipartisan principles. I just 

want to say thank you. It is a wonderful first start. It frames the 

debate and the discussion perfectly. So it’s a great start and we’re 

heartened by your leadership. 

I’d like to make five broad points as this Committee continues its 

work to craft legislation. Point one: four independent trends are 

emerging to dramatically reshape mobility as we know it—increase 

in automation, connectivity, ride sharing, and electrification. The 

move toward autonomy during this past decade has accelerated, 

with Driver Assist that offers important automated functionality, 

like adaptive cruise control and active lane keeping. The more consumers experience Driver Assist, the more they are favorable toward full automation. 

Trend two is connectivity, characterized both by growing built-in 

Internet access, as well as communication between cars and between cars and infrastructure. Trend three is the various forms of 

ride sharing. While we think of Uber and Lyft, Car2Go, Maven, 

Chariot, and ReachNow, there are many new entrants in this 

space, all predicated on the notion that car sharing can be more efficient use of a high-cost asset than personal ownership. 

And, finally, the fourth trend is electrification. Electrification has 

been adopted more slowly than we had expected and environmentalists hoped, but as range increases and battery prices fall, 

the electric power train will become more competitive. We’ll see a 

tipping point, particularly as business-owned, self-driving ride 

sharing fleets emerge. 

Point two: the future is here but will take time to fully kick in. 

Few debate where we’re headed, but there’s significant debate 

about the length and nature of the journey. The first automated 

driving system, so-called SAE Levels 1 and 2, are on sale today. 

Level 3 will be for sale, as Senator Thune indicated, in about a 

year or so. Introduction of Level 4 probably will begin before 2021, 

but retail sales to consumers of Levels 4 and 5 is unlikely to occur 

before 2025. 

Given vehicle cost and how long cars last today, about 20 percent 

of the cars on the road now were built before 2000. AVs are not 

anticipated to be the majority of the fleet for about three decades, 

and ubiquity won’t come for another 10 years, so 2055, ubiquity. 

It’s equally tricky to predict the percentage of VMT that will be by 

personally owned vehicles versus ride hailing services, but we know 

this. Change is coming rapidly. 

Point three: AVs will usher in a mobility era of profound social 

good. Thousands of lives every year can be saved because technology, while never perfect, can correct for human errors responVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
7 

sible for so much loss on our roadways. AVs also offer huge quality 

of life advantages, access for the disabled and elderly and time 

saved for everyone. And, crucially, AVs offer massive net economic 

benefits, lower insurance premiums, lower fuel cost, increased personal productivity, faster commerce, and better land use. 

Yes, AVs will generate disruptions and challenges. No transition 

is ever easy, but accelerating this transition should be our goal. 

Point four: the rate of technology innovation is faster than the 

rate of regulation and also confuses traditional regulatory responsibilities. The last NHTSA administrator, Mark Rosekind, often 

said government had to be nimble and flexible—he always said 

nimble and flexible—because the regulatory process could not keep 

up with technological change, and he was right. The foundation of 

the Federal AV policy issued last September was fundamentally 

sound, relying on guidance rather than strict rules and seeking to 

clarify the division of responsibilities between the Federal Government and the states. 

With conventional vehicles, the states regulated the driver and 

the feds regulated the vehicle. When the car becomes the driver, 

regulatory chaos ensues. A patchwork of different requirements 

across states is a recipe for delayed deployment and delayed realization of the enormity of the benefits that autonomy offers. There 

are now 70 bills in 30 states addressing AVs. So Federal leadership 

and clear rules are vital. 

Fifth and final point: given the enormity of benefit to the social 

good, the key question for this Committee is how to forge public 

policy that optimizes the safe deployment of these vehicles. So we 

have three suggestions toward that end. 

First, pass legislation significantly expanding the number of 

FMVSS exemptions NHTSA can grant to facilitate more robust 

real-world testing, generating the data necessary to refine the technology before wide scale deployment. Second, pass legislation clarifying Federal versus State responsibilities to foster innovation by 

creating uniformity through a single Federal framework. And, 

third, work with DOT to refresh and modernize existing safety 

standards to remove obstacles to the safe deployment of automated 

vehicles. 

The fact that we’re here today having this conversation is tremendously encouraging. Auto makers are eager to work with you 

to achieve the remarkable public good within our grasp when we 

combine the brilliance of innovation with responsible and forwardleaning public policy. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bainwol follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL, PRESIDENT

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the Commerce Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on pathways to deployment of 

self-driving vehicles and related technologies. I am here on behalf of twelve iconic 

manufacturers who produced 80 percent of the cars now on American roads and are 

investing billions of dollars annually on R&D to improve fuel efficiency and enhance 

safety. Self-driving technologies have the potential to do both. I would like to say 

from the outset that the Alliance and its members are deeply appreciative that this 

Committee, and its House counterpart, have invested so much time and focus on 

8 

1 NHTSA 2015 Quick Facts 

the various issues implicated by self-driving cars. We are grateful for your interest 

in our views and want to continue being collaborative partners in the process. 

Although the automotive sector is highly competitive, we are unified in recognizing the transformative impact that self-driving technologies will have on society 

and the importance of Federal leadership in removing barriers to their safe development and deployment. 

Unfortunately, we are all familiar with government statistics regarding highway 

fatalities: 35,092 people died in traffic crashes in 2015 1 an increase over 2014. Preliminary results for 2016 show another increase. This is a disturbing trend. 

The 2015 increase in fatalities is a 7 percent increase from the prior year. The 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) early estimates for calendar year 2016 suggest a possible 10 percent increase. These numbers are concerning and warrant attention, especially since 94 percent of car crashes are attributable to human behavior or error (see attached charts). These figures are particularly relevant to today’s hearing and the role that self-driving technologies can play 

in possibly reducing overall crashes and fatalities. 

I would like to make five broad points to frame the issue and then close with 

three recommendations for the Committee to consider as it works to craft bipartisan 

legislation to help spur additional technological and safety advances. 

Point 1—Four trends are merging to dramatically reshape mobility as we know 

it: increasing automation, connectivity, ride sharing and electrification. These trends 

are mutually reinforcing but not mutually dependent. The move toward autonomy 

during this past decade has accelerated significantly—with advanced driver assist 

systems that offer important features—like adaptive cruise control and active lane 

keeping. Effectively, these technologies have a multiplier impact: the more consumers experience driver assist systems, the more excited they become about the 

prospect of self-driving technologies. 

The Alliance has conducted several public opinion surveys that show the 

generational shift that is emerging with acceptance of these technologies. A sample 

is provided below: 

Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of those under 29 years of age are open to selfdriving technology, including 23 percent who view the technology as ‘‘awesome.’’ 

Only 5 percent of people over 65 years of age think the technology is ‘‘awesome,’’ 

and almost a third believe self-driving technologies are a ‘‘terrible idea’’—three 

times higher than the views of those under 29 years of age. But, importantly, experience with driver assists has a profound impact on attitudes. Drivers who have cars 

with at least two driver assists are dramatically more favorable (63–35) about autonomy than those who have none (43–54). Thus, as these technologies make their 

way into the national fleet, consumer acceptance will grow materially. 

Trend two is connectivity—characterized by growing technological capabilities that 

improve the driving experience, vehicle performance and safety. Trend three is ride 

sharing—and while we think of companies like Uber, Lyft, Car2Go, Chariot, Maven 

and ReachNow to name a few, there are a huge number of new entrants in this 

space, all predicated on the idea that in certain instances car sharing and ride hailing is a more efficient use of a high cost asset versus personal ownership. Finally, 

trend four is electrification. Adoption of electrification has been slower than some 

predicted and other experts hoped—including in California. However, we expect that 

as range increases and battery costs fall, EV powertrains will become more competiVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE

614BAINW1.eps
9 

2 IHS data compiled by the Auto Alliance 

tive with internal combustion engines. Other coming market forces, like self-driving 

ride share fleets, may further spur electric vehicle deployment. We will see a tipping 

point—we just do not know when this will occur. 

Point 2—For self-driving technologies, the future is here but will take a while to 

be fully realized. Few debate where we are headed. However, there is significant debate about the length and even nature of this journey. Keep in mind, even small 

introductions of self-driving technologies can reduce fatalities and traffic congestion. 

The first driving automation systems—so called SAE Levels 1 and 2—are on sale 

today. Introduction of Levels 3, 4, and 5 self-driving technologies, or Highly Automated Vehicles (HAVs), has yet to begin. Level 3 features, such as automated driving in freeway traffic jams, are expected to be introduced soon, perhaps within a 

year. Level 4 geo-fenced self-driving vehicles that can only be operated by an Automated Driving System will probably begin around 2021. But, retail sales to consumers of so-called Level 5 vehicles that can operate anywhere a person can drive 

a conventional vehicle today is unlikely to happen until around 2025 or after. Given 

how much vehicles cost and how long they last—more than 20 percent of cars on 

the road today were produced before 2000 2—vehicles equipped with Level 5 systems 

will likely not be a majority of the fleet for three more decades. Ubiquity is not projected to occur for at least four decades largely due to the fact that over 260 million 

light duty vehicles are registered in the U.S. It is also difficult to predict the percentage of vehicle miles traveled in personally owned cars versus ride hailing services. But we do know this: change is coming—and it is coming rapidly. 

Point 3—Self-driving vehicles will usher in a mobility era that offers profound social benefits. Self-driving technologies will potentially save thousands of American 

lives annually, addressing a large portion of roadway fatalities and crashes associated with human error. Cars with self-driving features also offer huge quality of life 

benefits—access for the disabled and elderly; time saved by being driven rather than 

driving so the commuting time can be spent on more productive activities; and the 

increased freedom that comes from quicker trips due to less congestion. Moreover, 

these technologies offer massive economic benefits—less congestion, fewer injuries 

and medical claims, lower fuel costs, increased personal productivity, and better 

land use. The impact on cities may well be enormous. New communities and municipalities are eager to modernize their mobility patterns and hunger to learn where 

new mobility options are headed so they can begin the infrastructure build-out that 

could take a decade to complete. They want to prepare for tomorrow, today. The 

Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has a long history of understanding the need for and benefits related to uniformity as a building block for innovation—just look at the railroad, aviation, telecommunication sectors and the Internet—all of which have spurred tremendous innovation, social benefits and U.S. leadership. 

Point 4—The rate of technology is faster than the rate of regulation and also confuses traditional regulatory responsibilities. Self-driving vehicle technologies will 

generate disruptions and challenges; no transition is ever easy. However, this is a 

transition government and this Committee in particular should seek to accelerate, 

because the greater societal good is clear. 

The last NHTSA Administrator, Mark Rosekind, was fond of saying that government must be nimble and flexible because it is difficult for the regulatory process 

to keep up with the rapid pace of innovation. Furthermore, not enough data is in 

hand to initiate the rulemaking process to create new standards for self-driving vehicles. If NHTSA were to prematurely set rules today, it would stifle innovation. 

The foundation of the Federal Automated Vehicle Policy (FAVP) that the Department of Transportation released last September is sound—relying on overarching 

guidance rather than rigid rules and seeking to clarify the division of responsibilities between states and the Federal Government. Nevertheless, additional Federal 

leadership is required here. 

With conventional vehicles, the states regulate the driver and the Federal Government regulates the vehicle. This division of responsibility still generally makes 

sense today for self-driving vehicle technologies, especially since a patchwork of differing safety and performance standards or other impediments from state to state, 

and even city to city, is a recipe for delayed deployment and realization of the safety 

and mobility benefits these technologies offer. Take for instance the fact that so far 

this year, there have been 70 different legislative proposals in 30 states that address 

self-driving vehicles. As we meet today, the U.S. lacks a critical uniform national 

framework to advance these technologies as was established before in the development of other key innovations. 

10 

Federal leadership and clear rules of the road are essential, especially to underscore NHTSA’s authority to issue nationwide safety and performance regulations for 

motor vehicles. America is the true innovation leader in this field. It is in the national interest to protect that advantage. More importantly, members of the Auto 

Alliance share the belief that lives could be lost and that safety improvements will 

be delayed without your help. 

Point 5—The key question this Committee must ask—is how to use public policy 

to optimize the safe deployment of these vehicles and their promise of social good, 

while continuing to let innovation spur economic growth? 

Here are three recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: Pass legislation significantly expanding the number and duration of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) exemptions 

NHTSA can grant under the Safety Act. There are existing safety standards 

that serve as direct barriers to the deployment of self-driving vehicles. Without 

providing NHTSA expanded authority to grant exemptions from these standards, developers will not be able to deploy the technology at a scale necessary 

to collect more robust real-world data to inform future regulatory action. 

Recommendation 2: Direct NHTSA to collect the data and information needed 

to promptly refresh and modernize the FMVSS to facilitate the safe deployment 

of self-driving vehicles. The Agency should commence such rulemaking without 

delay after the necessary data is collected. The existing FMVSS for conventional 

vehicles have served the public well. Because they were intended for vehicles 

with human drivers, however, they are ill-suited for vehicles with self-driving 

technologies. Alliance members appreciate the need for safety standards and 

also believe the process to modernize them for self-driving vehicles needs to be 

informed by data generated from increased exemptions. 

Recommendation 3: Pass legislation clarifying Federal versus state regulatory 

roles to facilitate innovation and the expeditious deployment of life-saving selfdriving technologies. This will provide certainty for all stakeholders in this area 

and ensure that the United States remains the leader in self-driving innovation. 

We support Federal clarity that will remove or eliminate impediments to the 

testing, development, and deployment of self-driving vehicles—particularly any 

state laws or regulations related to the design or performance of these vehicles. 

We recognize and continue to support the important role states play in insurance, licensure, and traffic laws and enforcement. However, Congress and this 

Committee should be aware that state and local laws could still unduly burden 

or restrict the use of self-driving vehicles in the future. 

Providing Federal clarity on rules governing automated motor vehicle design, 

performance and safety does not mean there will be a vacuum in oversight of 

the development and deployment of the technology for both automakers and 

new entrants. NHTSA has broad enforcement authority under existing statutes 

and regulations to address current and emerging automated safety technologies. 

As evidence, look no further than the Enforcement Bulletin for Emerging Technologies that NHTSA published in concert with the FAVP last September. That 

document, which is still operative, outlines NHTSA’s authorities and how they 

apply to self-driving technology including software, hardware, sensors, GPS and 

vehicle electronics. For example, NHTSA recently used its extensive investigatory authorities with an aftermarket self-driving technology company named— 

Comma.ai—to ensure it was compliant with regulations before product could be 

offered for sale. 

The fact that we are all here today having this conversation is tremendously encouraging. I would like to reiterate the Alliance’s and its members’ appreciation of 

the Committee’s work and leadership to date and indicate our eagerness to continue 

being a collaborative, thoughtful partner. The Alliance and its members look forward to providing constructive feedback on your ideas with a view towards passing 

bipartisan legislation. We can achieve remarkable public good when we marry the 

brilliance of innovation with responsible and forward leaning public policy. 

Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions. 

11 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bainwol. 

Mr. Csongor? 

STATEMENT OF ROB CSONGOR, VICE PRESIDENT 

AND GENERAL MANAGER OF AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS, 

NVIDIA CORPORATION 

Mr. CSONGOR. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Senator Nelson, distinguished of the Committee—I’m sorry, Senator Peters. My name 

is Rob Csongor. I’m Vice President and General Manager of 

NVIDIA’s automotive business. 

NVIDIA is one of the world’s leading computer technology companies. We’re headquartered in Silicon Valley with more than 

10,000 employees across the country and worldwide. I appreciate 

your invitation to give testimony today on the important subject of 


614AUTO1.eps 614AUTO2.eps
12 

self-driving. In particular, I’m grateful for the opportunity to introduce you to the breakthrough work NVIDIA is doing in artificial 

intelligence. 

Along with hundreds of our partners, we believe AI is the new 

computing model, the game changer that makes autonomous vehicles possible. By understanding how AI works, we can achieve better regulatory decisions and accelerate our progress to what we all 

want, deployment of safe, self-driving vehicles that will save lives. 

NVIDIA’s computer innovation is focused at the intersection of 

visual processing, high-performance computing, and artificial intelligence. It’s a unique combination that’s at the heart of the world’s 

next-generation computer systems. This new form of computing is 

based on our invention of the GPU, or graphics processing unit, 

nearly two decades ago. The GPU was originally designed to power 

computer graphics, but it has evolved into a powerful computer 

brain that processes massive amounts of data at extraordinary 

speed. 

Ten years ago, researchers began to use GPUs to accelerate 

mathematically intense applications, such as mapping the human 

genome and predicting weather. More recently, scientists working 

in a new field of AI called ‘‘deep learning’’ discovered that GPUs 

are critical to creating algorithms that enable computers to learn 

from experience and data, similar to how the human brain works. 

In a short period of time, AI algorithms rapidly outperformed code 

written manually by programmers. 

As a result, deep learning has become a strategic imperative 

across many industries. Consumer services from companies like 

Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Facebook powered by our technology are now available to millions. In the healthcare industry, AI 

is accelerating the search for cancer cures. For scientists and researchers, NVIDIA delivers supercomputing solutions used at the 

Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the National 

Institutes of Health, among other organizations. 

The automotive world is next. A self-driving car is an immense 

computational challenge. The car must be able to detect and perceive objects everywhere around it in motion and in diverse weather and lighting conditions. The car must determine its precise position, plan safe paths from one point to another, and then drive 

while navigating complex situations such as construction zones. We 

simply cannot get there with conventional programming science. AI 

technology can solve these problems. 

To this end, NVIDIA has created an open computing platform 

comprised of powerful processors which are optimized for AI in 

both the car and the data center. In addition, NVIDIA is developing a full open software stack that the automotive ecosystem can 

build around. 

Today, we are working with virtually every automaker on research and development of advanced self-driving vehicles using AI. 

Our technology is being used by more than 225 automotive companies worldwide, including Audi, Tesla, Toyota, Volvo, Mercedes, 

and others. The Audi A7 that you took a ride in, Senator Thune, 

is based on our technology. 

We’re now at the point where we can create AI systems that 

have levels of perception and performance far beyond humans and, 

13 

importantly, do not get distracted, fatigued, or impaired. Much like 

humans gain knowledge through a lifetime of experience, AI systems improve over time with additional training data and testing. 

An AI system works by training a deep neural network with 

large amounts of data in a data center, monitoring and testing accuracy. Once validated, the car is updated with new algorithms 

over the air, like any modern computer or mobile device. The car 

runs the algorithms on real road conditions. The results are then 

sent back to the data center, where the new data can be used to 

retrain and improve the algorithms. And then the cycle continues, 

making the entire fleet better with each iteration. 

Our methodology along with our partners will combine multiple 

layers of testing in a data center, on proving grounds, and on public roads. In addition, leveraging NVIDIA’s experience in visual 

computing, we can use computer simulation to accelerate the training and testing process. 

So, in conclusion, we believe new regulations are necessary, but, 

clearly, there are opportunities to streamline development and testing. Ideally, we would be able to test cars and collect diverse data 

from any state. The patchwork of different regulations across regions hampers that. It would be enormously beneficial to have a 

unified set of regulations across all states. 

It would also be constructive to ensure the standards for compliance are set correctly. The bar we are comparing against is a 

human driver. A system that is significantly safer than a human 

driver can save lives once deployed. Conversely, unrealistic compliance targets runs the risk of costing lives. And, finally, the deployment of a fleet on real roads collecting lots of data is the path to 

achieving safety for the entire fleet. 

Self-driving holds the promise to change our lives. Through our 

inventions, our research, and the incredible work of development 

partners innovating on our technology, NVIDIA believes this promise is achievable. We look forward to working with this committee, 

the Department of Transportation, NHTSA, and other groups to 

ensure the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles through gamechanging technology paired with effective policy and regulation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to tell you of our work. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Csongor follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RON CSONGOR, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER

OF AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS, NVIDIA CORPORATION

Thank you, Chairman Thune, Senator Nelson and distinguished members of the 

Committee. 

I appreciate your invitation to give testimony today on the important subject of 

self-driving vehicle technology. 

My name is Rob Csongor. I am vice president and general manager of NVIDIA’s 

Automotive business. NVIDIA is one of the world’s leading computer technology 

companies, headquartered in Silicon Valley, with more than 10,000 employees 

around the country and the world. 

NVIDIA is focused on computer innovation at the intersection of visual processing, high performance computing, and artificial intelligence or AI—a unique combination at the heart of the world’s next-generation computer systems. Our work 

has pioneered a supercharged form of computing relied on by the world’s most demanding computer users including scientists, engineers, designers, and artists. 

This form of computing is based on our invention nearly two decades ago of the 

GPU or graphics processing unit. The GPU was originally designed to power comVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
14 

puter graphics, the pixels on our computer screens, but it has evolved into a powerful computer brain that processes massive amounts of data at extraordinary speed. 

Ten years ago, researchers began to use GPUs to accelerate mathematically intense applications, such as mapping the human genome and predicting weather. 

More recently, scientists working in a new field of AI called deep learning, discovered that GPUs are critical to creating algorithms that enable computers to learn 

from experience and data, similar to how the human brain works. In a short period 

of time, AI algorithms rapidly outperformed code written manually by programmers. 

As a result, deep learning has become a strategic imperative for companies across 

many industries. 

Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Facebook use our AI technology in thousands of 

consumer applications. In the healthcare industry AI is accelerating the search for 

cancer cures. For scientists and researchers, NVIDIA delivers supercomputing solutions used at the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the National Institutes of Health among other organizations. Our nation’s fastest supercomputer, at Oak Ridge National Lab, is powered by over 18,000 NVIDIA GPUs. 

And we are working with them to upgrade the system later this year to our newest 

processors, which should help the United States recapture the title of the world’s 

fastest supercomputer. 

Self-driving is an immense computational challenge. The car must be able to detect and perceive many objects, determine its precise position, plan safe paths from 

one point to another, and then drive while navigating complex situations. AI is the 

new breakthrough in computing that can solve these problems, and NVIDIA is focused on delivering this technology. 

To this end, NVIDIA has created an open computing platform comprised of powerful processors in both the car and the data center, as well as a full, open software 

stack that carmakers and the ecosystem are building on. 

Today, we are working with virtually every automaker on research and development of advanced self-driving vehicles using AI. Our technology is being used by 

more than 225 automotive companies worldwide. Audi, Tesla, Toyota, Volvo, and 

Mercedes have announced they will deploy vehicles using our technology. 

We are now at the point where we can create AI systems that have levels of perception and performance far beyond humans, and importantly, do not get distracted, 

fatigued or impaired. 

Much like humans gain knowledge through experience, AI systems improve over 

time with additional training data and testing. 

The ability to create and test new features and functions, then securely update 

the car over the air like a smartphone or personal computer, enables us to quickly 

provide cars with safer algorithms and add more autonomous capabilities once they 

are proven. 

Borrowing from our expertise in visual computing, we can use computer simulation to test challenging conditions like snow or blinding sun, as well as potentially 

hazardous situations without putting anyone in harms way. Our methodology, along 

with our partners, will combine multiple types of testing—in a data center, on proving grounds, on the road, and in computer simulations. 

While we are working with our partners in industry to develop these technologies, 

NVIDIA looks forward to working with this Committee, the Department of Transportation, and NHTSA to ensure the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles. 

With safety as the top priority, we believe new regulations are necessary. But we 

also believe there are opportunities to facilitate development and testing for companies developing these solutions. Safe, robust AI algorithms are improved through 

the collection of large amounts of data. Ideally, we would be able to test fleets across 

all states with their diverse driving conditions. A patchwork of different regulations 

in different regions hampers development and progress. It would be enormously 

beneficial to have a unified set of regulations across all states. 

Together, as industry and government, we will work to safely and expeditiously 

bring autonomous vehicles to market and realize their enormous benefits: saving 

lives, improving traffic flow, increasing productivity, and providing mobility to the 

elderly, the blind and others who do not have it today. We are committed to this 

important mission and to driving the safe development and deployment of autonomous vehicles in the United States and the world. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to answering any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Csongor. 

Next up is Ms. Sheehey-Church. 

15 

STATEMENT OF COLLEEN SHEEHEY-CHURCH, NATIONAL 

PRESIDENT, MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman 

Thune, Senator Peters, and members of the Committee. On behalf 

of millions of drunk driving victims across the country, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today and really be a witness on the 

critical issue of self-driving cars. You and the Committee are to be 

commended for your leadership on highway safety. 

Like so many others before me, I came to Mothers Against 

Drunk Driving after my 18-year-old son, Dustin, was killed by a 

drunk and drugged driver. Dustin was sober. Dustin was wearing 

a seatbelt while riding in the back seat of a car. That vehicle 

crashed, went airborne, flew in the air and landed in the Connecticut River. Dustin could not escape and drowned on July 10, 

2004. It was a senseless death and a 100 percent preventable 

crime. 

Dustin’s story is my story. But it does represent thousands and 

thousands of stories of victims and survivors in every state in the 

country. MADD has changed the culture. In 1980, over 51,000 people were killed on America’s roadways, and over 20,000 people 

were killed each year due to drunk driving. 

Since then, MADD has worked to pass tough drunk driving laws 

in all 50 states and at the Federal level. The 21 drinking age, a 

national .08 standard, zero tolerance laws for underage drivers, 

and ignition interlock laws are just a few of the things that we 

have achieved together since 1980. 

Total traffic deaths in 2015 were over 35,000. This was an increase of 7.2 percent over 2014 and represented the largest increase in 50 years. Unfortunately, preliminary numbers for 2016 

show another substantial increase in traffic deaths. That alone 

must serve as a wake-up call to the Nation. 

According to the National Highway Safety Administration, 94 

percent of traffic deaths occur because of human behavior. That 

means that 33,000 deaths occurred in 2015 due to the driver. 

Many, if not all, of these were preventable. It breaks my heart to 

deliver messages like that. 

In 2006, MADD launched a new initiative called the Campaign 

to Eliminate Drunk Driving, and I know that our goal is ambitious, 

but to literally eliminate drunk driving in America. Our campaign 

is based on four prongs: number one, to support our law enforcement; number two, to have ignition interlocks for all convicted drivers; number three, the development of advanced vehicle technologies; and, four, grass root support for all these efforts. That 

third initiative, that third prong, is why I’m here today to witness. 

We have been pleased to work with this Committee in support 

of the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, also known as 

DADSS, and progress has been steady, and I would ask this Committee to help expedite DADSS by encouraging program partners 

to have the technology ready for vehicle integration as soon as possible. But today, I’m here to be a witness on AVs. 

Autonomous vehicles represent the other technology that actually 

presents an enormous potential to eliminate drunk driving and 

other behavioral traffic deaths. MADD strongly supports this technology and hopes it will begin as soon and as safely as possible. 

16 

But I need to be clear. MADD is not an expert on the intricacies 

of the technology. My panelists are. But we are absolutely a huge 

stakeholder. Technology will ultimately be the way we eliminate 

drunk driving. Autonomous vehicles are vital in helping us achieve 

our goal. 

There are some principles that MADD recommends as Congress 

and the administration address this issue. Number one, support 

Federal regulatory framework. It doesn’t make sense for states to 

pass laws or to regulate the safety of autonomous vehicles. It is 

critical that the Congress and the administration provide the necessary guidance and regulations to the autonomous vehicle community in order to allow a very safe national roll-out. 

Number two, support existing state regulatory systems. The 

state role in autonomous vehicles is to continue what they do for 

conventional vehicles today—titling, registration, insurance requirements. The states should not regulate AV safety because they 

lack the technical expertise to do so. 

Number three, we support Level 4 and 5 autonomous technologies. For MADD’s purposes, it is important that these vehicles 

achieve the Level 4 and 5 automation to ensure drunk drivers are 

separated from driving the vehicle. 

Number four, supporting and evaluating the technology as it 

evolves over time. NHTSA’s Autonomous Vehicle Policy—this data 

can be used to enhance the safety benefits of the technology. 

In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before this 

Committee. The promise of safe self-driving cars is very exciting, 

particularly for those of us who have seen the devastation that 

human error in driving can bring. I urge the Committee to hold a 

hearing on the need to address the increase in traffic fatalities and 

work with the Safety Committee and NHTSA to put these words 

into actions, and I look forward to working with this Committee on 

the issue and answer any questions later. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sheehey-Church follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLLEEN SHEEHEY-CHURCH, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the Committee, 

On behalf of millions of drunk driving victims across the country, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before the Senate Commerce Committee on the critical 

issue of self-driving cars. We were pleased to work with you and the Committee on 

the FAST Act. You and the Committee are to be commended for your leadership on 

highway safety. 

Like so many others before me, I came to Mothers Against Drunk Driving after 

my 18-year-old son Dustin was killed by a drunk and drugged driver. Dustin was 

sober and wearing a seatbelt while riding in the back seat of a car. The vehicle 

crashed and flipped into the Connecticut River. Dustin couldn’t escape and drowned. 

It was a senseless death and a 100 percent preventable crime. 

Dustin’s story is my story. But it represents thousands and thousands of stories 

of victims and survivors in every state in the country. I travel to those states and 

talk to those who suffer. . . and there is one thing that each of them wants . . . 

NO MORE VICTIMS. 

In 1980, a bereaved mother who had lost a child to the needless crime of drunk 

driving decided enough was enough. Together with a group of other moms, she 

formed Mothers Against Drunk Driving to tell the country that drunk driving is not 

a joke, it is a crime. Together with thousands of other victims, the public and law 

makers heard our plea and as a result, laws and attitudes were changed. 

17 

Changing the Culture 

We changed the culture. In 1980, 51,091 people were killed on America’s roadways and over 20,000 people were killed each year due to drunk driving. Since then, 

MADD has worked to pass tough drunk driving laws in all 50 states and at the Federal level. The 21 minimum drinking age, a national .08 BAC standard, zero tolerance laws for underage drivers, and ignition interlock laws are just a few of the 

things we have achieved together since 1980. 

As a result, drunk driving deaths have been cut in half since our founding. That’s 

what culture change and tough laws have achieved, but it’s not nearly enough. Thirty-seven years after MADD taught the Nation it is not acceptable to drink and 

drive, one third of all traffic deaths, over 10,000 people, are caused because of drunk 

drivers. 

Total traffic deaths in 2015 were 35,092. This was an increase of 7.2 percent over 

2014 and represented the largest increase in 50 years. Preliminary numbers for 

2016 show another substantial increase in traffic deaths. 

This must serve as a wakeup call to the Nation. 

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 94 percent of 

all traffic deaths occur because of human error. That means about 33,000 deaths 

occurred in 2015 due to the driver. Many if not all of these were preventable. 

Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving 

In 2006, MADD launched a new initiative called the Campaign to Eliminate 

Drunk Driving. Our goal is ambitious, to literally eliminate drunk driving in America so there are no more victims. 

Our Campaign is based on four prongs: support for law enforcement, ignition 

interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, development of advanced vehicle technologies, and grassroots support for these efforts. 

The third initiative, advanced technology, is why I’m here today. 

In 2008, NHTSA and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS) formed 

an ambitious program called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or 

DADSS. DADSS seeks to create a passive in-vehicle alcohol detection system which 

would prevent an impaired driver at .08 or higher from starting his or her vehicle. 

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has estimated that the DADSS technology could save 7,000 lives per year. We were pleased to work with you and the 

Committee through MAP–21 and the FAST Act to authorize this technology. 

Progress has been steady and I would ask this committee to help expedite DADSS 

by encouraging program partners to have the technology ready for vehicle integration by the end of the FAST Act authorization in Fiscal Year 2020. 

Autonomous Vehicles 

Autonomous Vehicles represent the other technology that presents an enormous 

potential to eliminate drunk driving and other behavioral-related traffic deaths. 

MADD strongly supports this technology and hopes it will begin as soon and as safely as possible. 

Let me be clear, MADD is not an expert on the intricacies of this technology, but 

we are absolutely a stakeholder. Technology will ultimately be the way we eliminate 

drunk driving autonomous vehicles are vital in helping us achieve our goal. 

There are some key principles that MADD recommends as Congress and the administration address this issue: 

Support Federal regulatory framework. It doesn’t make sense for states to pass 

laws or regulate the safety of autonomous vehicles. It is important that the playing 

field be level and states should leave the self-driving car safety issues to the automotive safety experts at the federal level. To that end, it is critical that the Congress and/or the administration provide the necessary guidance and regulations to 

the autonomous vehicle community in order to allow a national roll-out of this technology. Emphasis must be placed on ensuring that the technology is safe, and that 

processes are followed to ensure that rigorous safety standards are followed, and 

that effective methods for educating the public on technologies are developed. We 

believe the DOT/NHTSA Autonomous Vehicle Policy issued last year is a good beginning for providing safety guidance to those companies developing Highly Automated Vehicles. MADD and others in the traffic safety community look forward to 

working with the Committee to help ensure that public safety is of the highest priority, that the development of the technology continues at a rapid pace, and that 

future public acceptance comes to fruition. 

Support existing state regulatory system. The state role in autonomous vehicles is 

to continue doing what they do for conventional vehicles today. This includes titling, 

registration, insurance requirements, etc. States should not regulate the safety of 

autonomous vehicles because they do not have the technical expertise to do so and 

18 

their involvement could hinder the technological progress in the deployment of this 

life-saving technology. 

Support for level four and five autonomous technologies. For MADD’s purposes, it 

is important that vehicles achieve level four and level five automation (i.e., vehicles 

that do not require a human driver in at least certain environments or under certain conditions). Drunk driving is arguably the biggest killer on our roadways. Alcohol and drug impairment have lasting effects, so it is imperative for maximum safety that the car be able to completely take control and remove the driver from driving. 

Support for evaluating the technology as it evolves. The Autonomous Vehicle Policy 

includes provisions for recording and sharing information on system capabilities and 

data on events, incidents, and crashes. These data can be used to enhance the safety 

benefits of the technology and should be standardized, anonymous, absent of propriety information, and made available not only to the Federal Government but also 

to states, researchers, and the public. 

Closing 

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee. In the 

last two years, traffic deaths have seen the largest increases in 50 years. This 

should alarm us all. While great progress has been made in reducing traffic deaths, 

over 35,000 people died in 2015. This is unacceptable. The promise of safe, self-driving cars is very exciting, particularly for those of us who have seen the devastation 

that human error and driving can bring. I want to add, however, that we must not 

sit back and wait for technology to solve the public health epidemic on our roads. 

There are actions we can take today, this month, this year that will make an enormous impact and save lives. I urge the Committee to hold a hearing on the need 

to more aggressively address the increase in traffic fatalities, and work with the 

safety community and NHTSA to put words into action. 

Longer-term, Autonomous Vehicle technology provides the opportunity to eliminate traffic deaths, including drunk driving fatalities. There is a major role for the 

Federal Government to play in ensuring that these vehicles are safe. It is also important to create a national regulatory framework to ensure that the technology can 

move forward and build public support. 

MADD will continue to strongly support the safe development of this technology 

and work to build public acceptance for the adoption of autonomous vehicles so that 

people understand the safety benefit of these cars with regard to behavioral safety. 

Thank you again for including MADD in this panel. I look forward to working 

with this committee on this issue and am happy to answer any questions you might 

have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Sheehey-Church, for sharing a 

deeply personal and painful experience and your effective advocacy. 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. You’re welcome. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Maddox? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MADDOX, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN CENTER FOR MOBILITY 

Mr. MADDOX. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Thune, 

Ranking Member Peters, for your interest in automated vehicles 

and your leadership on this issue, and I certainly thank you for the 

opportunity to speak in front of you today about key steps for creating a much safer and more efficient transportation system for the 

United States of America. 

The American Center for Mobility is a nonprofit public-private 

partnership. That’s a mouthful. We are building a world-leading facility for innovation, testing and product development, and to act 

as a national proving ground for automated vehicles in Ypsilanti, 

Michigan. 

First and foremost, we are focused on safety, on public safety, including testing and validation of these technologies, including vehicles and infrastructure. In addition to testing, our mission is to accelerate the development of standards, voluntary and Federal reguVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
19 

lation, that is, and to provide educational opportunities for the 

workforce of the future, for STEM K–12 programs, and the public, 

in general. 

Our past transportation system has served us well over the last 

100 years but is showing signs of strain. Every year, we endure a 

national tragedy of tens of thousands of Americans, individuals, 

losing their lives on our roads in the United States. That’s the numerical equivalent of 10 September 11 attacks or seven Iraq wars 

every year on our soil. In many cities, we see ever-increasing congestion with accompanying loss of productive time, loss of time, 

wasted energy, and unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. Largely, we have come to accept these as the status quo. 

It is clear we need a significant change in our transportation system going forward, and safety must be everyone’s first focus. My 

colleagues and the Chairman have cited the statistics. I won’t do 

that again. But it is clear that this technology can help by reducing 

human error. In addition, transportation really is the lifeblood of 

our economy and our society. The ability to move people efficiently 

and goods is critical to the social and economic well-being of the 

U.S. and will help us remain competitive with other international 

economies. 

Because of this promising safety potential and economic benefit, 

the U.S. should focus clearly and specifically on developing and deploying connected automated vehicle technology in a responsibly 

expedient manner. AV technology is being developed very rapidly 

by industry, as we know, but also aided by key frameworks and research from government and academia. Other countries, including 

China and the EU, are currently working on HAV programs, very 

significant programs. 

Our voluntary standards have proven to be a key early step in 

the development of almost every safety technology. These voluntary 

standards often form the basis for Federal FMVSS; therefore, it is 

critical to accelerate voluntary standards in order to ensure safe 

deployment of HAVs. SAE International—the Society of Automotive Engineers International—has begun to promulgate basic 

standards, but many additional voluntary standards are needed 

immediately, including scenario catalogs, test procedures, mapping, 

labeling, cybersecurity, to name a few. The complexity of AV technology will require innovative thinking for testing simulation, validation, and certification tools to support these vehicles and infrastructure. 

Voluntary standards must also be accelerated for purposes of 

avoiding a patchwork, as even a small number of differing or conflicting regulations would significantly inhibit the development of 

AV technology. Consumers’ interests would not be served if they 

could not operate their vehicle or share a vehicle across state lines. 

Certainly, differing standards would put the U.S. in a compromised 

position compared to other countries and regions around the world. 

It may be prudent to consider the adoption of a Federal FMVSS 

framework standard that establishes key foundational requirements, such as definitions, manufacturer identification, reporting 

processes, et cetera; however, it is too early to promulgate detailed 

vehicle performance or equipment standards as the needed technical requirements to do so are not sufficiently developed, and, curVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
20 

rently, there is no agreement within the technical and stakeholder 

community on the nature or specifics of such requirements. 

U.S. DOT’s Automated Vehicle Proving Ground Program, AVPG 

for short, is important to the safe development of HAVs. The AVPG 

program with 10 designated sites across the United States provides 

key infrastructure and framework for the development of AV tools, 

products, standards, data sharing in a rapid and collaborative fashion. These proving grounds can form the backbone of the Federal 

Government’s framework for supporting HAVs. This program will 

be a critical asset to ensure the focus on safety in HAVs while ensuring the U.S. remains competitive. 

The need for HAV data collection will continue after initial deployment, and exemptions are important to allow that data generation. According to U.S. DOT, a number of existing FMVSS contain 

requirements that conflict with or do not allow basic HAV design. 

In order to enable early product development and regulatory data 

gathering and to enable HAVs, in general, it’s important that Congress and the U.S. DOT review that authority and implement a solution for exempting compliance of a sufficiently substantial number of vehicles. It does remain imperative for HAVs that the petitioner demonstrate that the exempted vehicle provides an equivalent level or better of safety through sufficient data and analysis. 

In closing, I’d like to offer three recommendations. One, that U.S. 

DOT be authorized and funded to create collaborative voluntary industry standards to support safe deployment. Two, the AVPG program should be funded as important infrastructure for HAVs. And, 

lastly, Congress should consider revising NHTSA’s exemption authority and ensuring appropriate FTE head count to implement 

these key programs. 

I appreciate this opportunity and look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maddox follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MADDOX, PRESIDENT

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN CENTER FOR MOBILITY

On behalf of the American Center for Mobility, it is an honor to provide testimony 

about the future of automated vehicle (AV) and transportation technology, and key 

steps for creating a much safer and more efficient transportation system. 

This testimony will focus on the need to maximize the benefits of new transportation technologies for the United States, while ensuring safe deployment on public 

roads. It will explain how voluntary standards inform Federal regulation, and how 

these can be accelerated through coordinated industry and government collaboration, including the USDOT Automated Vehicle Proving Ground (AVPG) Program. It 

will also describe the need for new tools and data, including practical flexibility in 

the NHTSA Part 555 exemption program to enable the near-term development and 

long-term deployment of these safety-beneficial highly automated vehicle (HAV) 

technologies. 

The American Center for Mobility is a non-profit public/private partnership. We 

are building a world-leading facility for innovation, testing and product development, to act as a national proving ground for future mobility. First and foremost, 

we are focused on public safety, including the safe testing, validation, and self-certification of connected and automated vehicle and infrastructure mobility technology. In addition to testing, our mission is to accelerate the development of standards, and to provide educational opportunities. ACM incorporates a purpose-built 

test track environment directly integrated with active on-road highway corridors, 

simulation laboratories, and a combined corporate/academic technology park campus 

to facilitate effective industry, government and academic collaboration and information sharing, as well as a focus on educating the mobility workforce for the future, 

STEM K–12 programs, and educating the public in general. 

21 

It is clear we need a significant change in our transportation system. 

Our past transportation system has served us well over the last 100 years, but 

is showing signs of strain. Every year we endure a national tragedy of tens of thousands of Americans losing their lives on our roads, in urban, suburban, and rural 

areas. That is the numerical equivalent of over ten September 11 Attacks, or seven Iraq Wars, every year. In many cities, we see ever-increasing congestion, with accompanying loss of productive time, wasted energy, and unnecessary greenhouse gas 

emissions. Largely we have accepted these undesirable outcomes as the status quo. 

It is clear we need a significant change, and we are now on the cusp of introducing 

connected automated vehicle (CAV) technology that can begin that change. 

Safety must be everyone’s first focus. NHTSA’s census of fatal car crashes(1) shows 

that 35,092 people lost their lives in 2015. Historically, human error or actions account for, or contributed to, 94 percent of these fatal crashes.(2) By reducing the effects of human error, connected and automated vehicles have the promising potential to reduce or even eliminate these fatal outcomes by avoiding the crash scenario 

altogether. 

Because of promising safety potential, the United States should focus on 

developing and deploying CAV technology in the most responsibly 

expedient manner possible. 

Transportation is the lifeblood of our economy and society. The ability to efficiently and effectively move people and goods is critical to the social and economic 

well-being of the United States, and will help us remain competitive with other 

international economies. The United States covers a very large geographic area, and 

part of our industrial and economic strength is that we can transport people and 

goods across that large area in a safe, efficient, and economical manner. In addition 

to safety benefits, CAV technology provides the opportunity for a ‘‘systems approach’’ to transportation, with substantial potential improvements in mobility, energy use, equity in transportation, and positive impact on the Nation’s economy. 

AV technology is being developed very rapidly, largely led by industry, but aided 

by key frameworks, research, and support from Government and Academia. While 

we have one hundred years of experience with human-driven vehicles, we need to 

gather experience and data with automated vehicles in a much shorter timeframe. 

Inherently, automated vehicles will be data-rich due to the basic operational need 

to sense, analyze, and act on data that is generated continuously through operation. 

We need the initial experience of operating these vehicles in sufficiently substantial 

numbers to generate the broad data across a multitude of scenarios and environmental operating conditions necessary to ensure safety, and to scale the technology 

to full deployment. 

Over the last decades, automotive safety technology has progressed significantly, 

and that progression has resulted in the savings of hundreds of thousands of American lives.(3) The development and introduction of each technology has required a 

very thorough engineering process, including research, testing, product development, verification, validation, standardization, certification, education, and in-use 

monitoring. Even the simplest of technologies, the seat belt, was conceived, designed, and introduced through this phased process. Many safety technologies developed by industry and government through this process have become mandated 

through regulation by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). 

Modern safety technologies have become more and more complex. Airbags and 

Supplemental Restraint Systems (SRS), Automatic Braking Systems (ABS), Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Forward Crash Warning (FCW), Lane Departure 

Warning (LDW), Crash Imminent Braking (CIB), and Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication (V2V) have required ever-greater developmental efforts, and are subject to 

factors outside the control of the vehicle alone. However the basic engineering processes listed above have proven capable of developing these systems to an extremely 

robust level that is befitting of a life-saving technology. AV technology will likely 

be the most complex automotive safety innovation yet deployed, however the basic 

process honed over the last decades will serve as a capable and required starting 

point. 

Voluntary standards have proven to be a key step in the development of all of 

these safety technologies. Industry and Government research and testing generate 

the basic scientific and technical knowledge for a new technology. This leads to 

standardization of key definitions, designs, test procedures, validation models and 

methods, and certification protocols that enable a new technology to be commercialized. Often, these become codified in voluntary industry standards, such as by 

SAE International and other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs). Occasionally, but often for safety technologies, these voluntary standards form the basis 

for Federal regulations as codified by FMVSS, as shown in Figure 1. 

22 

It is critical to accelerate voluntary standards in order to ensure safe 

deployment of AVs. 

AV technology is being developed and is advancing at a faster rate than the traditional standards process can fully accommodate. SAE international has begun to 

promulgate basic standards, such as taxonomy and definitions, which have already 

served as the basis for the Federal AV Guidance. Additional voluntary standards 

are needed immediately to ensure that these new approaches in testing, validation, 

data collection, data-sharing, privacy, cybersecurity, and others areas are developed 

to ensure safety, while not inhibiting or stalling the technology development. These 

standards will also likely form the technical basis for future FMVSS requirements 

for vehicle performance or equipment. 

It is critical to accelerate these voluntary standards in order to ensure safe deployment of AVs. From now through 2025, AV development will continue to move 

very rapidly, and initial voluntary standards must be in place by that time-frame 

to support the first significant vehicle deployments. Other countries and regions, including China and the European Union, are funding and working diligently on 

standards efforts to support their deployments and industry partners. The complexity of AV technology will require innovative thinking for testing, simulation, validation, standardization, and certification tools and methodologies to support these 

standards. 

Voluntary standards must also be accelerated for purposes of creating a collaborative, unified common approach, and avoiding a patchwork of standards or regulations that could inhibit or stall the technology development. Even a small number 

of differing or conflicting standards or regulations would significantly inhibit the development of AV technology. Consumers’ interests would not be served if they could 

not operate their vehicle, or a shared vehicle, across state lines. Differing standards 

could certainly limit the safety, equity, and economic benefit of automated vehicles, 

and would put the U.S. in a compromised position compared to other countries and 

regions around the world. 

It is also important to consider that the pursuit of voluntary standards does not 

preclude the promulgation of State or Federal standards. Indeed it may be prudent 

to consider the adoption of a Federal FMVSS framework standard that establishes 

key foundational requirements, such as definitions, manufacturer identification and 

reporting processes, data reporting requirements, exemption processes, consumer 

notification and privacy, enforcement requirements, etc. However it is too early to 

promulgate significantly detailed vehicle performance or equipment standards, as 

the needed technical requirements are not sufficiently developed, and currently 

there is no agreement within the technical and stakeholder community on the nature or specifics of such requirements. Additionally, the premature promulgation of 

not-fully-developed safety standards could result in a ‘‘false sense of safety,’’ whereby manufacturers or consumers may believe that the technology is more ready or 

capable than it actually is, simply because it is advertised as meeting safety standards. 

State regulations are also ultimately necessary for full scale AV deployment. The 

traditional State roles dictating operational requirements, such as insurance, registration, training and licensing, driving enforcement, etc., are still required, and apVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE

614MADDO1.eps
23 

propriate, for AVs. States may also want to proscribe new regulations that require 

HAV owners or fleet operators to make sure safety-critical vehicle control recalls are 

completed in a timely manner. However, creating state-by-state standards for vehicle performance or equipment could result in this undesirable patchwork, and 

should be avoided for reasons described above. Additionally, the creation of stateby-state vehicle performance or equipment requirements may also contribute to the 

‘‘false sense of safety’’ discussed above. 

USDOT’s Automated Vehicle Proving Ground (AVPG) program provides 

key infrastructure and framework for safe deployment of CAVs. 

USDOT’s Automated Vehicle Proving Ground (AVPG) program provides key infrastructure and framework for the development of CAV products, tools, and standards 

in a rapid and collaborative fashion. This will be a critical asset to ensure safe deployment, as well as ensuring that the U.S. remains competitive in AV industry and 

deployment. This AVPG Program was established very recently, and has the mission to serve as a Community of Practice (CoP) to enable USDOT, industry, and 

other stakeholders to develop, test, and validate AV products, standards, and supporting tools. 

This CoP will convene and enable stakeholders from companies, government agencies, academia, facilities, consumer groups, and other organization, to share best 

practices and innovations for testing operator safety, facility design concepts and details, facility operational best practices and lessons learned, data acquisition and 

analysis system concepts, and testing and analysis equipment best practices and 

standards. This intellectual capital will form the basis for voluntary standards and 

mandatory regulation. 

AV testing and validation must occur through three coordinated approaches: 

Closed-Track testing, On-Road testing, and Simulation, as shown in Figure 2 below. 

It is crucial that AV testing and development programs include three key complementary and fully integrated tools: (1) Test-track and laboratory tests that validate full vehicles, systems, and components, under realistic, variable, repeatable, 

and controlled conditions; (2) on-road tests that verify the systems’ robustness in 

real life situations, including some that can’t be implemented, or even imagined, in 

the above tools; and (3) detailed simulations, including roadway, traffic, vehicle, sensors, drivers, infrastructure, etc. that mathematically model the millions of technology and environmental variations. 

These testing tools and methodologies must be used in combination in an iterative 

fashion. Simulation results help prioritize and define the initial round of test-track 

tests. The test-track allows a safe, controllable, and repeatable environment for development of functionality in numerous scenarios, and provides sufficient confidence 


614MADDO2.eps
24 

to begin on-road testing, but can never accommodate all scenarios. On-road testing 

provides identification and validation to real-world behavior, including unanticipated, key scenarios, but often does not allow repeatability, so key critical scenarios 

must be reproduced in simulation and track testing. This process must be rigorously 

planned and executed to validate artificial intelligence as a substitute for decades 

of experience of a human driver. These new methodologies are not yet fully defined, 

and are the subject of intense research and rapid development. 

USDOT’s AVPG program contains a combination and range of track, on-road, and 

simulation facilities and capabilities across wide geographic areas and environmental conditions. This range of capabilities is important for the development of 

these products and tools in a rapid and collaborative fashion, and will be a critical 

asset to generate experience and data to ensure the safety of AV products and that 

the U.S. remains competitive in AV industry and deployment. 

AVs present both challenges and opportunities regarding data and data sharing, 

requiring that a large amount of data and information be sensed, acquired, amalgamated, analyzed for rapid decision-making in a wide variety of travel scenarios 

and environmental conditions, while protecting consumer privacy and ensuring 

cybersecurity. This data must then be acted upon through control decisions and 

operational monitoring. This same data can enable understanding of what is going 

right, or wrong, with an AV, and if shared, provides an opportunity for many vehicles to learn from the experience of one. While data best practices for AVs are still 

under significant development by vehicle manufacturers, testers, suppliers, government agencies, and service operators, generally, these data practices will likely include established processes and tools for the collection of in-use event, incident, and 

vehicle information data for crashes, malfunctions, degradations, failures, and unintended operation outside established operational domains, while maintaining and 

protecting consumer privacy and manufacturer/tester confidentiality and security. It 

is expected that this information will become extremely useful for vehicle development and operations activities, especially in early years of deployment, as well as 

accident/event reconstruction purposes. 

The AVPG Program will be critical infrastructure for developing concepts, structures, processes, tools, and programs to enable and implement these data sharing 

activities that are required for safe deployment, while maintaining consumer privacy and system cybersecurity. 

For these reasons, the AVPG Program overall will provide the foundation and program for the development of safe testing, operation, and deployment, including the 

necessary voluntary standards and mandatory regulations. As described above, significant work will need to be undertaken by expert technical and policy communities 

to theorize, prioritize, draft, and codify these standards in a coordinated yet accelerated manner. U.S. investment in AVPG infrastructure, facilities, equipment, and 

programs is a vital necessity to ensure safe deployment of AVs, and to keep the U.S. 

competitive with other major auto-manufacturing countries who are investing in 

similar facilities and infrastructure at a much more rapid pace. 

HAV Data collection will continue after initial deployment, and Exemptions 

are important to allow that data generation. 

HAV data collection and analysis must also extend through the initial years or 

even decade(s) of deployment. In addition to data gathered and analyzed throughout 

the product development and validation process, it will be critical to gather data in 

the initial years of product deployment, and perhaps even continuing ad infinitum. 

HAVs, like human drivers, must be capable of operating in a wide variety of travel 

scenarios and environmental conditions. No amount of testing and simulation can 

guarantee that every possible scenario has been encountered before initial deployment, just as human driver education cannot accomplish that before a driver is licensed. Secondly, setting of standards, especially government regulation is always 

aided by the collection and analysis of real-world safety experience and data. Because of this it is imperative to create, collect and analyze in-use data for initial 

deployments of these HAV vehicles. 

According to a 2016 NHTSA/Volpe study,(4) a number of existing FMVSS contain 

requirements that either conflict with, or do not allow, basic HAV design tenets, especially related to human operated controls. In order to enable that early product 

deployment and regulatory data gathering, and to enable HAVs in general for their 

significant safety and mobility potential, it is important that Congress and USDOT 

review the current authority, and identify and implement a solution for exempting 

compliance of a sufficiently substantial number of vehicles to FMVSS requirements 

that do not pertain to HAV design or operation. 

25 

CFR 49 Part 555 currently allows NHTSA to temporarily exempt petitioning manufacturers’ vehicles from certain FMVSS requirements, based on one or more of four 

situations: 

(1) Substantial economic hardship 

(2) Facilitation of development of new safety features 

(3) Facilitation of development of new ‘‘low-emission’’ features or vehicles 

(4) Inability to sell a vehicle with an overall equivalent or greater level of safety 

It could be argued that initial deployment of HAVs would already be covered by 

situations 2, 3, and 4. However the number of vehicles (up to 2,500) and the time 

duration (up to 2 years) for the exemption is somewhat limited, and may not serve 

the need of collecting a sufficient body of data to ensure safe operation, and ultimately create appropriate FMVSS requirements. 

Notably, and importantly, situations 2, 3, and 4 include the requirement that the 

petitioner demonstrate an equivalent or better level of safety, as compared to a nonexempted fully conforming vehicle, as part of the information for NHTSA’s consideration. 

As part of this recommended Congressional and USDOT review, it should be debated whether situation 1 is applicable or advisable as an exemption rationale for 

HAVs, especially since this basis does not require the demonstration of an equivalent level of safety. 

Regardless of the rationale for exemption, it remains imperative for HAVs that 

the petitioner demonstrate, ideally through test-track, on-road, and simulation data, 

that the exempted vehicle clearly provides an equivalent or better level of safety, 

and that NHTSA have the final judgment that that requirement is met. Lastly, 

NHTSA must be authorized and adequately funded, including appropriate FTE levels, to ensure that this exemption program can be enacted fully and expeditiously 

so that it meets its full intent. 

Closing 

In closing, I wish to reiterate that we are entering a new era for a greatly improved transportation system built on key technologies. The United States must embrace and invest in these technologies to provide increased safety, mobility, and equity for the travelling public, as well as support the economic competitiveness of our 

automotive industry and our country. 

I urge Congress to consider the following: 

• Authorize and fund USDOT to direct, fund, and collaborate on voluntary industry standards, including testing, validation, cybersecurity, privacy, and self-certification tools and methodologies, including appropriate FTE to implement this 

program. 

• Authorize and fund the USDOT AVPG program to provide facilities and opportunities for product development, standardization, education, and public-private 

partnerships. 

• Consider revising NHTSA’s exemption authority to enable HAV deployment and 

early data collection, and authorize and fund appropriate FTE to implement 

this program. 

I appreciate this opportunity very much. Thank you for your attention. 

About The American Center for Mobility 

The American Center for Mobility’s proving ground is designated by USDOT as 

part their AVPG Program. ACM’s core mission is to enable the safe development 

of automated vehicles as part of a future transportation system. To perform that 

mission, ACM is committed to develop and share safety-related approaches, information, and data in both test facility design and test operations, as well as explore 

and create data sharing opportunities for non-confidential, non-PI, testing and operation data, as part of a similarly-committed Community of Practice, while maintaining and protecting consumer privacy and manufacturer/tester confidentiality and security. 

With $110M in direct or incorporated investment, and leveraging an additional 

$115M of regional assets, ACM is designed to be the premiere national proving 

ground for shared-use mobility and advanced automotive testing. Founded in early 

2016, ACM is a joint initiative among the State of Michigan, including the Michigan 

Department of Transportation (MDOT) and Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), the University of Michigan (U–M), Business Leaders for Michigan 

(BLM), and Ann Arbor SPARK. ACM incorporates private funding in partnership 

with public funding from the State of Michigan. ACM is strategically located in 

26 

southeast Michigan and is recognized as a centerpiece of the state’s ‘‘Planet M’’ initiative representing the collective mobility efforts across the state defining Michigan 

as the global center of mobility. 

ACM’s testing and validation capability is based on real-world representative testing environments designed to address a wide range of variations of pre-crash scenarios, including variable but controllable critical near miss scenarios. This testing 

is critical to the proper development and validation of CAV products and will serve 

AV developers’ needs for both hardware and software. ACM’s testing assets will also 

be critical to the work of government agencies and academic researchers collaborating on safety, mobility, and energy aspects of a CAV-based transportation system. 

The American Center for Mobility program will focus on three activity pillars that 

are critical to CAV safety: testing/validating, standard setting, and education. CAV 

technology, including communication, infrastructure, and cyber security, is developing very rapidly. All three of these key ‘‘pillar’’ activities should be advanced simultaneously to ensure that the technology is developed to maximize safety, mobility, energy, transportation equity, and other benefits. 

ACM is working with other facilities, government agencies, academia, industry, 

and like-minded experts, to share best practices and innovations for testing operator 

safety, facility design concepts and details, facility operational best practices and 

lessons learned, data acquisition and analysis system concepts, and testing and 

analysis equipment best practices and standards. ACM is convening operators and 

designers of other test facilities to lead the effort in the formation of this Community of Practice. ACM is partnering with standards organizations, such as SAE 

International, IEEE, ISO, NIST, ASTM, and others in these sharing discussions at 

the appropriate time, and will work with those bodies to enable voluntary standards 

as appropriate. 

ACM’s mission includes the acceleration of these voluntary standards through 

convening and the creation of laboratories designed specifically for AV testing and 

standardization. ACM has partnerships in place with SDOs which will enable an 

accelerated process that will allow the standard setting experts to convene at ACM 

and participate in testing and demonstrations that inform the strategy, details, and 

ultimately decisions on the standards that are created. ACM provides a unique 

venue to contemporaneously develop and validate standards in rapid cycles and 

serve as a convening center where industry, government, SDOs, and other interested stakeholders can collaborate and accelerate the development of critical standards. 

Through its ability and focus to convene technical experts, numerous automotive 

development users, and standards bodies, ACM will establish a user group to develop a uniform approach or voluntary standard to data sharing. While it is unlikely 

that any manufacturer or tester will share all of its vehicle and incident data, this 

user group will act to establish a process to share noteworthy scenarios, and to define a subset of data and data retrieval/access methods, that they can agree to 

share. ACM will fully protect consumer and public privacy and security, and will 

take steps to ensure that any data or information sharing activities do not violate, 

hinder, or compromise integrity of any consumer privacy/security agreements or arrangements put in place by manufacturers, testers, agencies, public entities, or by 

ACM itself. Similarly, ACM commits to maintaining the confidentiality and security 

of proprietary confidential business information and data on behalf of its users, testers, and private partners. 

ACM will lead the formation of a specific Community of Practice focused on safe 

CAV testing, as a proposed subgroup of the International Committee for Proving 

Ground Safety (ICPGS) established to enable the rapid sharing of information, best 

practices, and data including the following aspects: Best safety practices specific to 

CAV testing, including vehicles, infrastructure and communication; driver training 

(remote and in vehicle); safe conduct of testing and operations; safety management 

plans and protocols; common safety incident reporting protocol; and common data 

format and agreement to share non-proprietary/non-confidential data. 

ACM fully supports the establishment of a network of experts and commits to providing engaged expertise through comments, meetings, workshops, and more formal 

activities including volunteered participation in an expert committee. In addition, 

the ACM facility will serve a very important purpose to educate the current and 

next generation of engineers, policy-makers, lawyers, and strategists and, in league 

with a consortium of universities and community colleges, will develop a curriculum 

to ensure that expertise is generated and available for hiring or appointment 

throughout industry, government, and academia. 

27 

References 

(1) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2016, August). DOT HS 812 

318 2015 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview 

(2) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2015, February). DOT HS 

812 115 Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle 

Crash Causation Survey 

(3) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2015, January). DOT HS 812 

069 Lives Saved by Vehicle Technologies and Associated Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards 1960–2012 

(4) USDOT John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (2016, March) 

DOT–VNTSC–OSTR–16–03 Review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for 

Automated Vehicles; Identifying potential barriers and challenges for the certification of automated vehicles using existing FMVSS—Preliminary Report 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Maddox. 

Let me direct this question to the entire panel. In order to realize 

the safety benefits of self-driving vehicles, manufacturers and new 

market entrants must be able to test and deploy on public roads 

and across multiple states. Traditionally, as Mr. Bainwol pointed 

out, the Federal Government has regulated the vehicle while states 

have regulated the driver. While I believe that states have a role 

to play in the deployment of these vehicles, we must be careful to 

avoid a patchwork of regulations, as a number of you have pointed 

out. 

So the question is: Would you support a Federal framework governing the safety of these vehicles? We’ll start with Mr. Bainwol 

and move across the panel. 

Mr. BAINWOL. Short answer, sure, absolutely. 

Mr. CSONGOR. The answer would be yes, especially if it simplifies 

our ability to deploy and test across the different states. So, of 

course, the devil would be in the details, but we test today in California, New Jersey, and we’re able to deploy and test vehicles, and 

there are certain standards that are completely fine and very logical. I think the devil is in the details, but I would agree with a 

framework of that nature. 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. An even shorter answer would be, obviously, yes, we do, but I’ll broaden it just a little bit. To avoid that 

patchwork, you know, of state requirements, it’s important to make 

sure that we balance the technology and the regulation. So in saying that, it’s important that NHTSA, the auto industry, and safety 

advocates really get together and make sure that the collaboration 

is key and ongoing, along with the data that we will be taking and 

looking and watching. But the short answer is absolutely. 

Mr. MADDOX. And, last, I would add a fourth yes to that question, for sure. I think it’s a necessary step, as I talked about, to be 

able to create the data that we need to validate these vehicles and, 

importantly, to educate the public about what they can and can’t 

do. I think a framework would be a very good first step. 

The CHAIRMAN. Many of the regulatory challenges for the testing 

and deployment of self-driving vehicles stem from the fact that current Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as written, don’t take 

into account self-driving vehicles. With an increasing number of 

auto manufacturers and new market entrants looking to test and 

deploy this technology in the next few years, many have expressed 

the need for exemptions from certain Federal standards to deploy 

vehicles on public roads. 

28 

I guess this would be perhaps more specifically for Mr. Bainwol, 

Mr. Csongor, and Mr. Maddox. But why is the expansion of current 

exemptions important, and how will that inform future standards? 

Mr. BAINWOL. It’s vitally important. We look at this as a 

multipronged approach to maximize this transition. On the one 

hand, you have to have Federal uniformity, but you also need exemptions in a substantial number to generate—really, for two reasons. One is to generate the test data so that we can get to the 

point where we can deploy with confidence that’s data driven. 

Second, there’s a massive economic commitment here. This is billions of dollars of R and D. In order to make it economically attractive, to make the math work, you’ve got to be able to deploy—not 

just test, but deploy, and it’s going to take time for the final rules 

to be written, and in this interim period, you need a mechanism 

to deploy. So you need it for two reasons, testing to prove a concept 

and, second, to make sure that the math works on the capital investment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Csongor? 

Mr. CSONGOR. I think the expansion of the Federal exemptions, 

particular to NVIDIA and to someone who is developing the underlying computer technology that would make a self-driving car possible—in my remarks, I commented on the connection between getting to that level of safety and the amount of data that’s generated, 

and that we can ensure that the data that’s generated is as diverse 

as possible and that we can get it as quickly as possible in order 

to deploy it. 

I know that other issues will come up with regard to the data, 

including cybersecurity and privacy. All of these are important 

issues. But in terms of the Federal guidelines, from a development 

point of view, access and development of that data is critical to the 

safety of the car fleet. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Maddox? 

Mr. MADDOX. I would echo that, perhaps with a bit more specific 

thought. Certainly, we need a significant amount of in-use data to 

validate the technology and to give the vehicles a chance to experience a given scenario and learn from it, and then maybe even educate other vehicles or other manufacturers how to handle that scenario. That’s the way we learn as humans to drive. We’re taught 

the basics. We can’t experience every scenario before we’re let 

loose, if you will. 

But with automated vehicles, we need a significant amount of 

data, and the number of vehicles to gather that data will need to 

be substantial. So for that reason, I think raising the numbers of 

vehicles that could be exempted would be a very positive step. 

The CHAIRMAN. Final question, Ms. Sheehey-Church. And, again, 

I want to express my sympathy to you for your family’s loss and 

just appreciate you being here today to testify. 

In your testimony, you highlighted the fact that, tragically, the 

highest percentage of deaths that occur on U.S. highways are due 

to drunk driving and are, therefore, preventable. Can you elaborate 

on how you see self-driving cars being part of the solution to drunk 

driving? 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. Absolutely, Chairman. When we look at 

the numbers, the 35,000, and you break it down, very simply, 

29 

10,000, as you said, for drunk driving. But the opportunity for autonomous vehicles will allow for all those other human behavioral 

errors and including drunk driving—again, MADD is there—our 

mission is to eliminate drunk driving, and we’ll look and support 

any advanced technology. 

So when we look at AV, it was something that we said—it’s an 

emerging technology that just has to be done, because it will not 

only take care of the other behavioral errors that are happening, 

you know, the drowsy or sleepy or seatbelts or speeding, but it will 

allow also drunk driving. What we want to do at MADD, we want 

to stop—we separate the drinking from the driving. With AV, we’re 

going to separate the driver from the vehicle itself. And, again, 

we’re looking at Level 4 and 5 when I answer that question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Peters? 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 

of our witnesses for excellent testimony and we appreciate all four 

of you being here today. 

This first question is for Mr. Maddox. Prior to becoming the CEO 

of the American Center for Mobility, you developed and implemented a connected and automated vehicle public-private research 

and development partnership with the University of Michigan. You 

and I are very familiar with the auto industry, and we know that 

it is very competitive. Competition is healthy as it leads to better 

products. 

But we also know that in this new era of transportation innovation, we’re going to have to see an awful lot of collaboration between the industry. We know part of these technologies are connected vehicles that are going to be talking to each other, and a 

General Motors vehicle needs to talk to a Toyota on the road and 

to a Ford and a Nissan, et cetera, et cetera. That’s a whole new 

business model in terms of some of the ways in which we use proving grounds and test vehicles, and we need to have that collaboration to eventually inform safety standards for development. 

So my question to you is: How will the American Center for Mobility facilitate this work? What are some of the partners? How are 

you bringing industry together? How is it also necessary for us to 

use facilities like the American Center for Mobility to go much 

broader than the auto industry? 

Mr. MADDOX. I’ll start with that last one first. Certainly, the 

American Center for Mobility and the other nine designated proving grounds around the United States—we are key infrastructure. 

To prove these vehicles out, we need to do both on-road driving, 

simulation, and certainly track testing, and the proving grounds 

are the facilities to do that testing. 

More importantly, as you point out, it’s the facility—it’s a convening location for these companies and different industries to 

come together and develop the technology consistently and collaboratively. At the American Center for Mobility, we certainly are 

working with auto makers and Tier 1 suppliers, but, in addition, 

communications companies, technology companies, insurance companies. They all have a stake in understanding how the products 

work, how they don’t work, and to develop them so that they actually work together for the public. 

30 

Importantly, we believe, all of those industries as well as government has a stake in educating the public about what the technology does or does not do, how it functions, what its implications 

are. So these proving grounds also will serve as a locale for educating the future workforce, the public, in general, as well as each 

other. 

Senator PETERS. It’s obviously very important to be doing all of 

that, and it’s important for us to move the development forward, 

but also to understand that we’re in a global economy. We’re going 

to have significant global competitors. A number of other countries 

are also racing to get to this technology, and whoever gets there 

first or is very early to get there will have a significant competitive 

advantage. 

Tell us a little bit about these centers, like the American Center 

for Mobility. Where are other countries, who are our competitors, 

and do we have to really get moving even quicker? 

Mr. MADDOX. That is absolutely right. Other countries are moving very quickly. This technology was largely invented in the 

United States, and I think we’re still in the lead on a technical 

level. However, when you look at the funding and the activities and 

the programs that other countries—China, Korea, Japan, the European Union—China alone has built two facilities already and has 

plans for five more for a total of seven. 

They are, like us, focusing on technology development and standardization, because they know that the countries and the regions 

that set those standards will certainly create an opportunity for 

their industries that other countries don’t necessarily have. So we 

see that activity. We see them coming to Ypsilanti, coming to 

Michigan, coming to other facilities around the United States on a 

regular basis. We know it’s going on. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Csongor, I’d like to have you elaborate a little bit on some 

of the comments you made in your testimony related to artificial 

intelligence, deep learning, machine learning, and why really moving this technology forward in the auto industry is critical, not just 

for autos, not just for the incredible advances in safety, which 

we’ve already articulated, but for the entire economy and for every 

industry. It has been described to me that this auto technology is 

the moon shot for artificial intelligence, and when that happens, 

we’ll be able to have incredible advances in every industry imaginable. 

Is that accurate? Where do you see this going? Why is it important to get it right with autos? 

Mr. CSONGOR. I think that’s very accurate, Senator Peters. I 

don’t think it’s an over-exaggeration or hyperbole to say that AI is 

the fourth industrial revolution, and what that means is that everything will change, and it’s specifically targeted, as any industrial revolution, against problems that exist within society. Many 

of the problems that we have can be broken down to computational 

problems. The pursuit of a cure for cancer is a computational problem. 

We have enormous amounts of data being generated in every 

field across so many industries. We just can’t make sense of the 

data. What’s really required and the real—I think the really critVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
31 

ical role of AI is to get insight from large amounts of data. So if 

you gather large amounts of data on speech, you can understand 

idioms of human speech. You can create automatic translation literally out of a Star Trek episode, where you’re able to speak one 

language and you hear another language out the other side. 

You can collect information on the oceans and have an AI agent 

that sifts through the data to look for important trends. And, of 

course, you can break down the world—highways, roads—and then 

sift through that data, and then be able to identify all the important things that matter to driving a self-driving car. 

Just imagine trying to break down the world into objects, all the 

objects that we see when we drive a car. Imagine that you had to 

have a person write manually software code to describe what that 

object is. This is a stop sign. This is a stop sign at an angle. This 

is a stop sign at night. This is a stop sign that’s covered with snow. 

We’re able as humans to recognize objects even though they’re hidden or what we call occluded, and deep neural networks are very 

good at that kind of thing. 

So I think that as we as a society evolve into a world where we 

have lots of data, I think the ability of AI to provide insight in that 

data is going to provide breakthroughs everywhere across every industry. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Peters. 

Senator Moran? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. Chairman, thank you and Senator Peters not 

only for the hearing but for your efforts to determine guidance. 

The panel gets your blood flowing, excited about the potential of 

what this means, not just for driverless vehicles, but as you’re describing what it means for us as a society, a country, and a world. 

I’m having trouble putting my hands around what it means in 

rural America. Incidentally, I come from a place in which driving 

is still enjoyable. We look for it. There’s still occasionally Sunday 

drives, and then you add to that farm equipment, and it is a different environment. 

So, first, I would start by asking do we see this as something 

that is, at least for the foreseeable future, limited to cities and 

interstate travel? 

Mr. CSONGOR. Maybe I can take a quick shot. There are two comments I’d like to make. First of all, the use of AI in a car, in our 

vision at NVIDIA, can really accomplish two things. The first thing 

is the AI can drive the car for you if you want. We all refer to a 

self-driving car as one thing, but in actuality, this technology will 

likely be deployed in small steps toward a big vision. 

The big vision is a self-driving car that can drive very largely autonomously, but I think the idea of a self-driving car that can drive 

anywhere, absolutely anywhere, is not true. If you drop a self-driving car in the middle of Greenland, it will not drive on its own, just 

like a human would not be able to drive on their own. 

So one part, I think, is you already have solutions on the road 

today, and then you’re going to see every year products come out 

32 

that are better and better and better, and they’ll have more and 

more features and more and more capability. However, in addition 

to self-driving, we actually believe that the AI can be a co-pilot, or 

think of it as a guardian angel. So with a camera inside the car 

that’s connected to the cameras outside the car, for example, we 

can track the position of the driver’s head, their gaze, if they happen to be looking to the side and a pedestrian steps off on the 

right, but you’re driving, the AI can say, ‘‘Attention, there’s a pedestrian on the right.’’ 

So the use of this technology, I think, is not just limited to selfdriving but also to assisting the driver and being there in case 

you’d like to drive because you enjoy driving. 

The second comment is regarding your question on rural areas. 

The system that I described to you on the self-driving does not require that the car be continuously in connection with a central 

computer. So in the system that I described, the algorithms are 

tested with massive amounts of data, and then they’re over-theaired to your PC. 

So imagine your computer that you can get an update on, and 

once you have the update, you can go anywhere with the computer, 

and then at some point, you get back to an area where you have 

a connection, and then as soon as you have a connection, if there’s 

an update, then you can do it. So I think the architecture of the 

self-driving car that we’re all working toward does not require you 

to be in continual connection. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bainwol? 

Mr. BAINWOL. If I can add perhaps a less sophisticated answer, 

if you’re in Russell, Kansas, you may not have the same level of 

ride sharing ultimately. But you certainly will benefit from the access questions. You know, if you’re blind or disabled in Russell, 

Kansas, it’s the same benefit to be able to get a self-driving vehicle 

to take you to your destination. So that’s part one. 

Part two is, ultimately, this is all about crash avoidance, and it 

doesn’t matter where you are, crash avoidance inures to the benefit 

of everybody. So you’re avoiding accidents, you’ve got the property 

damage issues, you’ve got the time issues, you have the fuel savings questions, but, most of all, you have the saving of life. 

So I would argue that there are certain applications that may be 

more prevalent in urban centers. But as a bottom line, this is good 

for rural America just as much as it is for urban America. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you very much. Let me see if I can one 

more question. The question is related to insurance. I chair the 

Subcommittee that has jurisdiction over insurance in this Committee. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Bainwol. The question really is: what’s the 

private sector role in insurance? Volvo stands out to me. In 2015, 

they announced that the company would accept full liability whenever one of its cars is in autonomous mode. What’s the industry’s 

expectations? And then, second, what’s the request of Congress? 

What’s required here in regard to insurance? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Well, the insurance piece has a couple of different 

dimensions. There’s the question of liability, and certainly on the 

question of aftermarket, the OEMs would like to be protected from 

33 

aftermarket adjustments to the vehicle. I think there is a range of 

perspectives on liability on the system itself from the OEMs, and 

that’s something that we’re just going to have to work through. 

There obviously is a tort system in place as well as broad enforcement authority, and that does govern behavior in terms of the introduction of technologies and the risk taking. 

The other point on insurance that we often hear about is that 

premiums will go down, and, ultimately, that may, some say, damage the insurance industry, but at the end of the day, if you have 

fewer accidents, that’s a good thing, and claims will go down. 

When Volvo introduced the XC60 originally in the U.S. five or six 

years ago, it was the only vehicle that had automatic braking on 

the sport utility. No others did, and all of the sport utilities that 

Volvo introduced did. So you had a nice control group, and it was 

found that the incidence of claims for the first six months was 27 

percent down. So automation has really a fantastic opportunity to 

change the very essence of the relationship, and the need for insurance will go down. But, ultimately, the payout on insurance will 

also go down. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you all very much. It’s nice to get excited 

about something as compared to worrying about something. This 

gets me excited. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think this probably gets your staff and your 

family more excited than you, Senator Moran. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. He may not be out there driving on his own. 

Senator Cortez Masto is up next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, and thank you for this incredible panel and discussion. 

Two weeks ago, I was back in Nevada, and I had the opportunity 

to walk through the Tesla site and plant that we have there and 

drive in one of their autonomous vehicles. The technology was absolutely incredible. I am very, very excited about this phase. 

One of the interesting aspects that I’ve seen in transportation, 

particularly in Nevada, is the concept of smart communities. I want 

to follow up on what you’re saying, because what we were talking 

about and what I heard was that these autonomous vehicles are 

just one part of a larger community—of smart communities, the 

Internet of Things and the connection of things. I’m actually working on legislation to try and continue that momentum for our communities to invest in smart communities. 

I wonder if anyone could elaborate on how you see this fitting 

into that larger goal of smart communities that I know so many 

communities are looking at right now. 

Mr. MADDOX. I’ll start, if that’s okay. Yes, we believe that smart 

vehicles, automated vehicles, connected vehicles are an important 

piece of a smart community, and really, a smart community is all 

about data, how you collect data, and, importantly, how you use 

data, and that is a very difficult challenge. Certainly, automated 

vehicles and the way that we’ll move people, the way that we’ll 

move goods will be a huge contribution of that data source to that 

34 

overview of how a smart city is operating. So we know that these 

automated vehicles will be that important piece. 

The question is: how do you integrate all this data together? And, 

frankly, we don’t know that anyone has got that real answer yet. 

That’s one of the key reasons that we need to do these early deployments so that we can actually get experience with the vehicles 

in that smart city setting and figure out how to use that data. 

Mr. CSONGOR. First, I just want to comment on your ride in the 

Tesla. I actually own one myself, and I share your enthusiasm. It 

is not a new feature like a seat warmer or a premium sound system. Traffic has just such a terrible effect on your life that the absence of having to drive in it just improves the quality of your life. 

So I do believe that beyond safety, it’s just delightful to have. 

With regard to smart cities, NVIDIA has actually invested very 

heavily in extending our technology into smart cities. In many of 

the applications that you look at, whether it’s consumer applications from Facebook or Google or whether it’s self-driving cars or 

smart cities, there are common elements of technology. For example, all of these feature and require the ability to do image recognition, intelligent analysis of video. 

So, for example, there’s a concept called IVA, intelligent video 

analysis. So being able to sift through lots of data to be able to understand, either for security purposes or for crowd management or, 

you know, things like this, a lot of these same algorithms can be 

applied into smart city types of things. 

Beyond that, there are other communication methods, vehicle to 

vehicle, vehicle to infrastructure, where you can have cars communicating with traffic lights, and, in theory, in theory, the logical extension of all of these would be a society where you don’t have traffic lights or stop signs, that you’re able to have traffic flow completely naturally, intersecting with each other. So there’s quite an 

enormous amount of potential in combining AI elements in the vehicle as well as the city, because the infrastructure would have to 

expand to support a world where you had autonomous vehicles and 

you can realize a lot more benefits. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. I know my time is running 

out here. 

Very quickly, first of all, Ms. Church, thank you for what you do. 

I had the opportunity to work very closely with not only MADD but 

Stop DUI in Nevada, and thank you for that collaboration, because 

it wasn’t just drunk driving. It was distracted driving, it was driving under the influence that we worked very hard to eradicate, and 

I think this technology will help us address this issue, working 

closely with law enforcement. 

I think the data, besides insurance, will also help law enforcement on so many levels that we can’t even contemplate right now. 

But one of them I do have a concern about is cybersecurity space, 

this space of how we address hacking into this technology. Do you 

think that, right now, we are adequately staffing, and are we already preparing to address cybersecurity needs as we build this infrastructure out? I’ll open it up for anyone. 

Mr. BAINWOL. So cyber is a real concern. It’s one that everyone 

shares. The fundamental proposition here is big data provides an 

opportunity for great benefit, but we’ve got to find a way to maxiVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
35 

mize the benefit and minimize the challenges, and cyber falls into 

that category. 

Several years ago, the OEMs came together and formed an ISAC 

as other sectors have. What was unique was that we did it in advance of an event, and to date, there has still not been a market 

event. There has been wide hacking, but not a malevolent attack. 

We’ve been fortunate—knock on wood. But as we formed the ISAC, 

we promulgated best practices. The product cycle of vehicles starts 

with security by design. 

So we can always do more. It’s not a static moment. This is a 

journey, and the challenge will grow over time. But there’s a commitment to meet that challenge. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Mr. CSONGOR. Of course, the subject of cybersecurity is extremely 

important, and I know that there has been publicized instances of 

vehicles that were hacked; however, I do think it’s important to 

note that the automobile is in the middle of transformation. It was 

not very long ago when the most sophisticated computer in that car 

was the radio. The automotive is now becoming a computer, and 

in that recognition, that’s a challenge, and it’s something that we 

have to do. 

But the good news is this is not the world’s first computer. The 

computer industry has been building computers for 50 or 60 years, 

and they’re used largely in autonomous vehicles today. The aircraft 

that we fly today are powered by computers. They’re secure. 

There’s computers powering every facet of our society and our lives. 

So I believe that there is a lot of knowledge on cybersecurity. It 

just needs to be applied to automotive. NVIDIA has been developing solutions for 20 years. If we did not provide secure 

functionality in our computers, we would not be in business. So I 

think this is a matter of application. 

Mr. BAINWOL. And we have about 18 suppliers in our ISAC, and 

we welcome you joining the party. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Fantastic. 

Mr. MADDOX. One last comment, if I could, on cybersecurity. If 

we think about cybersecurity, we should consider security of the 

entire transportation system. Certainly, the vehicle is part of that, 

but so is the infrastructure, the traffic controls, signs, and growing 

increasingly, even our personal mobile devices will be part of that 

mobility infrastructure. So when we think about cyber, we should 

consider cyber for all of that. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Great. Thank you so much. Oh, please. 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. I’m obviously not the engineer on this 

panel, but I know that MADD is looking at this issue and knows 

that the auto industry itself is taking it very seriously. We look at 

maximizing societal benefits while minimizing the disbeliefs about 

it or minimizing the benefits about it, but the fact is that the Auto 

ISAC is tracking and sharing and is accountable of all the intelligence that we started in January 2016. 

So the possibility is obviously always there, but they are really 

overcoming the threats with the help of our automakers and their 

suppliers. So I think they will have a good track record going forward. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. Thank you all. 

36 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator Gardner? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all 

of you for being here today. 

I was going to share my Sunday drive routine with Senator 

Moran in the 1971 International Harvester Travelall that I finally 

got running. So the only autonomous thing about that is its consistent breakdowns. 

Mr. Bainwol, I’ll direct this question to you. Colorado has been 

one of the states at the forefront of autonomous vehicle technology. 

The Colorado Department of Transportation has been pursuing 

rolling out their new RoadX program. It uses innovative transportation systems to improve traffic flow and modernizes the infrastructure itself to allow autonomous vehicles to move safely and effectively. 

It’s incredibly important as you drive up to the mountains from 

the airport when you fly in to ski. There’s really only one way that 

you can get there quickly, and it’s a little bit of a chokepoint at 

times. In October of last year, a fully autonomous truck made a 

commercial shipment from Fort Collins, Colorado, to Colorado 

Springs, and because it was Colorado, of course, it was a shipment 

of—no, not that. It was beer. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GARDNER. With Colorado as one of the fastest-growing 

states in the nation, I’m excited about the opportunities created by 

autonomous vehicles to reduce congestion and prevent accidents. In 

your testimony, you talked about timelines for Tiers 3, 4, and 5 

highly autonomous vehicles. You talked about Tier 5 and that it 

can operate seamlessly anywhere, and a person can drive—you 

know, anywhere a person can drive a conventional vehicle, and 

that you think it would hit the roads around 2025. But going on 

with your testimony, you talk about how you don’t think these vehicles will make up a majority of the cars on the road for three decades or so. 

So what are the first sort of changes that we will see in things 

like urban planning as autonomous vehicles hit the market? 

Mr. BAINWOL. You’re asking the tricky but correct question, because we’re going to have a situation of fleet mix for decades. The 

estimates and timing were actually Moody’s, not ours, but it’s all 

predicated on the reality that the average age of a car is 11 years 

old. So if you go down to the 20th percentile, they’re really old cars, 

and so once you introduce the technology, it takes a long time to 

wind its way through the fleet. 

So planners have to deal with a transition that’s going to occur 

for 20 or 30 years, and there’s no magic answer. Part of it depends 

on how aggressive a city or a state approaches it. Part of it is not 

knowing exactly what the adoption is going to be. There are fundamental questions. We don’t know whether VMT is going to go up 

or go down. We don’t know whether car ownership is going to decline and by how much versus ride sharing. 

37 

So there are lots of open issues here, and you almost have to 

place a bet and then try to mobilize and accelerate the future. 

There are lots of crazy things. I met with a very provocative nuclear physicist who talks about the future all the time, and his 

comment, unrelated to his profession, was that at some point in the 

future, metros will become basically parking stations, because the 

last mile value of autonomy will be so cheap that metro systems 

will end up collapsing, so they’ll become storage for something else. 

What do you do about parking, and how long will that transition 

take? 

So I don’t really have a great answer. But the question is profoundly on target, and planners are going to have to wrestle with 

this question in a really profound way. 

Senator GARDNER. I’m happy if anybody else wants to take a shot 

at that. Now, the technology you were talking about—is it Csongor? 

Is that how you say it? 

Mr. CSONGOR. It’s pronounced Csongor. 

Senator GARDNER. Will AI be able to pronounce that? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CSONGOR. Probably not. 

Senator GARDNER. All right. Please go ahead if you have anything else. 

Mr. CSONGOR. I think one of the interesting next ripple effects 

as a result of AV, autonomous vehicles, will be a big problem in 

our cities and our infrastructure, which is parking lots. Today, a 

lot of urban sprawl is caused by the fact that every building has 

to have a parking lot right beside it, because the people driving 

don’t want to walk for a long period of time. 

NVIDIA is actually—we’re building a new corporate building in 

Santa Clara, and if you look at it, there’s no parking lot on the outside. Now, the parking lot will be underground, but the AV capability introduces the possibility of being able to free up a lot of 

land, to eliminate a lot of this sprawl, and then to simply have an 

autonomous vehicle go park and it doesn’t matter to you how far 

away it is, as long as it’s somewhere close by. So I think that’s an 

exciting—— 

Senator GARDNER. Well, I look forward to carrying on the conversation about the rollout of Tier 5 and other technologies and the 

integration of Federal, state, and local regulations and policies as 

we move forward. 

Really, Mr. Bainwol, to your point of whether a metro or something like that is necessary as we’re pursuing appropriations to put 

billions of dollars into certain public infrastructure projects, at 

what point does the intersection of cost to benefit, because of AV 

technology, start impacting those decisions? So that’s a question 

we’re going to have to answer. 

So thanks very much for your time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Gardner. 

Senator Young. 

38 

STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA 

Senator YOUNG. Well, thank you, Chairman, for holding this 

hearing, and I want to thank our panelists for their testimony here 

today. I really appreciate it. 

Today, private industry is taking the lead in developing many of 

the standards that are driving how we talk about automated vehicles. For example, the Society of Automotive Engineers has issued 

standards defining six levels of automation. Many governmental 

bodies, including our Department of Transportation in the Federal 

automated vehicles policy, have adopted or referenced those standards. 

That strikes me, generally speaking, as a good model to continue 

as technology is still developing. That said, if we’re to preclude 

states from enacting safety standards for fear of a patchwork of 

regulations, something that’s been invoked here today, we may 

need to have some minimum level of reporting to NHTSA. 

Are you concerned—anyone can speak to this—that new entrants 

and startups in the industry might have difficulty working with 

NHTSA? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Concern may not be the right word. But I think 

everybody who wants to enter the space ought to. The rule set 

should be technology neutral, and at the end of the day, for common opportunity, there should be a common obligation to meet the 

safety standards. The entire enterprise is predicated on the notion 

that we’re going to improve safety, NHTSA’s reality is a positive 

reality. We’ve had 50 years of safety standards, and the CDC describes the outcome as one of the great public health achievements 

of the century. So we want to recognize the value that that system 

provides and make sure that everybody complies. 

Senator YOUNG. So we see this across industry sectors, right, 

where the incumbents oftentimes play an important and constructive role in developing new standards, but sometimes those standards are also tailored to advantage their business models, right? 

They have to answer to shareholders. They’re publicly traded companies. 

So to ensure as much dynamism, as much innovation, so we can 

best serve the consumer markets, which all of us want, are there 

specific steps that anyone has in mind that can be taken to ensure 

that we’re responsive to these new startups? 

Mr. MADDOX. I’ll add to that, if I could. Certainly, voluntary 

standards are a critical step. I discussed that a little bit earlier. 

The key thing we need to ensure is that those voluntary standards 

efforts are really directed and focused on an outcome that can result in a FMVSS and result in the ability of manufacturers, be they 

new or existing, to deploy their vehicles so that we can learn from 

them. 

So I think the critical piece is that U.S. DOT, NHTSA, perhaps 

directly, should work together with SAE and ITE for traffic engineering and IEEE for communications to make sure that those voluntary standards efforts are directed to be something that could be 

useful for a future FMVSS standard. 

Senator YOUNG. Mr. Csongor? If I said that correctly? 

Mr. CSONGOR. It’s OK. The Cs are like Ch. 

39 

Senator YOUNG. All right. Csongor. All right, sir. 

Mr. CSONGOR. It’s OK. Startups are an important part of any 

technological disruption. They’re a hotbed of innovation, a hotbed 

of ideas. When I joined NVIDIA in 1995, we were one of them, and 

because of the climate that was made possible by our government 

and by Silicon Valley, we were able to grow and make a difference 

in the world. So our DNA is wired to not just permit, but encourage 

the development of breakthrough technology on top of our platform. 

When we work with startups, they are all aware of standards 

from committees or industries, ASIL ratings, and they are able to 

work with them. I think as long as regulation creates reasonable 

compliance rules for reporting information and things like this, I 

think that we’re going to have no problem and we’re going to enjoy 

a lot of benefits from the startups. 

Senator YOUNG. Thank you. 

Mr. Maddox, as I conclude here, you know, you might imply or 

infer from my previous line of questioning that I’m concerned about 

Congress or Federal agencies or, frankly, some incumbents putting 

their thumb on the scale to the disadvantage of others. SAE is obviously at the forefront of developing many of the voluntary standards you’ve discussed. Are there other standards development organizations that should be part of the conversation as we move forward, domestically or internationally? 

Mr. MADDOX. Certainly, if you think of a future transportation 

system as a system, which includes vehicles, roads, communication 

systems, then there are other standards organizations like Institute for Transportation Engineers, ITE, based here in the U.S.; 

IEEE for communications. Those will be critical to bring together, 

and now we’re talking about a very difficult lift, but an important 

one, which is getting standards bodies to talk to one another, just 

like the vehicle manufacturers and the other technologies have to. 

So those are critical stakeholders in the standards game. 

Certainly, there is an international standards effort, and we always have a goal to try to harmonize vehicle standards and other 

standards internationally. It’s very difficult to do that, but the best 

time, the best opportunity to do that is when the technology is nascent. So we should involve those other international bodies also. 

Senator YOUNG. Well, thank you. It sounds like we need some 

standards for the various standards organizations discussing these 

topics together. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Young. 

Senator Inhofe is up next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So that a lot of the people here and at the table be aware of it, 

one of the problems we have is we have lots of meetings happening 

at the same time, and it happens that half the members of this 

committee are also on Environment and Public Works, and we’re 

meeting at the same time. So if I ask something that has already 

been asked, you can just be offended. 

[Laughter.] 

40 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Csongor, to facilitate the deployment of autonomous vehicles, there’s a lot of conversation about the types of 

Federal regulations that should be in place. One thing I’m concerned about that DOT is guilty of is setting up a kind of system 

where new technology cannot be quickly adopted because of an onerous approval system. This is exactly what happened with FAA. 

When we get some things as innocuous as applying GPS into an 

iPad system that you can use, it actually took years to get that 

done. So I am concerned about this, because, you know, that’s government. 

Does that concern you, too? And tell me why if it does not. What 

can we do now to put something in place to keep up with this? 

Mr. CSONGOR. I think that the path that we’re going down, which 

is—and the spirit of this Committee, I think, is not just to ensure 

the safety, but you can feel that the spirit of this committee is to 

make sure that development work goes on, whether it’s from infrastructure or startups or all the people here on this panel, and that 

we can streamline the effort to do it. 

So I feel that we all understand the goal. We understand the 

benefits of what’s being—what’s at stake, and there might be just 

a few small steps, you know, to focus on first, and I had mentioned 

it earlier in my comments, but I’ll cover it again. The nature of the 

technology of an autonomous vehicle through AI is one where access to large amounts of data that’s very diverse is very important. 

So it has been mentioned a number of times, but, certainly, unified 

regulations and then enforcement through NHTSA to provide that 

single unified compliance would dramatically help us in developing 

cars. 

Senator INHOFE. I’m glad to hear you say that your observation 

is that this Committee has a reputation of getting things done and 

avoiding some of the unnecessary steps that other bureaucracies 

do. So I think this committee should be complimented, and I think 

you are accurate when you say that. 

Now, when you talk about all the data that’s going to be necessary, Oklahoma is proud to be a data center state, and Google 

has a massive facility that we’re very proud of. It’s in Pryor, Oklahoma. It’s supplied with power from the GRDA, Grand River Dam 

Authority, in Oklahoma, the entity that generates power off of a 

large lake. 

Autonomous vehicles will be collecting all kinds of data, pictures, 

and video every second that they’re in operation, and this is going 

to require vast amounts of data stored at facilities like Google’s. 

But what we don’t want is the wrong people to get ahold of that. 

Have you discussed in some detail safeguards that can be made? 

Because that threat is out there. There will be a lot of the wrong 

people wanting access to stuff that we don’t want them to have access to. What are your thoughts about that? 

Mr. CSONGOR. I agree with you very much. I can speak on behalf 

of NVIDIA, and I can talk to some of the steps that we take or the 

protocols that we put in place. First of all, the data that we collect, 

we use for one purpose and one purpose only, and that’s to improve 

AI algorithms so that you can have a safer car. We regard any of 

the information that is collected as a part of that data as private 

41 

information. We don’t share it with anybody unless we have a very 

secure way of sharing that data. 

The data collected in our vehicles, if it’s updated in a system 

where you have an over-the-air update, the transmission of the 

data, the upload and the download, is encrypted. And then within 

the building, there’s a multilayer security protocol, ranging from 

the building security and the server infrastructure, and then within the server, there are various layers of firewall. So I won’t get 

into all the details. I think that, again, the data that we collect, we 

treat as if it’s the data that is our secrets, the secrets of our use 

and everything, and then we protect it as such. 

Senator INHOFE. Sure. Well, you don’t need to detail any more 

of it, but it sounds like you’re on to this and you recognize that the 

problem exists, and you’re in a position to take care of it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Hassan? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member. 

To the panel, thank you all for being here this morning. 

When many individuals discuss the development and scaling of 

automatic vehicles, it’s often in the context of breaking down barriers for individuals who are not currently able to drive a vehicle. 

In 2015, the National Council on Disabilities released a report titled ‘‘Self-driving Cars: Mapping Access to a Technology Revolution.’’ This report recognized the promise that this technology holds 

for individuals with disabilities while at the same time highlighted 

some challenges of independent use of these vehicles, such as the 

integration of accessibility and assistive technology, mapping system accuracy, and equipment failure. 

Keeping these challenges in mind, I’d ask anybody on the panel 

who would like to address it: What role do you see in automated 

vehicles providing greater access for individuals who experience 

disabilities? And then the add-on to that is that we’ve seen time 

and again that advanced technology best serves individuals who 

need it most when those individuals are part of the development 

process to ensure accessibility. So what can the industry and local, 

state, and Federal Government do to ensure that people with disabilities are included in the development and rollout of this technology, from licensing issues, insurance, design, usability? 

Mr. MADDOX. I’ll start. 

Senator HASSAN. Sure. 

Mr. MADDOX. I wholeheartedly agree that automated vehicle 

technology could be extremely beneficial for those who don’t have 

access to transportation for many different reasons. Equity in 

transportation is something that I think, over the next 20 years, 

we will build a greater and greater, more thorough understanding 

of and a more comprehensive solution set than we have today. 

There’s no question about it. Automated vehicles will play a strong 

role in that. 

I think it’s critical if we think about how to accelerate automated 

vehicles—and this is really Level 4, Level 5, the highly automated 

42 

vehicles. Demonstration programs really are key. We need to actually put them on our streets, first in small numbers, but in everincreasing numbers. That will provide the opportunity for this 

group of folks who don’t have equitable access now to really experience the technology, and it does come back to consumer education. 

It is critical to educate every transportation user, and that’s probably everybody in this room, for sure, if we walk or drive to work 

or to the office. 

So I think that really involving that community—the best way to 

do it is through demonstration programs where they can learn 

firsthand and provide input to the designer of the vehicle or the 

system. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Csongor? 

Mr. CSONGOR. This is a subject particularly dear to my heart. My 

mother lives in a retirement community, and I’ve had a chance to 

talk to them, and they’re very excited about this potential. I think 

that one of the interesting applications of AV vehicle technology is 

actually even beyond the self-driving cars that he mentioned, but 

also in the introduction of autonomous scooters or shuttles. 

We’re working with startup companies in shuttles and scooters 

that actually have the potential to be deployed much sooner to 

these people, and the reason being that, for example, if you had 

shuttles within a community, a retirement community, it’s what we 

call a geo-fenced area. You don’t have to have it operate all over 

the world. So the potential for rapid deployment to help these types 

of communities is actually very exciting. 

Senator HASSAN. Anybody else want to comment? Mr. Bainwol? 

Mr. BAINWOL. I’d just add that’s precisely the right point. In a 

geo-fence context, it’s going to happen sooner rather than later. To 

realize the full potential of what you’re asking really is Level 5, 

though, and as we’ve talked about, the transition is a long one. So 

from a congressional perspective, if that’s the focus, then the mission is to accelerate that day that we get to Level 5, and that 

means public policy that is geared toward accelerating the future. 

Senator HASSAN. I would just ask you all—as we think about piloting, getting upfront input from people who experience disabilities before the product is finalized is really, really critical. We see 

this right now. We’re having to upgrade and change a lot of existing technology for accessibility purposes, and if you can include the 

community sooner rather than later, I think it streamlines the 

whole process, and you learn that when you address issues with 

people with disabilities, you often address convenience and other 

issues for the general public as well. 

Because I am running out of time, I will make sure we submit 

this question to you all in writing. But, you know, the other thing 

that strikes me is as we discuss infrastructure, generally, for transportation in this country, it would be very useful to get your input 

about what a new generation of infrastructure should include, 

whether it has particular kinds of street lights, cameras, clear 

roadway lines, adequate signage, et cetera, to accommodate these 

vehicles. And I’ll look forward to your written answers to that. 

Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

43 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hassan. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

having this hearing. 

Ms. Sheehey-Church, I want to thank you for coming from Connecticut, from Madison, where I believe you live, and for sharing 

your really tragic story about your son. As a father of four, I can’t 

imagine your loss. It’s every parent’s worst nightmare. So I’m particularly grateful that you’ve come to Washington, but also for your 

tremendous work and that of Mothers Against Drunk Driving 

throughout Connecticut and our Nation. 

I’ve been very, very privileged and proud to work with MADD 

over many years as Attorney General and now as a U.S. Senator 

and know full well that too many families have been devastated by 

this continuing scourge. We tend to focus on the issue of the moment while young people, really people of all ages, continue to perish as a result of this fully preventable condition. 

I would like to ask you perhaps if you could reflect why we 

should be especially careful about semi-autonomous vehicles and 

the possibility that it may create a false sense of security? 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I think 

in the beginning when I talked about MADD’s concerns and 

MADD’s four principles, we were really looking at 4 and 5. That’s 

the level that we have to look at, because zero through 3 does have 

the capability of human interaction. So I’ll borrow a phrase from 

my colleague here that when we talk about artificial intelligence in 

that 4 and 5, it really does go far beyond what humans can do. 

So when I look at AVs myself, and I take out my role as National 

President, and I look at my role as a parent or as a mom, and I 

look at AVs—and, again, just relating myself to the 4s and 5s— 

there needs to be a cure to stop 35,000 deaths that—not only drunk 

driving deaths, but there are also behavioral traffic-related 

deaths—that we have the opportunity to have a cure here, and the 

AVs themselves, the 4s and 5s, could actually be that vaccine that 

we could utilize across the country to save more lives. So I’d have 

to answer it, in terms of self-driving, I’m really looking at 4 and 

5 as being that vaccine over time. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And do you think it’s important that 

NHTSA make sure that certain safety features are mandatory in 

all vehicles so that drivers and individuals know what to expect, 

not only for their sake, but for the sake of people who are driving 

on the road unaware about the lack of those safety features? 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. Oh, absolutely. I mean, just like with 

seatbelts, when we needed to educate, it’s like we’re educating on 

ignition interlocks right now. So now the consumer acceptance will 

only come with pure education on what AVs can do. So it’s really— 

I beg that NHTSA and the auto industry and safety advocates really sit at the table and all have a collaborated effort in bringing the 

AVs—we all want the same thing. We want safety. Safety comes 

first. So when I say that, you know, before anything is rolled out 

in masses, that safety is our number one concern, and every one 

44 

of these individuals in the auto industry, safety advocates, have to 

be at that table to be able to collaborate together. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Mr. Maddox, how do we make sure that 

voluntary standards regarding safety are adopted? 

Mr. MADDOX. I think the key there is that we enter into the activity to create those voluntary standards with a number of outcomes in mind, certainly one of them being the creation—the support for the creation of FMVSS. So if you look at the history of 

safety technology over the decades, every major safety technology 

on our vehicle today started with that voluntary standard approach. 

So if we use that, there’s no reason we can’t continue that process that works for automated vehicles. It is much more complex. As 

Mr. Csongor has pointed out, the data involved here is far, far 

higher—in order of magnitude, higher than prior safety technologies. So the key is for NHTSA, U.S. DOT, the auto industry, 

and other stakeholders to really get together and decide what’s the 

end game, what voluntary standards would be needed to enable the 

technology to be deployed at scale, and, very specifically, which 

pieces of those voluntary standards would inform future Federal 

regulations. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. 

I appreciate your excellent testimony today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Klobuchar? 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. Thank you for being 

here. 

I wanted to thank you, specifically, for your work, Ms. SheeheyChurch. As you know, as a former prosecutor, I did a lot of work 

with MADD, and we passed finally in Minnesota the felony DWI 

law, which was helpful, and I am supportive of your words about 

how technology can help as well. 

Mr. Bainwol, I think I would start with you. As you know, fully 

autonomous vehicles are still a few years out. What technology is 

on the road now to intervene if a driver is distracted behind the 

wheel? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Good question. There are—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. It’s hard to find questions to ask after everyone has asked them. So I really appreciate that. Thank you. 

Mr. BAINWOL. Yes. So you did a good job. So, generally, crash 

avoidance technologies are the answer to your question. Automatic 

braking is probably the best example, where the car will brake for 

the driver if the driver is not engaged soon enough. Drivers should 

not drive in a distracted situation. We shouldn’t rely entirely on 

the car to make up for human error. 

There’s a human responsibility here, and there’s no question 

that, as a society, we can do the same kinds of things we did with 

MADD, the success of MADD, that kind of changed the culture. We 

need to do the same with distraction. But there are technologies 

that will help, and emergency braking is probably the best example. 

45 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think so. 

Mr. Maddox, as we see these changes coming upon us, what are 

some of the steps that can be taken to ensure consumers understand this with some of the current changes that are there? I just 

picture people running cars and not used to it or people getting a 

new car. I know I had the same car for—now my car confessions 

occur—for 12 years, a Saturn. It was great, and then it got a hole 

where I put the brake down in the actual—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So I got a new car, which I truly enjoy, a 

Malibu, and it has some of the brakes—if you go over the lane a 

little bit, it sort of jerks you back, and at first, even though they 

told me about it, it was a surprise. So I’m just picturing some of 

this. How do you educate consumers? 

Mr. MADDOX. I think that is another great question. Certainly, 

I would commend—NHTSA has undertaken a program. I think it’s 

called My Car Does What?, and it’s actually being implemented—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That seems like a perfect thing for me. 

Mr. MADDOX. Exactly, I think, for a lot of us, as a matter of fact, 

even us experts. We don’t get to drive every car with every little 

nuance of technology. So I think that educating the consumers on 

what their vehicle does and what it doesn’t do—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And the limits as well. Senator Hoeven and 

I have led a lot of efforts on distracted driving and got a bill passed 

just recently with Senator Thune’s help. Thank you. It was part of 

the FAST Act, which allowed some of the grants to go out for education efforts to the states on distracted driving. For a while, only 

one state was getting the money: Connecticut. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So I think this will have to be a major part 

of the effort. 

Mr. MADDOX. Yes. In fact, I would add that with the automated 

vehicle proving ground program, we are looking at how to utilize 

those 10 sites to do that consumer education. Imagine—what we’re 

considering in Michigan is that on the second Sunday or the fourth 

Sunday in every month, we would invite the public in and let them 

actually experience this technology in a vehicle—maybe they don’t 

own it yet—because, really, driving it and experiencing it is worth 

a thousand words and pictures. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Let me just go to a few quick questions for 

you, Mr. Maddox. 

Mr. MADDOX. Sure. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Ensuring that highway construction workers are safe in a work zone is critical to the testing and deployment 

of connected automated vehicles. Since work zones often temporarily block off lanes and redirect traffic flow, they can be difficult 

to navigate, even for experienced drivers. Do you believe it would 

improve safety if temporary traffic control devices could send safety 

related information to the sensors on the vehicles? 

Mr. MADDOX. Absolutely. In fact, it’s a great V to I application. 

The V to I and V to V really are critical for automated vehicles, 

also. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. Last question. Senator 

Hoeven and I also worked on a bill to make it clear that the owner 

46 

of a vehicle also owns any information collected by an onboard 

event data recorder. It was signed into law also as part of the 

FAST Act. 

Mr. Maddox, connected vehicles will collect and share large 

amounts of data. What protections should be in place to keep consumers’ personal information secure? 

Mr. MADDOX. I can’t say that I’ve got a comprehensive answer 

to that question at this point. I do believe that we do need to establish rules on that data ownership, and it does seem that the owner 

or the operator of the vehicle should be the owner of the data. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And, obviously, for emergencies and for 

crash sites and things like that, you would want more information 

to go to the authorities. 

Thank you very much, and I appreciate all of you. 

Senator PETERS [presiding]. Senator Cantwell? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

witnesses. 

This industry, I think, is estimated to generate something like $7 

trillion by 2050, so we certainly want to continue to see the innovation and are proud that Washington and Kirkland, Washington, 

specifically, have also been some of the early adopters to enabling 

this kind of testing. 

I wanted to ask you, Mr. Csongor, about working with the trucking industry, particularly PACCAR. You know, from the aviation 

side, these efficiencies have got pilots doing very little manual operation of our airplanes, and these kinds of innovations can also reduce the demand on drivers. But the obvious efficiencies that we 

need to get out of freight is very important for my state, very important for the movement of freight. 

What do you think that this will do to help us on efficiencies? 

Mr. CSONGOR. That’s a great question. We actually, I think, as 

you may know, are working with PACCAR, and we had actually 

shown a video and demonstrated a PACCAR truck running on basically a computer very similar to this one. So the truck is able to 

drive and maintain in the lanes, and the deployment of this product is up to PACCAR and to decide how they want to do it and 

what the policy is. But the capability, certainly, to reduce driver fatigue and to assist the trucker is certainly there and could be deployed fairly soon. 

Now, it’s very hard to predict the evolution of jobs with the introduction of this technology. The role of a pilot has changed, but the 

job remains. So with regard to the trucking industry, I think the 

most immediate benefit would be trucker fatigue. But then the actual implementation of it and how it affects it I would have to defer 

to someone from that industry. 

Senator CANTWELL. What about fuel efficiency? That’s not in the 

target? 

Mr. CSONGOR. Oh, it is. As you can imagine, having a computer 

driving, it would obviously be able to drive more efficiently than a 

human would and do it with very little effort. So I think that there 

is also financial benefits to the truckers beyond safety. 

47 

Senator CANTWELL. Fuel efficiency for us in the Northwest is a 

very big issue because we have some of the highest gas prices in 

the Nation as our supply comes from Alaska and is a somewhat 

limited market. Anything that helps us drive efficiencies on fuel is 

very, very important for us in maintaining what is one in three 

jobs related to trade. 

Being a big importer of a lot of products, moving them through 

the country cost effectively or moving agricultural products out of 

the Midwest through our ports—all of this is about reducing fuel 

costs and efficiencies to make operations more successful. If we 

don’t, it goes to Canada or somewhere else. I don’t know if anybody 

else, perhaps Mr. Maddox, wanted to comment on that. 

Mr. MADDOX. I would like to comment on that, actually. I totally 

agree with you. You know, the cost of moving goods, especially in 

a large geographic area of the United States, really is critical. It’s 

a critical economic issue, competitiveness issue for us. Automated 

and connected technology can enable truck platooning, which 

brings significant fuel economy and potential savings, and up even 

in the 10 percent range. That’s a number unheard of with most 

other vehicle efficiency technologies that are on the near horizon. 

Senator CANTWELL. You want to elaborate on platooning a little 

bit? 

Mr. MADDOX. I’m sorry. My apologies. Platooning is where one 

vehicle follows another very closely. In the case of a truck, it could 

be anywhere as short as 15 feet but probably more like 25 to 40 

feet behind the leading truck. Automation with connection can enable that technology with or without a driver in the lead—certainly 

in the lead vehicle or the following vehicles. 

The key point, though, is the efficiency benefit, if it’s the following trucks, as well as the leading truck. So any technology that 

could deliver a 10 percent fuel savings has to be examined in great 

detail, especially for a country the size of the United States. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, thank you for bringing that up. I really 

do think it is about competitiveness, and I know we have many 

challenges. I know here, we’re always saying, ‘‘This is Washington 

and we want to regulate,’’ and I keep saying, ‘‘I’m from Washington 

and we want to innovate.’’ And the innovation aspect of this is 

critically important, so I hope our state continues to innovate in 

this area. 

Thank you. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Senator Udall? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Peters, very much, and I 

thank the panelists today. I think this has been a very productive 

discussion we’ve had here. 

I’m particularly interested in autonomous and semi-autonomous 

vehicles because Rio Rancho, New Mexico, is home to a major Intel 

semiconductor fabrication plant, and Intel’s facility is an economic 

anchor for that city and central New Mexico as a whole, providing 

high-paying jobs to New Mexico STEM graduates. This facility in 

Rio Rancho, this Intel facility, makes some of the semiconductors 

48 

used in modern high-tech vehicle technology. So I’m going to be following this very closely and look forward to, if there are additional 

questions, submitting some to the record. 

But my first question is to Ms. Sheehey-Church and has to do 

with the safety aspects of autonomous vehicles. This technology has 

the promise to reduce crashes and fatalities, as you’ve talked about 

a little bit here, including those from drunk driving. As you know, 

I’ve worked with MADD for many years, going back to my service 

as Attorney General in New Mexico. We had a comprehensive 

package that we put in, working with MADD, that really reduced 

drunk driving and drunk driving deaths in New Mexico. 

I’m sure that MADD is looking past the industry hype and enthusiasm and is focused on safety and saving lives. So while the 

benefits of self-driving technology for drunk driving are obvious at 

first blush, we must remember that the intoxicated person could be 

sitting at the wheel of an autonomous vehicle and could take over 

at any time, especially if there’s an issue that requires human 

intervention. Some states have proposed laws on this topic. 

Should an autonomous vehicle be required to have technology to 

prevent an intoxicated person from taking control of the wheel? 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. Senator, that’s a great question, and I 

don’t know if I have the full answer to it, whether they will or will 

not have that. I know that DADSS in itself in AV vehicles, the 4 

and 5 levels, are great complements to each other, but in terms of 

digging deeper into the AV technicalities, I’m not a technical expert. I only play one on TV. So I can’t tell you what exactly is going 

to be in that. I’d have to probably defer to one of my colleagues to 

see if that was going to be. But I’m in full agreement that if that 

individual can take over at any time, that is a concern, obviously, 

for MADD. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. And you mentioned DADSS, and that’s a 

very important part of this as developing technology—— 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. Absolutely. 

Senator UDALL.—so that vehicles won’t be turned over to an intoxicated person. Now, what are your key recommendations for 

Congress and Federal agencies to ensure that this technology develops so we can realize the safety potential of autonomous vehicles 

to eliminate drunk driving deaths? 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. I go back, Senator, to the four principles 

that I said in my written testimony. It is really looking at and supporting the Federal regulatory framework. There’s the need for 

that, and also supporting the existing state systems that we have. 

See, you’re not listening and that’s why you’re tapping him on the 

shoulder, because I would do that if I was up there. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. No—— 

Senator MARKEY. We’re both listening. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. We’re both listening. 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. Just kidding. Just kidding. And, really, 

the support on MADD’s side for Levels 4 and 5 is really looking at 

that in terms of the technologies, but also really supporting and 

evaluating the technology and the data that we need to get, evaluating the data as this whole thing evolves. I know we’ve got skeptics on the fence. We are not going to dismiss that. But I think the 

49 

more that NHTSA, the governing bodies, the auto industry, and 

the safety advocates can sit at the same table, we can start to overcome those, and, obviously, from MADD’s point of view, we’d like 

to overcome them sooner rather than later. 

Senator UDALL. Do any of the other panelists have comments on 

the safety issue? 

Mr. CSONGOR. The safety issue, I think, is very important, as 

we’ve talked about, and I very much agree with what she said. The 

safety issue on both protection of the data as well as protection of 

the system is something that I think will be solved, like we’ve 

solved other computer problems—a combination of industry standards and the right regulations that help support them, and I think 

working together, and I think the devil is in the details. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Markey? 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Ms. Sheehey-Church, we were—believe me, I was listening very 

intently. 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. I’m only kidding. It’s that kind of—like a 

squirrel, I’m looking at anybody. 

Senator MARKEY. No, no, I know it. I was run over by a car when 

I was five years old, and nothing will focus you so much on an 

issue like vehicle safety as event like that. So I thank you for all 

your great work, historic work, on these issues over the years. 

Autonomous vehicles are just computers without drivers. That’s 

all they are. And as we move to the future, we then have to ensure 

that we are going to build in all of the human values that we want 

to see built into these new computers that will be riding around on 

the streets of America. 

Senator Blumenthal and I, in 2013 and again last year, asked 20 

automakers what they’re doing to protect these computers on 

wheels. Here’s what we learned. We learned that thieves no longer 

need a crowbar to break into your car. They just need an iPhone. 

A few years ago, we witnessed firsthand how easily cars can be 

hacked. We watched as hackers remotely took control of the brakes, 

the steering, and the acceleration of a Jeep Cherokee. Chrysler had 

to recall 1.4 million vehicles to fix this cybersecurity problem. 

Rather than addressing the cybersecurity problems after a hack 

has occurred, we must ensure that robust cybersecurity protections 

are built into the design, the construction, and operation of these 

transportation technologies, particularly as we move into this new 

era very quickly. That’s why Senator Blumenthal and I have introduced legislation once again, the Spy Car Act, that directs NHTSA 

and the Federal Trade Commission to establish Federal standards 

to secure our cars and to protect our privacy. 

We should not have to choose, as Americans, between being connected and being protected. This should not be a tension. These 

issues should all be solved before the new era unfolds. So, if you 

could, each panelist, just give me your answer as to whether or not 

you believe cars should have mandatory cybersecurity standards, 

50 

including hacking protections that protect all access points in a car; 

data security measures that prevent unwanted access to all collected information; and hacking mitigation technologies that can 

detect, report, and stop hacking attempts in real time. Should that 

be a requirement so that these hackers can’t get into the system? 

Mr. Bainwol, yes or no? Should we have those standards? 

Mr. BAINWOL. The short answer is no. The longer answer is we 

share your concern and we share your objective, but we think that 

the best way to realize your objective is to have a dynamic approach, and our fear is that standards would become obsolete very 

quickly. 

Senator MARKEY. I appreciate that, but I don’t agree with you. 

Mr. Csongor—you need dynamic mandatory standards. You’re 

right. The standard could keep getting raised, but to have no 

standard would be extremely dangerous. That’s the world I grew 

up in, with no seatbelts, no airbags, the steering wheel made out 

of metal, and so that just can’t be the standard as we move into 

this computer world, from my perspective. 

Mr. Csongor? 

Mr. CSONGOR. Senator Markey, I’d certainly agree with the goal 

that you’re describing. I’m not sure about the implementation of it, 

particularly when you talk about the ability of the car to be able 

to heal itself or to be able to solve the problem. We don’t know 

what we don’t know, and cybersecurity is not something that we 

fix once and then it’s done. 

Senator MARKEY. Exactly. 

Mr. CSONGOR. It’s something that you’re battling continuously. 

Senator MARKEY. Exactly. And should the industry be mandated 

to be fighting it continuously? Should that be part of the NHTSA 

rules? 

Mr. CSONGOR. Right. I think the only question is just what’s the 

right balance and—— 

Senator MARKEY. Right. But the balance should be that it can’t 

be hacked and that the constant high standard that the industry 

has to meet is one that protects against that. Do you think that’s 

a reasonable goal to set? 

Mr. CSONGOR. I think that’s a reasonable goal. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Let me ask you, Ms. Sheehey-Church. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. Senator, I think it’s a reasonable expectation, but in the position that I am and with the staff that we work 

with as we work with the panelists, I’m not at this time able to 

answer the question on what could be put on to the NHTSA for 

regulations on hacking. I appreciate the question. 

Senator MARKEY. I got you. 

Ms. SHEEHEY-CHURCH. I think it’s a serious concern, but I can’t 

answer it at this time. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Maddox? 

Mr. MADDOX. I think the nature of the risk for cybersecurity is 

changing so quickly, voluntary standards, frankly, have a better 

opportunity to keep up with that changing risk than any regulation 

could. Second, I do believe that we need to think about transportation cybersecurity as a system—security in our vehicles, security 

in our traffic control, security in our signs, security even in the 

51 

communication systems that we rely on increasingly for transportation. So I think voluntary standards would likely have a more effective result. 

Senator MARKEY. I think the history, though, shows that with 

airbags and with seatbelts, et cetera, unless there’s a mandate, it’s 

just not accomplished unless you actually pass laws out of this 

committee nationally. The industry moves slowly, and so the best 

players move voluntarily. The worst players don’t, and the worst 

players are the ones that cause all the damage out on the highways. So you need to have, you know, those protections so that 

there is that minimum standard. 

And I think that, you know, just as part of this conversation, it’s 

good as we start in this era that we begin to have this discussion, 

because to a certain extent, there’s a repetition syndrome, where 

the industry is going to be promoting all the wonderful aspects of 

it, but there’s a Dickensian aspect to the Internet, which is what 

we’re talking about here, just to talk about computers. It’s the best 

of technologies and it’s the worst of technologies. It’s a technology 

that can enable and ennoble and it’s a technology that can degrade 

and debase and harm families. So it’s both at the same time. 

Talking about all the great things has to be accompanied by 

what we’re going to do to minimize the bad things that can happen. 

By ignoring that discussion, we ignore the central concerns that 

families will have about safety and there will be a lot of concerns 

families are going to have about autonomous vehicles and the safety of their children in those vehicles. 

From my perspective, what I want to hear in the weeks, months, 

and years to come is that any standards would require computers 

on wheels to constantly update and patch themselves for any 

vulnerabilities. I believe that has to be mandatory. You can’t just 

leave it up to any one auto manufacturer to do it. You have to have 

every one of the players accepting that as a responsibility. Otherwise, the streets won’t be safer. These vehicles will be very dangerous. These vehicles will be hacked. These vehicles will subject 

families to the kind of tragedies that we’re trying to protect 

against. 

So you have to build in both simultaneously. I mean, it’s the best 

and the worst, you know, in any technology, and each technology 

is only as good as the values which we, as a people, animate those 

technologies with. How high of a standard do we want to make 

sure that we protect families against the downside of that technology. And, by the way, that’s every technology. None of them are 

exempt from that kind of a situation. 

That will be my concern going forward, because I obviously want 

to see a revolution occur, but not with kind of panglossian glasses 

that ignore the fact that there are vulnerabilities. I know what 

happens when those safeguards are not in place. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Before we close out the hearing, I need to take care of a little 

housekeeping, if you could bear with me. I would ask unanimous 

consent to include in the record letters from stakeholders providing 

additional perspective on today’s hearing, including a statement 

from the Advocates on Highway and Auto Safety, the American 

52 

Car Rental Association, Continental, the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, and Uber Technologies, Incorporated. 

Hearing no objection. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.] 

Senator PETERS. One final note. The hearing record will remain 

open for 2 weeks. During this time, Senators are asked to submit 

any questions for the record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as soon 

as possible. 

So in closing, I just want to thank our four witnesses for what 

I think was incredible testimony dealing with incredible technology 

that will surely be transformative. Thank you for your time today. 

We look forward to working with you in the years ahead. 

With that, this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(53) 

i 281 F.R. 65703 (Sept. 23, 2016); DOT Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0090. 

iiThe Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised), HS 812 013, 

U.S. DOT, NHTSA (May 2015 (Revised)), available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/ 

812013.pdf. (NHTSA Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes Report). iii National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2015 motor vehicle crashes: Overview, Report 

No. DOT HS 812 318, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Aug. 2016). iv Id. v National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities for the First 9 Months of 2016, Report No. DOT HS 812 358, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Jan. 2017). viLives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards, 1960 to 2012, DOT HS 812 069 (NHTSA, 2015); See also, NHTSA AV Policy, Executive Summary, p. 5 endnote 1. viiPub. L. 102–240 (Dec. 18, 1991). viii National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Lives Saved in 2015 by Restraint Use and Minimum-Drinking-Age Laws, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 

812 319 (Aug. 2016). 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, PRESIDENT, 

ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY

Introduction 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a coalition of public health, 

safety, and consumer organizations, insurers and insurance agents that promotes 

highway and auto safety through the adoption of Federal and state laws, policies 

and regulations. Advocates is unique both in its board composition and its mission 

of advancing safer vehicles, safer drivers and safer roads. We respectfully request 

that this statement and the comments Advocates submitted to the public docket in 

response to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ‘‘Federal 

Automated Vehicles Policy’’ (AV Guidelines) Notice and Request for Comments,i

which are attached, be included in the hearing record. 

Motor Vehicle Deaths are Climbing 

According to the Federal Government, each year motor vehicle crashes kill tens 

of thousands and injure millions more at a cost to society of over $800 billion.ii Unfortunately, deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes are on the rise. According 

to NHTSA, in 2015 our Nation experienced the largest percentage increase of motor 

vehicle deaths in nearly fifty years.iii More than 35,000 people were killed on our 

Nation’s roads, representing a 7.2 percent upturn.iv Preliminary information for the 

first nine months of 2016 appears to be even worse, indicating an 8 percent rise in 

fatalities compared to the same time period in 2015.v Advocates firmly believes that 

automated vehicle (AV) technology has the potential to make significant and lasting 

reductions in this mortality and morbidity toll. 

Advocates Has Consistently Promoted Advanced Technologies in Vehicles 

to Save Lives and Prevent Injuries 

Advocates has always enthusiastically championed vehicle safety technology and 

for good reason. It is one of the most effective strategies for preventing deaths and 

injuries. NHTSA has estimated that since 1960, over 600,000 lives have been saved 

by motor vehicle safety technologies.vi In 1991, Advocates led the coalition that supported bipartisan legislation sponsored by former Senators John Danforth (R–MO) 

and Richard Bryan (D–NV) that included the airbag mandate in the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991.vii As a result, by 1997, every 

new car sold in the United States was equipped with a front seat airbag and the 

lives saved have been significant. In fact, airbags save over 2,000 lives annually.viii

Advocates continued to build on this success by supporting additional lifesaving 

technologies as standard equipment in all vehicles in other legislation and reguVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
54 

ixTransportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, Pub. 

L. 106–414 (Nov. 1, 2000). x Anton’s Law, Pub. L. 107–318 (Dec. 4, 2002). 

xiSafe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA–LU), Pub. L. 109–59 (Aug. 10, 2005). xii Id. xiii Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110–189 (Feb. 28, 

2008). xiv Id. xvMoving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP–21) Act, Pub. L. 112–141 (Jan. 3, 

2012). xvi Id. xviiPub. L. 89–563 (Sept. 9, 1966). xviiiTitle 49, U.S.C. Sec. 30102. xixSee, e.g., 14 USC Subpart F—Equipment, §§ 25.1301, Function and installation, and 

25.1309, Equipment, systems, and installations. 

latory proposals. These efforts included: tire pressure monitoring systems;ix rear outboard 3-point seat belts;x electronic stability control;xi rear seat belt reminder systems;xii rear view cameras;xiii brake transmission interlocks;xiv seat belts on 

motorcoaches;xv electronic logging devices;xvi and, crash avoidance systems such as 

automatic emergency braking. These safety advances have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and have been accomplished because of the bipartisan leadership of 

the Members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. 

NHTSA Has a Statutory Duty to the Public to Ensure the Safety of 

Autonomous Vehicles 

Fifty years ago, Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act of 1966 because of concerns about the death and injury toll on our highways.xvii

The law required the Federal Government to establish Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards (FMVSS) to protect the public against ‘‘unreasonable risk of accidents occurring as a result of the design, construction or performance of motor vehicles.’’ xviii

While motor vehicles have changed dramatically since that time and will continue 

to do so in the future, the underlying premise of this prescient law and NHTSA’s 

safety mission have not. 

Unfortunately, NHTSA has chosen to issue only ‘‘voluntary guidelines’’ for the development of AVs. Voluntary guidelines are not legally binding, are unenforceable 

and, therefore, are inadequate to ensure safety and protect the public. Manufacturers may choose to deviate from the guidelines or ignore them entirely at any time 

and for any reason including internal corporate priorities such as cost or marketing 

considerations. In addition, some entities may choose to follow the guidelines while 

others may not, creating a dangerous patchwork of noncompliance. Consumers and 

NHTSA also have no legal recourse against a manufacturer’s failure to follow the 

guidelines. NHTSA cannot bring an enforcement action, force a statutory recall, or 

even influence a voluntary recall for failure to abide by the guidelines. 

A Functional Safety Approach is Essential to Provide the Framework for 

the Design, Development and Deployment of Autonomous Vehicle 

Technology 

Before the widespread introduction of AV technology to the commercial marketplace and deployment on public roads, NHTSA must establish basic safeguards to 

protect the public. Advocates strongly recommends that AV manufacturers be required to meet a ‘‘functional safety standard’’ to guarantee safety to the maximum 

extent feasible of the overall system performance. While manufacturers will still 

have to certify vehicles meet all applicable FMVSS that address the mechanical operation of vehicle safety systems, a functional safety standard would apply to the 

AV operating system to ensure that the controlling software performs as designed. 

Functional safety is a well-known process by which a product is designed, developed, manufactured and deployed to ensure that the product, as a whole, will function safely, as intended, and will prevent or mitigate misuse which could lead to unsafe conditions. A similar process is currently utilized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in portions of its regulations to ensure safety while encouraging 

innovation.xix

Additionally, the submission of a Safety Assessment Letter (SAL) must be mandatory and not at the whim or choice of a manufacturer. There is too much at stake 

to allow optional and discretionary adherence. Under a functional safety standard, 

a manufacturer must certify to NHTSA through the mandatory submission of a SAL 

that the AV has been tested to ensure that it will operate properly and safely under 

the conditions the vehicle is designed to encounter (i.e., congestion, weather and 

road conditions, human/machine interface and vehicle interaction with other road 

55 

xxPub. L. 112–141 (Dec. 4, 2015). xxi 2025 AD Newsletter, MIDDLE EAST COMBATS ROAD DEATHS WITH DRIVERLESS 

CARS (Nov. 2016) available at: https://www.2025ad.com/the-week-in-ad/arab-emirates-driverless-cars/; Andrew Hawkins, One of Europe’s largest carmakers will test its self-driving cars in 

Singapore, The Verge (May 3, 2017). 

users). The mandatory submission of the SAL should include all information required by the Secretary of Transportation including test results and data to support 

the conclusion that the AV system functions as designed. This submission should 

also include any negative test results and data that may indicate the AV system 

did not always function as designed along with information and data indicating how 

these issues were resolved by the manufacturer. In addition, any and all documentation regarding how cybersecurity threats were addressed should be included. 

Prior to introduction of the AV system into the stream of commerce, NHTSA 

would review the SAL, test results and data, and then consult with the manufacturer. The manufacturer would be required to respond to any questions or concerns 

from the agency. This process is intended to allow NHTSA to bring to the manufacturer’s attention any issues and/or problems the agency identifies in the SAL information, tests results and data supplied by the manufacturer prior to introduction 

of the AV system into the marketplace. This process would provide NHTSA with 

technical information about products coming to market and provide AV manufacturers with technical feedback in an efficient and effective process. The SAL and the 

questions raised by NHTSA, however, are not intended as pre-market approval. The 

manufacturer, after having responded to the agency’s inquiries, may introduce the 

AV system into the stream of commerce. 

Additional Authorities and Resources are Critical 

Regulating AVs presents unique challenges for NHTSA, and those issues warrant 

the agency being given additional tools to protect against potentially catastrophic 

defects. Flaws or viruses in computer software of AVs could adversely affect thousands of vehicles simultaneously. The NHTSA, therefore, must be given imminent 

hazard authority in order to expedite the grounding of vehicles that the agency has 

identified as having a potentially dangerous software problem that could lead to 

crashes, deaths and injuries. Also, because of the potential serious nature of any 

software problem that could affect thousands of vehicles and result in deaths and 

injuries, the ability to levy criminal penalties is essential. Criminal penalties will 

deter manufacturers and suppliers from knowingly and willfully permitting the 

manufacture and sale of AV systems with flawed software operating systems that 

could pose a danger to human life in the event of a crash. 

Providing further broad statutory exemptions from the FMVSS for AVs is both 

unnecessary and unwise. There is already a statutory process in place for manufacturers to seek an exemption from the FMVSS that Congress enacted only two years 

ago. Pursuant to Section 24404 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

(FAST) Act xx codified at 49 USC Section 30112(b)(10), manufacturers of AVs are 

permitted an unlimited number of vehicles that can be exempt from one or more 

of the FMVSS for testing or evaluation. Exempt vehicles under this provision may 

not be sold or resold to the public. Furthermore, under 49 USC Section 30113 a 

manufacturer may receive an exemption from compliance with the FMVSS for the 

sale of a vehicle for not more than 2,500 vehicles to be sold in the United States 

in any 12-month period. Until a functional safety standard is applied to AVs, this 

cap should not be raised from its current level. 

Manufacturers may seek appropriate exemptions under the current process until 

NHTSA revises the FMVSS for level 4 and 5 AVs. However, while level 4 and 5 

AVs may be exempt from parts of certain FMVSS or other regulations, much of the 

performance standards for safety systems would still apply. For example, even if a 

brake pedal is not needed for AV control, the rest of the brake system requirements 

in FMVSS 135 will still be needed to ensure the AV controls can stop the vehicle 

within the required stopping distance. Even for level 4 and 5 AVs, manufacturers 

will still have to certify to most performance requirements of the existing FMVSS. 

However, because level 2 and 3 AVs will still require significant operation by a 

human driver, these vehicles should not be exempt from compliance with the current body of FMVSS and regulations. 

Vehicle and technology companies are already putting some AVs out on public 

roads and beginning to market these systems to the public. The development of AV 

technology is not just taking place in the United States. In fact, AVs are being tested throughout the globe in places such as the United Arab Emirates and Singapore.xxi Vehicles imported from overseas have to meet the requirements of the 

56 

xxiiSeth Clevenger and Eric Miller, ATA’s Chris Spear Calls for Industry to Embrace Technology, Transport Topics (Mar. 2, 2017). 

FMVSS. However, if only voluntary guidelines are in place for AVs, foreign companies and entities may export products that are dangerously unsafe and NHTSA will 

have little recourse. In addition, some in the motor carrier industry have predicted 

that automated technology will be placed in trucks before passenger vehicles.xxii The 

potential for an 80,000 pound rig using untested and unregulated technology on 

public roads is a very real scenario if NHTSA continues to merely rely on voluntary 

guidelines and the ‘‘good intentions’’ of manufacturers introducing automated technology. 

It is essential that NHTSA immediately adopt a functional safety standard to 

minimize public exposure to unreasonable risks of motor vehicle crashes involving 

these experimental systems. For example, the fatal crash of a Tesla Model S in Florida in May 2016, could have been averted had a functional safety standard required 

due diligence testing of the Autopilot System prior to deployment. The driver was 

using the Tesla Autopilot system when the vehicle passed under the side of a truck 

trailer that was turning across the highway, resulting in the fatality of the driver. 

After the crash, Tesla admitted to NHTSA that it had considered misuse of the 

Autopilot system including distracted driving and the use of the system outside preferred environments and conditions. Under a functional safety standard, if the misuse was foreseeable, Tesla would be required to address the misuse prior to confirmation to NHTSA that the vehicle was safe. 

Recommendations: 

• NHTSA must require that manufacturers meet a ‘‘functional safety standard’’ to 

guarantee safety of AVs before they are introduced into the marketplace. 

• Manufacturers must be required to submit a Safety Assessment Letter (SAL) that 

confirms that the AV has been tested to ensure it operates safely. The SAL should 

include all of the test results and data to support the conclusion that the AV system functions as designed. 

• NHTSA should be given the additional tools of imminent hazard authority to 

protect against potentially catastrophic defects with AVs and criminal penalties 

to ensure manufacturers do not willfully mislead or misinform the agency. 

• Providing further broad statutory exemptions from the FMVSS for AVs is both 

unnecessary and unwise. Until NHTSA revises the FMVSS for level 4 and 5 

AVs, manufacturers may seek appropriate exemptions under the current process. 

Autonomous Vehicles Must Have Adequate Cybersecurity and Privacy 

Standards to Protect the Public and Must Share Information on 

Critical Events 

A failure to adequately secure AV systems and to protect against cyber-attacks 

could endanger AV passengers, non-AV motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and other 

vulnerable roadway users. It could also clog roads, stopping the movement of goods 

and hindering the responses of emergency vehicles. NHTSA should identify 

cybersecurity problem areas and require specific responses from manufacturers as 

to how those are being addressed. Problem areas could include subjects such as 

global position system (GPS) signal loss or degradation, spoofing, and off-line and 

real time hacking of single vehicles or fleets of vehicles. AV cybersecurity should be 

tested as part of the functional safety standard to ensure that the vehicle 

cybersecurity system operates as designed. The potential and real risk of a malevolent computer hack impacting hundreds or thousands of AVs, perhaps whole model 

runs, makes strong cybersecurity protections a crucial and essential element of AV 

design. 

Additionally, data sharing among manufacturers is essential to improve overall 

safety among AVs. Data and information about known flaws or problems encountered during development and while in use must be shared among manufacturers 

and with NHTSA and the public to ensure that all AV systems are learning about 

problems in real time and can benefit from the experience of other AV systems. This 

type of collaborative development is already taking place in the industry with the 

creation of the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC). Data 

sharing will expedite solutions to unusual or unique safety problems and ensure 

they are readily identified and corrected. 

Similarly, AVs should be subject to binding privacy standards to ensure that data 

is not abused. The recording and sharing of data will be critical to achieving the 

safest performance of AVs. Keeping the public informed as to the importance of 

sharing data and ensuring their privacy will also be critical to ensure public particiVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
57 

xxiiiKelly Blue Book, Future Autonomous Vehicle Driver Study (Sept. 2016). xxiv H. Abraham, B. Reimer, B. Seppelt, C. Fitzgerald, B. Mehler & J. Coughlin, Consumer Interest in Automation: Preliminary Observations Exploring a Year’s Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, AgeLab, White Paper (2017–2), p. 6 (May 2017). xxv Id. 

pation and acceptance. The industry and regulators must guarantee that data is 

protected and only used for the purposes of improving safety, and not for other commercial uses, such as the marketing of products based on vehicle location, which 

could turn the public against data sharing. 

Recommendations: 

• AVs must have adequate cybersecurity and privacy standards to protect the public. 

• AVs should be subject to binding privacy standards to ensure that consumer 

data is not used for purposes other than improving the safety and security of 

AVs. 

The Development of Autonomous Vehicles Must Be Transparent or Public 

Confidence in the Technology Will Suffer 

The development and deployment of AVs as well as NHTSA’s role in regulating 

this technology must be open and transparent. All non-propriety communications 

and responses between the agency and a manufacturer as it relates to any issues 

involving AVs must be made available for public review and scholarly research. All 

data generated from the testing and deployment of AVs, except for trade secrets and 

private individual information must also be made public. Lack of transparency will 

severely undermine the public’s confidence in this new technology and inhibit its 

widespread adoption. 

Opinion polls already show strong public skepticism and hesitation about AVs and 

those doubts are surely warranted. Over the last few years, automakers have hidden from the American public and regulators safety defects that have led to numerous unacceptable and unnecessary deaths and injuries as well as the recall of tens 

of millions of vehicles. Consumer acceptance of this technology is critical to the success of fully realizing the lifesaving potential of AVs. Trial by error on public roads 

and risking public safety is neither the appropriate nor the responsible approach to 

encouraging the development and deployment of AVs. In fact, a national survey 

commissioned by Kelley Blue Book found that a large portion of the public is resistant to accepting AVs. Fifty-one percent of respondents replied that they prefer to 

have full control of their vehicle, even if it’s not as safe for other drivers. Additionally, awareness of the higher levels of vehicle autonomy is limited, with 6 out of 

10 people saying they know little or nothing about AVs. For half of the respondents, 

the perception of safety and personal comfort with autonomous technology diminished as the level of autonomy increased. In fact, 80 percent believed that people 

should always have the option to drive themselves, and nearly one in three respondents said they would never buy a level 5 vehicle.xxiii

A recent study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology garnered 

similar results. Only 13 percent of those polled reported that they would be comfortable with vehicle ‘‘features that completely relieve the driver of all control for 

the entire drive.’’ xxiv In addition, 59 percent of respondents reported that the maximum level of automation that they would be comfortable with were ‘‘features that 

actively help the driver, while the driver remains in control.’’ xxv The reluctance and 

hesitation of the public to embrace AVs will not be abated if the technology fails, 

the government regulators are viewed as standing on the sidelines and manufacturers have not done due diligence in conducting adequate testing before rushing to the 

marketplace. Consumers expect, and in fact, demand that the Federal Government 

prohibit the introduction of dangerous products to the marketplace whether it be 

drugs, food, toys, or driverless cars. 

Recommendations: 

• All non-propriety communications and responses between the agency and a manufacturer as it relates to any issues involving AVs must be made available for 

public review and scholarly research. 

States Must Not be Preempted from Acting to Protect their Citizens 

Especially in Light of NHTSA’s Failure to Regulate Automated Vehicles 

to Date 

Advocates agrees with the statutory mission of NHTSA to regulate the design and 

performance of motor vehicles to ensure public safety which, in modern day terms, 

58 

xxviWilliam T. Pound, Executive Director, National Conference of State Legislatures, Public 

Comments on Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, Docket No.: NHTSA–2016–0090 (Nov. 21, 

2016). xxviiLeslie R. Richards, Secretary of Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Letter to 

Secretary Foxx and Administrator Rosekind, Docket No.: NHTSA–2016–0090 (Nov. 21, 2016). xxviii NHTSA Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes Report. 

includes autonomous vehicles and technology. However, unless and until NHTSA 

issues comprehensive standards and regulations to govern the AV rules of the road, 

states have every legal right, indeed a duty to their citizens, to fill the regulatory 

vacuum with state developed proposals and solutions for ensuring public safety. 

NHTSA, by issuing only guidelines, has left the field of AV safety open to the states 

to fulfill their traditional role of protecting the health and welfare of their citizens. 

As the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) noted in its comments to 

NHTSA’s guidelines, ‘‘Without any indication on forthcoming Federal regulations regarding the safe operation of HAVs, states may be forced to fill the gap in order 

to ensure the safety of public roadways.’’xxvi Moreover, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation stated in its comments to the guidelines that ‘‘Yes, there 

should be consistent treatment of highly automated vehicles nationwide. However, 

where the adoption of ‘safety standards’ being applied to highly automated vehicle 

testing is totally voluntary (as opposed to self-certifying as against a regulatory 

framework in the FMCSS) [sic], what level of comfort does that give to the states 

and their citizens that their transportation and law enforcement agencies are properly discharging their duty to ensure that highly automated vehicles are in fact 

safe?’’ xxvii

Recommendations: 

• Until NHTSA issues comprehensive standards and regulations to govern the 

AVs, states must not be precluded from filling the regulatory void with state developed solutions to protect their citizens. 

NHTSA Needs Additional Resources 

The increase in motor vehicle fatalities combined with the demands being placed 

on NHTSA with regards to the advent of AV technology necessitates an increase to 

the agency budget. While the FAST Act did provide some additional resources, it 

is still inadequate to manage the myriad of challenges facing the agency. Today, 95 

percent of transportation-related fatalities, and 99 percent of transportation injuries, 

involve motor vehicles on our streets and highways. Yet, NHTSA receives only one 

percent of the overall U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) budget. NHTSA 

will face even greater challenges in the future as AVs continue to develop and are 

introduced into the market. For NHTSA to exercise proper oversight over AVs, the 

agency will need to hire more staff with technical expertise. Moreover, given that 

crashes impose a comprehensive cost to society of $836 billion, $242 billion of which 

is direct economic costs such as lost productivity, medical costs and property damage, it is critical to advance serious measures to combat a serious problem.xxviii

Recommendation: 

• NHTSA must be given additional funding in order to meet demands being 

placed on the agency with regard to the advent of AV technology. 

Conclusion 

Autonomous vehicles have the potential to change our Nation’s ability to protect 

motorists and other road users. It is critically important that we do everything possible to advance this life-saving technology in as safe and expeditious manner possible. Advocates believes that autonomous vehicles will not only change our lifestyles but it may, once and for all, change our ability to achieve meaningful and 

lasting reductions in the death and injury toll on our streets and highways. 

SUMMARY OF STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN

Each year motor vehicle crashes kill tens of thousands and injure millions more 

at a cost to society of over $800 billion. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) firmly believes that autonomous vehicle (AV) technology has the potential 

to make significant and lasting reductions in this mortality and morbidity toll. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has a statutory 

duty to ensure the safety of AVs. Unfortunately, NHTSA has chosen to issue only 

‘‘voluntary guidelines’’ for the development of AVs. Voluntary guidelines are not leVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
59 

gally binding, are unenforceable, and are inadequate to ensure safety and protect 

the public. 

Vehicle and technology companies are already putting some AVs out on public 

roads and beginning to market these systems. The development of AV technology 

is not just taking place in the United States. In fact, AVs are being tested throughout the globe in places such as the United Arab Emirates and Singapore. Under current law, vehicles imported from overseas have to meet the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). However, with only Federal voluntary guidelines, foreign companies and entities may export products that could be 

dangerously unsafe and NHTSA will have little recourse. In addition, some experts 

predict that automated technology will be placed in trucks before passenger vehicles. The potential for an 80,000 pound truck using untested and unregulated technology on public roads is a very real scenario if NHTSA relies on voluntary guidelines and the ‘‘good intentions’’ of AV manufacturers. 

A functional safety approach is essential to provide the framework for the design, 

development and deployment of autonomous vehicle technology. A similar process 

is currently utilized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in portions of its 

regulations to ensure safety while encouraging innovation. 

Advocates agrees with the statutory mission of NHTSA to regulate the design and 

performance of motor vehicles to ensure public safety which, in modern day terms, 

includes AVs and technology. However, unless and until NHTSA issues comprehensive standards and regulations to govern the AV rules of the road, states have every 

legal right, indeed a duty to their citizens, to fill the regulatory vacuum with state 

developed proposals and solutions for ensuring public safety. NHTSA’s voluntary 

guidelines have left the field of AV safety open to the states to fulfill their traditional role of protecting the health and welfare of their citizens. Other commenters 

to NHTSA on voluntary guidelines expressed a similar criticism about this regulatory vacuum including the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and 

the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 

Advocates’ Recommendations: 

• NHTSA must require that manufacturers meet a ‘‘functional safety standard’’ to 

guarantee safety of AVs before they are introduced into the marketplace. 

• Manufacturers must be required to submit a Safety Assessment Letter (SAL) that 

confirms that the AV has been tested to ensure it operates safely. The SAL should 

include all of the test results and data to support the conclusion that the AV system functions as designed. 

• NHTSA should be given the additional tools of imminent hazard authority to 

protect against potentially catastrophic defects with AVs and criminal penalties 

to ensure manufacturers do not willfully mislead or misinform the agency. 

• Providing further broad statutory exemptions from the FMVSS for AVs is both 

unnecessary and unwise. Until NHTSA revises the FMVSS for level 4 and 5 

AVs, manufacturers may seek appropriate exemptions under the current process 

expanded by Congress in the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114–94). 

• AVs must have adequate cybersecurity and privacy standards to protect the public. 

• AVs should be subject to binding privacy standards to ensure that consumer 

data is not used for purposes other than improving the safety and security of 

AVs. 

• All non-propriety communications and responses between the agency and a manufacturer as it relates to any issues involving AVs must be made available for 

public review and scholarly research. 

• Until NHTSA issues comprehensive standards and regulations to govern the 

AVs, states must not be precluded from filling the regulatory void with state developed solutions to protect their citizens. 

• NHTSA must be given additional funding in order to meet demands being 

placed on the agency with regard to the advent of AV technology. 

60 

1 Request for Comment on ‘‘Federal Automated Vehicles Policy,’’ 81 FR 65703 (Sept. 23, 2016). 

2 In general the term AV refers to all autonomous vehicles including those vehicles that 

NHTSA refers to as highly autonomous vehicles (HAVs) except as noted. 3Title 49, U.S.C. Sec. 30102. 

4Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards, 1960 to 2012, DOT HS 812 069 (NHTSA, 2015); See also, NHTSA AV Policy, Executive Summary, p. 5 endnote 1. 5Pub. L. 102–240 (Dec. 18, 1991). 

6 National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Lives Saved in 2015 by Restraint Use and Minimum-Drinking-Age Laws, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 

812 319 (Aug. 2016). 7Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, Pub. 

L. 106–414 (Nov. 1, 2000) 8 Anton’s Law, Pub. L. 107–318 (Dec. 4, 2002). 

9Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA–LU), Pub. L. 109–59 (Aug. 10, 2005) 10 Id. 11 Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110–189 (Feb. 28, 

2008). 12 Id. 13Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP–21) Act, Pub. L. 112–141 (Jan. 3, 

2012). 14 Id. 15 National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2015 motor vehicle crashes: Overview, Report 

No. DOT HS 812 318, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Aug. 2016). 16 Id. 

ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY

December 2, 2016 

DOT Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0090 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, DC. 

Request for Comment on ‘‘Federal Automated Vehicles Policy’’ 

Notice and Request for Comments 

81 Federal Register 65703, September 23, 2016 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) files these comments in response to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notice 

and request for public comment on the ‘‘Federal Automated Vehicle Policy.’’ 1

(NHTSA AV Policy). Simply because AV technology has the potential to evolve rapidly over time does not justify NHTSA abdicating its statutory mission of regulating 

motor vehicles to ensure public safety.2

Fifty years ago, Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act of 1966 because of concerns about the death and injury toll on our highways. 

The law required the Federal Government to establish Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards (FMVSS) to protect the public against ‘‘unreasonable risk of accidents occurring as a result of the design, construction or performance of motor vehicles.’’ 3

While cars have changed dramatically and will continue to do so in the future, the 

underlying premise of this prescient law and the NHTSA’s safety mission has not. 

Advocates has always enthusiastically championed technology and for good reason. It is one of the most effective strategies for reducing deaths and injuries. 

NHTSA has estimated that since 1960, hundreds of thousands of lives have been 

saved by motor vehicle safety technologies.4

In 1991, Advocates led the coalition that succeeded in having the airbag mandate 

included in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991.5

As a result, by 1997, every new car sold in the United States was equipped with 

a front seat airbag and the lives saved have been significant. In fact, airbags save 

over 2,000 lives annually.6 Advocates continued to build on our success by pushing 

lifesaving technologies in other bills and regulatory proposals. These efforts included 

tire pressure monitoring systems,7 rear outboard 3-point seat belts,8 electronic stability control,9 seat belt reminder systems,10 rear video cameras,11 brake transmission interlock,12 seat belts on motorcoaches,13 electronic logging devices 14 as well as other important safety improvements such as rollover crash avoidance and 

automatic emergency braking. These safety advances have saved countless lives. 

According to the latest statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 35,092 people were killed on our Nation’s roads in 2015.15

This represents a 7.2-percent increase from 2014 and is the largest percentage increase in nearly fifty years.16 Injuries resulting from crashes also increased to 2.44 

61 

17 Id. 18Due to the complexity of the issues involved and the length of the NHTSA AV policy, Advocates’ comments exceed the 15 page limit pursuant to Title 49, C.F.R. § 553.21. 19Federal Automated Vehicles Policy: Accelerating the Next Revolution in Roadway Safety, 

12507–091216-v9, p. 48 (NHTSA, Sept. 2015) (NHTSA AV Policy), available at http://www 

.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/av/index.html. 20Levels in this case refer to the levels of automation as defined by SAE J3016 and adopted 

by the NHTSA. Although the NHTSA distinguishes between SAE Level 0–2 and 3–5 AVs, the 

agency acknowledges that ‘‘this distinction does not change many of the areas in which the manufacturers . . . should apply elements of this Guidance during product development, testing, 

and deployment.’’ NHTSA AV Policy, p. 31. 21 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 11. These comments use the term ‘‘manufacturers’’ to represent all 

entities intended to be covered by the scope of the NHTSA AV Policy. 

million from 2.34 million in 2014.17 Advocates is hopeful that automated vehicle 

technology has the potential to significantly reduce this carnage. However, the safety benefits of AVs will be realized gradually as the widespread adoption of the technology will take years. 

Introduction/Overview18

The NHTSA AV Policy points out that under current law and regulation, vehicle 

and equipment manufacturers are under no legal duty to provide information to the 

agency about a new technology, in advance of production and sale into the U.S. market, unless it fails to comply with an applicable FMVSS or raises a compliance question regarding existing regulations.19 The NHTSA AV Policy does nothing to change 

the legal responsibility or duty that vehicle and equipment manufacturers owe to 

NHTSA or the public. The NHTSA has the authority, however, to require motor vehicle manufacturers, and other entities supplying auto equipment, parts and electronic systems for AVs, to conduct tests and perform analyses to document and 

verify that an AV system performs safely and as designed. That type of documentation should be required by rule rather than as part of the voluntary safety assessment letter that the agency now requests manufacturers to voluntarily submit to 

the agency. 

Furthermore, the development and deployment of automated vehicles as well as 

the agency’s role in regulating this technology must be open and transparent. Therefore, all communications and responses between NHTSA and a manufacturer as it 

relates to any issues involving automated vehicles must be made available for public 

review and scholarly research. In addition, all data generated from the testing and 

deployment of AVs, except for trade secrets and private individual information must 

be made public. In the past few years, automakers have hidden from regulators and 

the American public safety defects that have led to unnecessary deaths and injuries 

as well as the recall of millions of vehicles. This troubling lack of transparency 

should not be allowed to infect the development of driverless vehicles. Lack of transparency will severely undermine the public’s confidence in this new technology and 

inhibit its adoption by the public regardless of its perceived benefits. 

I. Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles 

The Guidance 

Advocates’ two main objections to the proposed performance guidance are that the 

guidance is not mandatory and that there is a lack of specificity. In its current state, 

the non-mandatory guidance is such that any information willingly provided by industry in the safety assessment letters regarding compliance with the guidance may 

be incomplete, sparse, or at best so varied from letter to letter as to render the information collected useless in terms of agency review and developing future regulation. 

As detailed below, the guidance should be reconfigured around the concept of a functional safety approach to the design, development, and deployment of autonomous 

vehicles of all levels.20 The guidance must be specific in terms of minimal reporting 

requirements and should establish those requirements based on a planned path toward future regulation. Failure to do this will only leave the Federal agency charged 

with ensuring motor vehicle and public safety further behind the technology. 

Scope 

As indicated ‘‘all individuals and companies manufacturing, designing, testing, 

and/or planning to sell automated vehicle systems in the United States’’ 21 must consider the guidance. Similarly, the guidance must be applied to all AVs, including 

light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. The guidance must apply to both test-and 

production-level vehicles, specifically those which are sharing the road with the genVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
62 

22The public must be given the opportunity to give meaningful informed consent to the testing 

of AVs on public roads. Among other things, AVs that are being tested as well as the routes 

they will travel should be conspicuously marked so that they are easily identifiable to the public. 

In addition, as required by Federal regulation for research involving human subjects, cities and 

states that permit testing of AVs should have in place an Institutional Review Board to monitor 

that the testing of AVs to protect the rights all of the subjects involved in the testing. See: 45 

CFR 46 (2009). 23Operational design domain (ODD) refers to how the AV system will detect and respond to 

the driving environment. 24Object and event detection and response (OEDR) refers to how the AV system will perform 

when a problem with the system itself is encountered. 

eral public.22 The reality is that while testing of AVs on public roads is a necessity, 

to increase real-world data collection and improve development, AVs are sharing the 

road with other highway users who have not been informed of the testing, are unwitting participants to the testing, and may be exposed to crash risks without prior 

informed consent. AVs that are being tested as well as the routes they will travel 

should be conspicuously marked so that they are easily identifiable to the public. 

For these reasons, AVs used for research and testing on public roads, as well as AVs 

sold to the public, must all be subject to a rigorous functional safety process and 

requirements to ensure that the public will not be exposed to an unreasonable crash 

risk. 

Overview: DOT’s Vehicle Performance Guidance 

In terms of content, the NHTSA AV Policy covers many of the important aspects 

necessary to achieve safety of AVs. However, the organization of the guidance appears disjointed and should be revised to conform more closely to a functional safety 

approach. In its present format, the guidance could be read as indicating that the 

individual guidance sections could be tackled as separate, independent issues when, 

in reality, a comprehensive and cohesive systems engineering approach must be 

taken in order to achieve the safe deployment of AVs. 

Almost all portions of the guidance represent, to some degree, aspects of functional safety. Functional safety is a process by which a system is designed, developed and deployed to ensure that the system, as a whole, operates correctly and 

safely in response to inputs, errors, and failures. Functional safety is applied 

throughout the life-cycle of a system, from hazard analysis during design through 

auditing of performance after deployment. Only through ubiquitous adoption of a 

functional safety approach to the development of AVs can the safety and benefits 

of this technology be achieved. Advocates recommends that NHTSA reorganize the 

guidance into a framework focusing on a functional safety approach that identifies 

how each of the guidance components fit into the functional safety framework. The 

following is an example of how different sections of the guidance could be reorganized into a functional safety approach: 

• System Design 

» Operational Design Domain 23

» Object and Event Detection and Response 24

• Hazard Analysis 

» Mechanical 

• User 

» Human Machine Interface (HMI) 

» Consumer Education and Training 

• External 

» Cybersecurity 

» Federal, State, Local Laws 

» Ethical Considerations 

• Risk Reduction 

» Post-Crash Behavior 

» Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition) 

• Design Validation 

» Validation Methods (simulation, track, on-road testing) 

• Performance Verification/Auditing 

» Data Recording and Sharing 

63 

25 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 15. 26 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 16 27 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 16. 28 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 16. 29 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 16. 30The lack of specificity with the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) perfectly illustrates what 

can happen when the agency fails to provide proper specification for the information it seeks. 

The vague categories of the EWR have enabled the industry to hide questionable performance 

and dangerous defects. (EWR: Elective Warning Reports—When Manufacturers Don’t Report 

Claims, Safety Research & Strategies, Inc., Apr. 8, 2014, available at http://www.safety 

research.net/blog/articles/ewr-elective-warning-reports-when-manufacturers-dont-report-claims) 

Safety Assessment Letter to NHTSA 

The NHTSA must make the reporting of AV information mandatory. Voluntary 

submission of information will not succeed because AV manufacturers are under no 

legal duty to report completely and fairly. While Advocates agrees with the underlying concept of the proposed Safety Assessment submission, there are three major 

problems with the Safety Assessment guidance as proposed in the NHTSA AV Policy. First, at the outset, the NHTSA undermines its effort by describing the Safety 

Assessment information to be provided as merely ‘‘outlining’’ how the manufacturer 

submitting the information is meeting the areas of concern in the NHTSA AVPolicy 

guidance.25 The agency then refers to the Safety Assessment submission as a ‘‘summary letter.’’ 26 In fact, the agency guidance allows manufacturers to merely checkoff a box for each area of requested information that indicates whether the manufacturer’s AV system ‘‘Meets’’, ‘‘Does not meet’’, or ‘‘is not applicable’’ to each particular 

guidance area of the NHTSA AV Policy. In essence, if a manufacturer voluntarily 

responds at all, it could just check the appropriate response in each area without 

providing any substantive information or content whatsoever. Although the agency 

states that it expects responses to be ‘‘concise and complete[,]’’ 27 nothing in the 

guidance indicates that the agency is seeking detailed information in an initial response. 

Second, as proposed, the request for the Safety Assessment submission lacks specificity as to what type of information the agency wants and that the manufacturer 

should submit. Requests for information contain only vague descriptions that may 

or may not receive accurate and complete responses. The agency approach to the 

Safety Assessment submission letter is to allow the manufacturer to provide as 

much or as little information as the manufacturer deems to be in its self-interest. 

In fact, the agency states that, after the initial submission, the agency ‘‘might request more detailed information on Guidance areas to better assess safety aspects 

of the HAV systems.’’ 28 It is critical that the agency should try to obtain complete 

and detailed information from the outset. In its present non-mandatory form, the 

agency will have little recourse to compel manufacturers to provide additional information if the agency is not satisfied with the initial response. Follow-up requests 

may well extend beyond the four-month lead-time that the NHTSA AV Policy suggests is needed to review manufacturer submissions prior to testing on public 

roads.29 In addition, such requests impose additional burdens on NHTSA’s resources. 

Third, the NHTSA does not seek any uniformity of the substantive content for the 

Safety Assessment information. Responses from manufacturers can take many 

forms and use distinctive nomenclature that will slow down if not stymie the agency’s evaluation of the information. The agency should categorize the types of information it seeks in each guidance area in order to better be able to compare implementations of industry standards, guidance, best practices, testing, protocols, and 

analyses.30 Doing so will make the information gathered more useful to the public, 

industry, and government alike. 

Finally, regarding the timeline for Safety Assessment responses, four months is 

excessive to develop a Safety Assessment letter for products already on the road, 

and for which all documentation should readily be available. This is particularly important as the initial response may not be sufficiently detailed and may require the 

agency to make an additional follow up request for more information. Likewise the 

demand that letters be provided four months prior to testing should be evaluated 

to ensure that the agency and the public have ample time to review the documents, 

especially if a vehicle is to be tested on public roads. For similar reasons, Advocates 

concurs that updates to the Safety Assessments are needed, and should be required, 

when updates are made to AV systems. However, the process and requirements for 

updating Safety Assessments should be specific and uniform to ensure that the information gathered is beneficial to the public, industry and regulators. 

64 

31 Edge Cases are those problems or situations that occur very infrequently or at the operational boundary. These are cases each manufacturer’s vehicles may only see once, but the information about that situation would benefit all systems because of its rarity. 32 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 18. 

Cross-Cutting Areas of Guidance 

Data Recording and Sharing 

The collection and sharing of data with the public, the NHTSA, and within the 

industry will be critical to achieving the highest levels of safe AV performance. 

Similar to the way in which current crash databases are used to inform current 

safety regulation and vehicle design, an AV performance database would benefit all 

parties. NHTSA should maintain a public database that details any and all crashes 

involving an AV. The sharing of both incident (crash) and near incident (near-miss) 

data would enable the industry to review performance of other AV systems and improve their own performance, especially for edge cases.31 Likewise, the agency 

should use the data to develop specific sets of scenarios which AV systems must be 

able to address as part of future guidance and eventual regulation. The data to be 

collected and shared must be more specific than ‘‘all information relevant to the 

event and performance of the system.’’ 32 This vague description leaves too much 

room for interpretation which could result in disjointed and unusable information 

from which limited insights could be gained. Importantly, specification of data to be 

recorded and shared should address industry concerns around intellectual property. 

For example, making sure that the data from an incident where an AV fails to see 

the side of a white truck crossing its path is of critical importance to the development of all AV systems as it identifies a scenario which could cause problems and 

lead to risks. This sharing of data or feedback loop, must be done to ensure that 

each AV system does not have to learn only from its individual failures but can be 

improved based on the failures or successes experienced by other AV systems. 

Essential to gathering accurate and reliable technical data on AV system performance and failure is the need to require all such data to be captured and collected. 

While each manufacturer may voluntarily provide information that is collected for 

internal use, information about AV system performance on public roads must be 

provided to the NHTSA on a real time basis and made available to the public. In 

the meantime, the NHTSA must also require that Event Data Recorders (EDR) or 

other systems are able to collect and record all essential data on AV systems so that 

in the event of a crash or other failure the vehicle systems status data will be available to the agency, crash investigators, researchers and the vehicle owner. Advocates recommends that the agency complete the rulemaking to mandate EDRs in 

all passenger vehicles, and revise the current requirements in the EDR rule, 49 

C.F.R. § 563, to require additional data collection on all AV systems. 

Privacy 

Privacy will be a key factor in ensuring acceptance of AVs by the public. As noted 

above, the recording and sharing of data will be critical to achieving the safest performance of AVs as quickly as possible. Keeping the public informed as to the importance of sharing data and ensuring their privacy will be similarly critical to ensure participation. The industry and regulators must guarantee that data is protected and only used for the purposes of improving safety, and not for other commercial uses which could turn the public against data sharing. 

System Safety 

Functional safety should provide the framework for the overall approach to the 

guidance and future regulation. In almost all areas of the guidance, it will benefit 

all parties involved if the requirements of the safety assessment were more specific 

in terms of standards, guidance, best practices, and design principles about which 

the agency would like information. The industry could then respond as to whether 

and how they have implemented any of those practices. Requiring the specific and 

uniform reporting of data by manufacturers will enable the agency to understand 

how each of the guidance areas, practices, standards, etc., are being implemented 

across the industry. It will also allow the agency to work towards establishing regulation to require their implementation. 

Vehicle Cybersecurity 

Cybersecurity is an important aspect of AV development which must be addressed 

as part of functional safety. Again, the guidance is vague on the information it 

would like to receive from the industry. Specificity and uniformity will be the keys 

to evaluation of AV system information by the NHTSA and to informing the public. 

The agency should identify problems areas and require specific responses from manVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
65 

33 Advocates is aware of instances in which dealership sales personnel were unfamiliar with 

the capabilities of the AV systems they were demonstrating to customers. 

ufacturers on how those are being addressed. Problem areas could include subjects 

such as GPS signal loss/degradation/spoofing, and off-line and real time hacking of 

single vehicles or fleets of vehicles. As with all other performance data, the sharing 

of data in terms of cybersecurity will improve overall safety and ensure that all vehicles, regardless of manufacturer, are afforded the same level of security. This is 

even more important when the aspect of connected vehicles is concerned as any 

weak link in the chain could leave many more vehicles vulnerable to programming 

errors or hacking. The potential risk of a single software error, or malevolent computer hack impacting hundreds or thousands of AVs, perhaps whole model runs, 

makes appropriate cybersecurity a crucial and indispensable element of AV design. 

Human Machine Interface 

The user interface is an essential aspect of the development and deployment of 

AVs. In the functional safety approach, the human/machine interface (HMI) presents both a source for and means of addressing hazards stemming from the user. 

As some products currently on the road have demonstrated, poor HMI design can 

lead to dangerous and deadly situations. For example, if an AV requires a human 

occupant to participate in the driving process, it must be designed to ensure that 

the human occupant is engaged, aware, and informed of the operational status of 

the vehicle particularly in time critical settings. Simply informing drivers that they 

must remain engaged or placing information in the owner’s manual as to the limitations of the AV system are not a sufficient or acceptable substitute for engineering 

solutions that are effective in maintaining the engagement of the human operator. 

This is true even if the operator signs a statement indicating that they have read 

the manual. In a functional safety approach the hazard of driver engagement should 

be managed through monitoring and warning systems to ensure drivers are engaged 

to the level necessary for the system to operate safely. A system which fails to account for all sources of risk and hazard, especially the transition from or to a human 

operator, would not be functionally safe and should be evaluated by the agency before the AV system is certified by the manufacturer for use on public roads. 

Crashworthiness 

Compliance with the FMVSS is mandatory and should remain so. In the future, 

as new seating configurations are proposed, the NHTSA may be required to adapt 

the FMVSS to ensure that occupants are provided the same minimal levels of crashworthiness protection currently afforded by all vehicles. Leaving occupant safety in 

AVs to the ‘‘due care’’ of the industry is a step backward that is fraught with problems and opens the door for making trade-offs with safety. Furthermore, concerning 

AV compatibility, the agency should establish regulatory requirements rather than 

relying on voluntary agreements. In the end, it is foreseeable that AVs will share 

the road with traditionally operated vehicles with human drivers for an extended 

time and, despite any AV advances, will likely still be involved in crashes which will 

require the vehicle design to ensure that it protects occupants and crash partners 

alike. 

Consumer Education and Training 

Consumer education and training are imperative to ensure safe deployment of 

AVs. Failure to fully familiarize consumers with needed operational and safety information, or to properly train vehicle owners who may have to take over operation 

of the AV at some point, could result in rejection of AVs by the public and more 

importantly lead to crashes. As end users of the product, even if they are not involved in the driving task at all, consumers will ultimately decide the fate of AVs. 

Consumer education and training in all aspects of AV operation are critical to success. 

Advocates agrees with the NHTSA’s statements and observations in the guidance 

that manufacturers develop education and training programs for employees, dealers, 

distributors and consumers.33 This is especially necessary for Level 3 (and lower) 

AVs in which the driver may need to take over control of the vehicle when the operational limits of the AV system have been reached. The suggestion in the NHTSA 

AV Policy that consumers who purchase AVs should receive training on the operational capabilities and limitations of the AV system they purchase, along with an 

on-the-road demonstration prior to taking possession of the AV would be beneficial. 

However, the agency should take the next step and offer specific solutions and develop prototype program materials to guide manufacturers in this effort. 

66 

34 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 26. 

The agency must also consider the need for standardizing the operation of AVs 

or their functions, and requiring training and education/information from the manufacturers or as part of the state policy for licensing to ensure that, until such time 

as drivers are no longer required, that lack of education or training do not undermine the safety benefits of AVs. 

Furthermore, while all relevant information must be included in the vehicle owners’ manual, there is a clear need, especially for vehicles that may require the intervention of a driver or which can have their operational capabilities updated significantly, for important features of the AV system operation to be delivered to consumers in other ways. The agency should consider requiring instrument panel instructions/notifications that must be read and accepted before the AV can begin operating, and a separate AV system tutorial that can be viewed on board the AV 

when not in operation or on other personal data devices. A comprehensive approach 

to AV education and training is essential for the success of AV adoption. 

Certification 

Manufacturers will still be responsible to self-certify that their AV meets all Federal and state requirements as well as operates safely and as designed. Manufacturers and other responsible entities will need to keep both the NHTSA and consumers 

aware of the operation, capabilities, and limitations of AV systems that are on the 

road. With the possibility of over the air (wireless) updates which could change the 

operation of AVs overnight, it will be essential for manufacturers to provide updated 

Safety Assessments to the NHTSA regarding any changes that affect the certification of the vehicle. Clear instructions regarding any changes must also be conveyed to the vehicle owner and operators. 

Post-Crash Behavior 

As part of functional safety, AVs must be able to recognize failures and address 

them or enter a failsafe mode. Controlling post-crash behavior to prevent the operation of AVs systems after damage to sensors is part of addressing a crash which 

is a known hazard. Similarly, it is important for the repair and re-certification of 

AV systems to be well established to ensure only safe AV systems are allowed back 

onto public roads. 

Federal, State and Local Laws 

In terms of functional safety, complying with Federal, State, and local laws is a 

known aspect of an AV systems design and expected operation. Variation in laws 

between jurisdictions is another known operational parameter that must be considered and addressed by AV manufacturers. It would appear that compliance with 

Federal, State, and local laws would be part of the operational design domain (ODD) 

and the object and event detection and response (OEDR), rather than a stand-alone 

topic of the guidance. Additionally, the NHTSA should consider the impact of the 

variation in transportation laws, road designs, lane marking, signage, etc. on the 

implementation of AVs and the benefits which could be derived from seeing uniformity across the country. 

Ethical Considerations 

Conflicts between the objectives of safety, mobility, and legality could occur in the 

operation of AVs; however, the guidance is vague on the specific means by which 

these conflicts will be resolved. Merely stating that solutions to these issues ‘‘should 

be developed transparently using input from Federal and State regulators, drivers, 

passengers and vulnerable road users . . .’’ 34 is not sufficient to ensure that dangerous products are not placed on the road now. Until such time as these ‘‘algorithms’’ are developed and proven, the safety objective should guide decisions. It is 

for this reason that the collection and sharing of data on vehicle operation will be 

important. The NHTSA must be more forthcoming with regard to how it will approach AV designs in which the manufacturers have opted to make different decisions in balancing these ethical considerations. 

Automation Function 

Specification of the conditions under which an AV system will operate (ODD), how 

the AV system will detect and respond to the driving environment (OEDR), and how 

the AV system will perform when a problem with the system itself is encountered 

(fall back (minimal risk conditions)), are all part of the design aspect of a functional 

safety approach. For each system and the system overall, specifying which conditions a system can operate within, what the expected response is, and what happens 

when all else fails are essential parts of the design, hazard analysis, and hazard 

67 

mitigation/elimination aspects of functional safety. The NHTSA must ensure that it 

collects sufficient information and test data/results to confirm that the manufacturer 

has done its safety due diligence and to validate that these aspects of the AV system 

are operating safely and as designed. 

Operational Design Domain 

Defining an ODD and translating that information to the NHTSA and specifically 

the consumer will be important to ensure that user error is reduced and that limitations in the operation of AV systems both within and outside of the ODD can be 

identified. Specificity and uniformity in reporting will improve the ability for this 

information to be used to develop future regulation and inform the public. It is also 

important that manufacturers consider specifying not only the ODD (where the system will work) but to clearly define the operational boundaries for the consumer. 

As discussed in previous sections, simply informing the consumer is not adequate 

from a functional safety stand point and should be supplemented with engineering 

solutions, including properly designed HMI, to ensure that opportunities for error 

or misunderstanding that could pose a crash risk are eliminated. 

Object and Event Detection and Response 

Within its ODD, each AV system must be expected to detect and respond to all 

scenarios which could affect safe operation. This includes interactions with other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, animals, and other objects. The NHTSA provides a limited list of behavioral competencies for normal driving and references a number of 

scenarios for crash avoidance and other hazards (construction, disabled vehicles, 

etc.). Advocates believes that this type of specific listing of scenarios which all AVs, 

as appropriate based on each particular AV system ODD, should be addressed as 

part of the safety assessment. With sufficient, uniform data sharing, manufacturers 

should be aware of all scenarios that AVs should address as part of their safety assessment. The agency should work towards a functional safety requirement which 

would include specifications of scenarios which must be addressed by an AV system, 

depending on the ODD, and which could be tested to ensure compliance. 

Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition) 

As noted above in the discussion of post-crash behavior and in other sections, establishing fail safe conditions and operation is yet another part of functional safety. 

Once hazards and risks are identified and then eliminated, mitigated, or guarded 

against, and warnings are provided, the final step is to ensure that a system can 

recognize a failure or when it is operating outside of its ODD and return the system 

to a failsafe operation. However, having a failsafe design should not just be a recommendation. As with nearly all other parts of the guidance, AVs must be functionally safe, including having failsafe modes. These modes will be especially important 

in the early rollout of AVs when unknown risks have not yet been adequately identified through data collection and sharing. 

Validation Methods 

Performance validation is another step in the functional safety process. The 

NHTSA Safety Assessment must include specific tests and validation methods 

which the AV manufacturers must confirm have or have not been used, with a description and documentation of the methods the manufacturer did use to validate 

its AV system. Manufacturers should be required to provide information on all 

methods beyond those listed by the agency which will inform and enable the agency 

so it can update future versions of the list. Again, data collection and sharing will 

also be critical to performance validation to ensure that performance on the road 

and in the hand of the public is matching the performance predicted by the design. 

Guidance for Lower Levels of Automated Vehicle Systems 

All manufacturers of AV systems should be required to meet functional safety requirements for the design, development, and deployment of AVs. Almost all of the 

current guidance fits into what should be required in a comprehensive functional 

safety approach. Lower levels of automation should not be exempt from having to 

thoroughly apply the process. 

Advocates supports ODD, OEDR, and minimal risk conditions applying to lower 

level AV systems. Every AV system has conditions under which it is designed to operate and its operation is specified. While the details may not be as extensive as 

that of a higher level (3–5) system, this is not an exception but rather a modification. Finally, a failsafe mode is still necessary even if it is not as drastic as those 

for higher level AVs. Uniformity in application of the functional safety process 

across all levels of AVs is necessary to ensure safety and inform the agency and the 

public. 

68 

35 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 37. 36 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 39. 

Next Steps: Activities to Improve, Expand and Oversee the Guidance 

It is critical that the NHTSA move swiftly towards effective regulation before the 

technology becomes ubiquitous. Abandoning the regulatory process is not a solution. 

A concerted and coordinated effort between agencies, branches of government, industry and the public will be necessary to achieve the goals of bringing AVs to market and doing so safely. 

II. Model State Policy 

The stated purpose of the model state policy is to ‘‘create a consistent, unified, 

national framework’’ for AV regulation, yet the framework is so loose it is difficult 

to envision consistent outcomes.35 In fact, this framework, because it lacks so many 

necessary details, will create a patchwork of state standards which stands in stark 

contrast to the stated goals of the model policy. The NHTSA fails to include a 

timeline for suggested evaluations and actions that states need to complete. While 

the model policy acknowledges that states must undertake changes and improvements to transportation infrastructure in order to ensure the safe operation of AVs, 

it fails to instruct the states on what specific upgrades are needed. In addition, the 

model policy does not set any standard for crash reporting deadlines or data requirements which will be crucial to state regulation of the testing and deployment of 

AVs. Not only are the paucity of details contained in the model policy of great concern, the proposal also contains several critical shortcomings on its face that must 

be rectified. 

Introduction 

Advocates agrees with the statutory mission of NHTSA to regulate the design and 

performance of motor vehicles including AV technology and vehicles to ensure public 

safety. However, so long as the agency chooses to issue merely voluntary guidance 

to address safety and regulatory issues on emerging AV technology, states have 

every legal right to fill the regulatory vacuum with state developed solutions. 

NHTSA, by issuing only guidelines, has left open the field of AV safety that can 

and must be filled by the states. As such, each state can currently dictate (and some 

already are) what tests it deems acceptable and what constitutes an acceptable or 

successful result. This decentralized process leaves an incredible amount of variability in standards and interpretation. Advocates urges the agency to issue regulations to govern the safety assessment process and other regulatory appropriate aspects of AVs that the agency has exercised with respect to the safety of non-automated motor vehicles. 

NHTSA should partner with states to properly train and educate drivers on the 

proper use of AV systems; however, specific focus should be placed on training dealership sales personnel and vehicle buyers and drivers on the capabilities and limits 

of AVs including when a driver must retake control of an AV after disengagement 

of the autonomous system. 

NHTSA should take a leadership role and work with the states to ensure enhanced requirements for AVs. The inadequate maintenance of an AV, particularly 

out of date software, could have disastrous consequences on its operation and public 

safety. These concerns merit that AVs receive a heightened standard of care from 

state regulators tasked with ensuring that all vehicles registered in a state are 

properly maintained. 

Model State Policy 

The NHTSA must require, and recommend that state law reinforce, the need for 

AVs to be designed to comply with all aspects of state motor vehicle and traffic laws. 

Furthermore, NHTSA should work with the Federal Highway Administration, the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the states to ensure that AVs are 

compliant with all highway and traffic requirements. Mandating this uniformity will 

greatly reduce the opportunity for errors by AVs when dealing with the current 

patchwork of state requirements or guidelines such as lane widths, road markings, 

and signage. 

In terms of defining who the ‘‘driver’’ of an AV is the NHTSA AV Policy contains 

an apparent inconsistency. For level 3 AV systems, where the human driver has to 

be able to take over control of the vehicle, states should define the ‘‘driver’’ of the 

vehicle as the human operator of the vehicle not the AV system as proposed in the 

model state policy. NHTSA asserts that States should generally deem the AV system to be the ‘‘driver’’ of the vehicle for SAE Levels 3–5.36 Later in the guidance, 

however, the NHTSA indicates that States should continue to regulate the ‘‘human’’ 

69 

37 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 43. 38 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 45. 39Distraction.gov, NHTSA. 40 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 49. 

driver for AV ‘‘technologies that are less than fully automated, SAE levels 3 and 

lower.’’ 37 For a level 3 vehicle where a driver is still tasked at various times with 

the operation of the vehicle, when the vehicle reaches its operational limits, the 

driver of such a vehicle must continue to be defined as the human operator. 

Administrative 

Advocates supports the establishment of a jurisdictional automated safety technology committee in each state as outlined in the model policy. However, the committees should be balanced and include strong representation from safety and consumer representatives as permanent official members. Placing these representatives 

on the Committee will foster public confidence in the testing and deployment of AVs 

in their state and will encourage acceptance of the technology as it becomes more 

prevalent. In addition, these representatives can provide a unique and invaluable 

perspective to the Committee as they consider numerous issues affecting consumers 

and public safety. 

Jurisdiction Permission to Test 

The lead state agency tasked with regulating AVs should prohibit the testing of 

AVs in safety sensitive areas such as school and construction zones as outlined in 

the model state policy. The malfunction of an AV while testing in such areas would 

be catastrophic. In addition, authorizations given for testing should be renewed on 

an annual basis due to the number of issues that could evolve during the course 

of a year involving experimental vehicles using such rapidly developing technology 

that could receive and require programming changes and updates at any time. 

Moreover, any authorization should immediately be reviewed after a notice of a 

crash involving an AV covered by the permit. 

Testing by the Manufacturer or Other Entity 

As outlined in the model state policy, not only should all crashes involving test 

vehicles be reported to the applicable state regulatory body, but any and all safety 

critical events such as near misses or operational malfunctions should also be disclosed to state regulators and the public. State regulatory bodies cannot accurately 

assess the progress of AVs and their ability to operate on public roads without this 

full and accurate picture of the performance of AVs during testing. 

Law Enforcement Considerations 

Advocates concurs with NHTSA’s statement that ‘‘[f]or vehicles that offer less 

than full automated capabilities, there is potential for increased distracted driving.’’ 38 Despite these obvious concerns, the agency continues to merely issue guidelines rather than regulations to govern in-vehicle and nomadic electronic devices 

that contribute to distracted driving, an issue that has long been identified by the 

safety community and the agency and supported by numerous research studies as 

a major public health epidemic.39 For AVs that are less than fully automated, states 

must be encouraged to enact robust laws to govern any and all in vehicle distractions. 

III. NHTSA’s Current Regulatory Tools 

Rulemaking Authority 

The NHTSA’s most broad-ranging authority to influence and govern motor vehicle 

safety, and to eliminate unreasonable risks to the public, is through proposing a 

standard to govern conduct and performance through a public rulemaking process. 

This is, and has been since the inception of the agency, the approach used to ‘‘adopt 

new standards, modify existing standards, or repeal an existing standard.’’ 40 The 

establishment through regulation of safety standards for motor vehicle safety and 

related technology performance requirements is the standard and established agency procedure. The current body of lifesaving Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

(FMVSS) has been constituted through this process and procedure. 

Public notice-and-comment rulemaking provides a number of important benefits. 

The regulated industry and the public receive a concise, detailed statement of agency plans and proposed rules, including testing procedures and performance requirements. It requires the agency to master detailed technical issues and to organize 

the analysis of benefits and costs of a proposed rule. The regulated entities and the 

public are afforded an opportunity to evaluate and analyze the proposal and provide 

focused feedback to the agency, including posing questions regarding matters that 

70 

41 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 50. 42 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 49. 43 NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2016–02: Safety-Related Defects and Automated 

Safety Technologies, Final Notice, NHTSA, 81 FR 65705, 65706 (Sept. 23, 2016). 

may require greater clarity as well as critical feedback on technical aspects of the 

rule. Rulemaking affords all stakeholders, including the public and the regulated industry, the platform for making broad, general philosophical statements regarding 

the agency proposal, as well as the avenue to address narrow, technical issues. The 

regulatory process clarifies the agency’s intent as to what will be subject to a particular regulation and how the agency intends to regulate an aspect of motor vehicle 

equipment or operation. This is important to reach a general agreed understanding 

of the issue and assure only sound, well-reasoned requirements are imposed on the 

regulated industry. While rulemaking may, by its nature, take longer than other existing regulatory tools (e.g., interpretation letters or exemption petitions), rulemaking according to the agency ‘‘enables the Agency to make the broadest and most 

thorough changes to governing regulations, and gives the public the greatest opportunity to participate in the Agency’s decision-making process.’’ 41 In fact, the NHTSA 

states that rulemaking may be the best approach to address ‘‘a motor vehicle or 

equipment design [that is] substantially different from anything currently on the 

road [for which] compliance with standards may be very difficult or complicated 

. . .’’ 42 This description directly applies to the development and installation of AVs. 

The future reliability and public acceptance of AVs would benefit greatly from regulatory action that sets a fair and level playing field for industry and, at the same 

time, provides transparency and oversight for the introduction of AVs into the motor 

vehicle fleet. While the NHTSA has not regulated every aspect of motor vehicles, 

crucial safety and operating systems have been regulated as part of the FMVSS or 

other pertinent regulations for decades. There is no clear and compelling reason why 

AV technology should be treated any differently or given greater leeway than previous mechanical or electronic technological innovations. Furthermore, there is no 

reason to believe that AV technology differs in any meaningful degree from the developments and improvements that have been routinely regulated over the past 50 

years of automotive development. The agency cannot evade its statutory duty simply 

because the new technology seems complicated or highly technical. 

The NHTSA has expressed its view that ‘‘only after new technology is developed 

and proven does the Agency establish new safety standards. * * * Strong safety regulations and standards are a vital piece of NHTSA’s safety mission and the Agency 

will engage in rulemaking related to automated safety technologies in the future.’’ 43

While Advocates understands that, at present, there may not be sufficient information and data to establish minimum performance requirements for some aspects of 

AV systems, that does not mean that the agency should defer from regulating those 

aspects of AV performance that are already known but which are not yet regulated, 

such as autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems. Moreover, NHTSA is not 

precluded from requiring manufacturers to adopt a functional safety process that 

will ensure appropriate testing of AV systems will be conducted to prove the systems’ safe performance within the design parameters of the particular AV system. 

The NHTSA has an obligation to the public to ensure that new, highly complex 

AV systems will perform safely. At this time the NHTSA should require each vehicle 

manufacturer, or other company producing the computer logic and software, to 

adopt a functional safety process that requires comprehensive testing of AV systems 

that the agency can review. This would ensure that the manufacturers are under 

a legal obligation to perform appropriate due diligence to disclose the results to the 

agency prior to motor vehicles equipped with AV system’s being placed in the 

stream of commerce. 

The agency can and should require manufacturers, as part of the self-certification 

requirement, to certify that sufficient functional safety testing and analysis has 

been performed to establish that the AV system will perform safely and as designed. 

To accomplish this, the agency should require all AV system manufacturers, by regulation, to adopt a functional safety process to conduct state-of-the-art testing and 

analysis to establish that the AV system performs safely and meets or exceeds all 

aspects of the systems design parameters. Such a requirement is intended to allow 

the manufacturer to document that its AV system(s) has been fully and extensively 

tested and that all critical features, including the programming software, operate 

properly. There must be a modicum of regulatory oversight by NHTSA to ensure 

that the AV system manufacturers are acting responsibly and have not taken any 

short-cuts in the rush to market. 

Advocates’ call for a regulation to require functional safety testing and analysis 

is based on empirical evidence. The May 7, 2016 crash of a Tesla Model S equipped 

71 

44The Tesla Autopilot System has been the subject of investigation in other crashes, including 

another fatal crash in China in January of 2016, Neal Boudette, Autopilot Cited in Death of 

Chinese Tesla Driver, The New York Times (Sep. 14, 2016). 45Louis Hansen, Tesla turns to radar in upgrade of Autopilot, The Mercury News (Sept. 11, 

2016). In fact, Tesla has not provided any evidence that the problem has been fixed. 46 Id. 47 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 50. 48 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 50. 49 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 50, citing NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2016–02: SafetyRelated Defects and Automated Safety Technologies, 81 FR 65705, 65707 (September 23, 2016). 

with the Autopilot AV system feature is a real world example of why such regulatory action is necessary as well as the timely notification to NHTSA is essential.44

Tesla has stated that it required drivers to acknowledge that they would remain engaged in the driving task. A functional safety analysis would have required Tesla 

to evaluate what happens when the system fails to identify a road hazard, when 

the driver is not engaged in the driving task, or when both failures occur simultaneously all of which are foreseeable. Functional safety requires consideration of all 

foreseeable and feasible failure modes, as well as unlikely and low probability failure modes. Blaming the driver for failing to heed a warning, or for over reliance 

on the AV system, is inexcusable when technological means of mitigating the risks 

of sensor failures and human behavior are available. 

The risk classification for failures in this and similar systems being developed 

must be very stringent since failure of the Autopilot sensors or the detection algorithm while travelling would present an unreasonable crash risk. Such an analysis, 

likely, would have led to requirements that additional sensors be added to the vehicle to mitigate the sensor ‘‘blind spot’’ created by using visual data from a camera 

with limited input from additional technologies such as radar or lidar. Tesla subsequently announced that it had fixed the problem through a new software update to 

the Autopilot System.45 This flaw would have and should have been detected by 

Tesla during a functional safety analysis of the Autopilot System. Without such a 

required analysis, there may be other instances where readily detectible and foreseeable problems were not identified until after a crash occurs. 

The functional safety analysis might also have resulted in additional driver engagement requirements such as driver monitoring and warning systems, and stronger driver reengagement methods to ensure driver readiness to retake control of the 

vehicle. In the functional safety analysis, Tesla would have been required to research, test, and examine not just the Autopilot sensor array, but driver reengagement readiness to prove that the design enabled drivers to either remain engaged 

in the driving task (as Tesla stated was necessary) or that re-engagement could be 

successfully accomplished in a safe manner. In fact, after the fatal crash the company instituted more warnings to the driver to remain alert while the Autopilot System is engaged.46 It is the NHTSA’s responsibility to require functional safety certification to eliminate the types of system failures that resulted in a fatality and 

eliminate the need for ‘‘after the fact’’ improvements which should have been anticipated. 

While the NHTSA’s proposed voluntary submission of a letter (addressed above) 

has many of the hallmarks of what is needed to be reported to the agency, a regulation must, first and foremost, require manufacturers of AV systems for motor vehicles to adopt a functional safety process that will ensure that the manufacturer tests 

its AV system appropriately and comprehensively. Second, documentation of all test 

results, those that establish the functional safety of the system, as well as any information that indicates the failure of the AV system to fulfill functional safety parameters, must be provided to NHTSA in advance of placing the AV system or AV 

equipped vehicle in the stream of commerce. Finally, these aspects must be made 

mandatory, rather than voluntary, in order to ensure that the manufacturers are 

legally obligated to adopt an effective functional safety process and to supply all relevant information to the agency. 

Enforcement Authority 

In relation to the NHTSA’s enforcement authority, the NHTSA AV Policy states 

that ‘‘when vulnerabilities of [automotive] technology or equipment pose an unreasonable risk to safety, those vulnerabilities constitute a safety-related defect’’ 47 that 

can spur the agency to investigate and take remedial action including ordering the 

manufacturer to conduct a safety recall.48 Moreover, the agency’s enforcement authority applies ‘‘ ‘notwithstanding the presence or absence of an FMVSS for any particular type of advanced technology.’ ’’ 49 Advocates strongly supports the NHTSA’s 

enforcement efforts to investigate, identify and recall noncompliant or defective vehicles. Advocates views the enforcement role played by the agency as critical to enVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
72 

50 49 U.S.C. § 30101. 51 Angelo Young, General Motors Ignition Switch Flaw Death Toll Rises To 169 Following Per- sonal Injury Settlement; Penalty Costs Top $2.1B, International Business Times (Sept. 17, 2015) 52 Ryan Beene, 11th U.S. death related to Takata airbags reported by Honda, Automotive 

News (Oct. 20, 2016). 53 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 55. 54 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 76. 55Most exemption requests are supported by little or no substantive data that meets the 

equivalent level of safety legal standard. 

suring that motor vehicles, once in use, perform safely. However, the agency position begs the question as to why the agency would forego issuing a prospective regulation to improve the safety performance of production models and eliminate safety 

flaws in AV systems before they are sold to the public. The NHTSA’s enabling statute recognizes that the agency must act in a proactive manner to avoid and reduce 

crashes, injuries and deaths in the first place.50 Rather than relying entirely on its 

enforcement authority, the agency should also be actively ensuring through regulatory, as opposed to only voluntary, action that AV systems are produced without 

production flaws before the AV systems are sold to the public, placed in the stream 

of commerce, and then subsequently have to be recalled. 

The historic and well-founded approach of the NHTSA has been to require, in the 

first place, specific minimum performance requirements or standards that vehicle 

manufacturers must certify that each vehicle meets. These standards raise the quality and safety performance of motor vehicles before sale to the public. While its enforcement authority does permit the agency to investigate and recall vehicles for 

safety defects even if there is no underlying performance standard, the lack of an 

underlying performance standard may complicate the exercise of the agency’s enforcement authority. This is a significant concern for electronically controlled systems and software where a specific flaw or malfunction may be more difficult to 

identify. If there is no underlying requirement or process, manufacturers will be far 

less cautious about ensuring the operating safety of the vehicle prior to sale. 

Finally, although the NHTSA’s enforcement authority is extensive, safety flaws 

may take years to identify and recall. This has been the situation with a number 

of safety recalls. In 2000, congressional hearings and the media revealed hundreds 

of needless deaths and injuries caused by the Firestone/Ford Explorer defective tire 

fiasco because of delayed agency action. Again, for the same reason, in 2009, families were put at unacceptable risk due to the Toyota sudden acceleration problem. 

In the past several years, the public has learned about the cover-ups and deception 

by General Motors which knowingly used faulty ignition switches that have been 

linked to at least 169 deaths and many more injuries because of long delayed agency 

action.51 Furthermore, the defective air bags manufactured by Takata have resulted 

in millions of vehicle recalls and have caused at least 11 deaths in the U.S. and 

numerous injuries because, in part, of delayed agency action.52

Although its enforcement powers are necessary, they are not executed immediately after a safety defect involved crash occurs. It may then take months or years 

to establish that a defect exists and what the defect is and then more time to convince the manufacturer that a recall is appropriate and, even then, further negotiation to ensure that the scope of the recall is adequate, and all that time assumes 

that a remedy is available. Thus, while the agency’s enforcement authority is necessary and essential, to identify safety defects, it does not provide the prophylactic 

safety effect of standards and regulations. 

Exemption Authority 

Advocates is concerned with the NHTSA AV Policy’s discussion of the use of exemption authority and proposed expansion of that authority. Compliance with safety 

standards must be maintained to ensure that all consumers are afforded a minimal 

level of safety. Advocates concurs with the agency statement that ‘‘[g]eneral exemptions do not excuse non-compliance with applicable standards simply because doing 

so would be inconvenient or inconsistent with the manufacturers’ preferred vehicle 

design.’’ 53 However the agency in its discussion regarding expanding its general exemption authority considers not only increasing the number of vehicles and duration 

of the exemptions, but also mentions the possibility of moving towards relaxed limitations or even eliminating numerical limits for exempt vehicles altogether.54 Advocates strongly opposes this idea which will compromise safety. 

As Advocates’ comments on countless past general exemptions have shown, particularly from the FMVSS, the standard for proving that an alternative approach 

represents an equivalent level of safety to the existing regulatory requirement is 

murky.55 Furthermore, Advocates is concerned that expansion of the exemption authority would lead to an alternative path around FMVSS compliance. Advocates conVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
73 

56 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 76 (emphasis added). 57 NHTSA AV Policy, pp. 70–71. 58 NHTSA AV Policy, p. 71. 59Title 49, U.S.C., § 30115. 60The NHTSA’s discussion of a hybrid approval process that would combine self-certification 

of existing FMVSS and pre-market approval by the NHTSA, or a third party expert supervised 

by the agency, for AV features that are not subject to an FMVSS or regulation, still require 

Congress to pass pre-market legislation. 

curs with the agency’s expressed concern that ‘‘it would be important to guard 

against overuse of the exemption authority which might displace rulemaking as the 

de facto primary method of regulating motor vehicles and equipment.’’ 56 For this 

reason alone, the expansion of exemption authority should be avoided. This is not 

the intent of the agency’s organic statute, its current exemption authority, or the 

preferred means by which the agency should ensure public safety. Advocates recommends that the agency focus on efficiently addressing current regulatory shortcomings and adapting current requirements through rulemaking rather than eviscerating the rules through exemptions. 

IV. Modern Regulatory Tools 

Safety Assurance 

The discussion of Safety Assurance in the NHTSA AV Policy document confirms 

that the NHTSA could establish, by rule, a mandatory Safety Assurance requirement ‘‘to demonstrate that motor vehicle manufacturers’ and other entities’ design, 

manufacturing, and testing processes apply NHTSA performance guidance, industry 

best practices, and other performance criteria and standards to assure the safe operation of motor vehicles, before those vehicles are deployed on public roads.’’ 57 This 

could apply to level 0–2 vehicles as well as level 3–5 AVs as well. The agency makes 

clear that ‘‘NHTSA could implement many safety assurance tools without additional 

statutory authority.’’ 58 Advocates completely agrees and urges the agency to pursue 

this course of requiring manufacturers to establish a functional safety based assessment process to be reviewed by the agency. The adoption of a required safety assurance process for AVs would still be consistent with the manufacturer self-certification procedure required by existing law.59 Manufacturers would have to comply 

with the safety assessment process and allow NHTSA an opportunity to review the 

AV documentation and request additional information. However, following the agency review the manufacturer would be able to self-certify the AVs as under current 

law. The agency would not itself pre-test prototype AVs to ensure that they conform 

to the FMVSS and the verifications contained in the manufacturer safety assessment. 

Pre-Market Approval Authority 

Pre-market approval would allow the agency to conduct testing on prototype vehicles and to ensure no AVs are marketed without approval. This may be particularly 

important for highly complex electronic aspects of vehicle control and to allow examination of computer programming and logic. However, it is an entirely different regulatory system that exists currently at the NHTSA. Regardless, the safety assessment aspect of the agency guidance could be put into place by rule, without the need 

for pre-market approval legislation.60

Cease and Desist Authority 

Advocates strongly supports the enactment of legislation to afford the NHTSA 

cease and desist authority to immediately remediate imminent hazards. This authority, possessed by other regulatory administrations, including the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration, would allow the agency to expedite taking action in 

the event that a serious problem or defect poses an immediate danger to public safety. In a number of previous and recent safety recalls, the agency might have invoked such authority to ground vehicles that pose a significant unreasonable risk 

to public safety. Imminent hazard authority would still require some measures of 

due process and court review to ensure that the agency does not act impetuously, 

but would allow a faster response to address a serious safety problem. 

Post Sale Authority to Regulate Software Changes 

Advocates agrees with the NHTSA that the agency currently has authority to regulate software changes that update vehicle programming and could affect the basis 

for the original vehicle certification. As the software governing an AV is part of the 

vehicle or vehicle equipment, the agency has authority to regulate changes that 

could affect vehicle safety systems and that could result in a defect or give rise to 

an unreasonable risk to safety. The agency should require by regulation any post 

74 

sale software update be submitted to NHTSA and made available for public review 

with a summary of the changes that were implemented. 

JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, 

President. 

JOAN CLAYBROOK, 

Consumer Co-Chair, 

Former NHTSA Administrator. 

STATEMENT OF AMERICAN CAR RENTAL ASSOCIATION

The American Car Rental Association (ACRA) respectfully submits this statement 

for the record of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee’s 

hearing on ‘‘Paving the Way for Self-Driving Vehicles’’ on Wednesday, June 14, 

2017. 

ACRA is the national representative for over 98 percent of our Nation’s car rental 

industry. ACRA’s membership is comprised of over 300 car rental companies, including all of the brands you would recognize such as Alamo, Avis, Budget, Dollar, Enterprise, Hertz, National and Thrifty. ACRA members also include many system licensees and franchisees mid-size, regional and independent car rental companies as 

well as smaller, ‘‘mom & pop’’ operators. ACRA members have over two million registered vehicles in service, with fleets ranging in size from one million cars to ten 

cars. ACRA’s members strongly support the development and gradual deployment of 

‘‘Highly Automated Vehicles’’ (HAVs) to improve transportation safety and reduce 

property damage and personal injury and deaths associated with vehicle accidents. 

However, the introduction of HAVs is a complex technical and public policy challenge. This challenge will require policymakers to address and incorporate existing 

safety, consumer protection, privacy and liability issues into a changing vehicle population that includes HAVs—while at the same time maintaining flexibility to accommodate new and evolving legal issues unique to HAVs that may not be apparent 

today. 

The members of the ACRA purchase one out of every nine new cars sold in the 

United States each year—almost 2 million vehicles in 2016. To the extent that 

HAVs are introduced into the private passenger motor vehicle fleet in the next decade, ACRA members will be at the forefront of HAV deployment and on the front 

lines of the education of car rental customers with respect to interacting with HAVs 

safely. 

The Promise and Challenges of Autonomous Vehicles—The widespread introduction of HAVs promises to reduce the number of deaths (about 40,000/year in the 

United States) and injuries (hundreds of thousands every year in the United States) 

caused by motor vehicle accidents—over 90 percent of which are caused by human 

error. But this promise is not without challenges in many complex areas, including 

thorny public policy issues that have been debated by many interested parties for 

decades, including: 

• Liability—Federal and State liability statutes generally hold the driver of a 

motor vehicle liable for injuries and property damage caused by that driver’s 

negligence. With respect to HAVs, there is no ‘‘driver’’ per se and thus determining responsibility for injuries and other harm become problematic. Federal 

and State policymakers should consider assigning liability for accidents caused 

by HAVs to the entities most capable of addressing design and functionality 

shortcomings in HAVS—in most cases, the vehicle and software designers and 

manufacturers, rather than the humans occupying the vehicle or the fleet owners. 

• Ownership of Motor Vehicles—As we move towards an era of widespread HAV 

deployment, our notions of motor vehicle ownership likely will undergo a revolutionary change. Instead of owning our personal automobile, or renting a 

minivan for a family vacation, or boarding a bus for a ride to school, or hailing 

a taxi—all of these activities may be undertaken with different types of HAVs 

which may or may not be owned by an individual, a school district, or a fleet 

operator. Resolving vehicle ownership issues, including maintenance, accident 

reporting, data recording and sharing, and other heretofore unaddressed issues 

with respect to HAVs will need to be discussed and resolved. 

• Taxes and Fees—HAVs hold the promise of eliminating distinctions between 

rental cars, taxis, ride-hailing services and individual motor vehicle ownership. 

With the introduction of HAVs, responsibilities must be apportioned for paying 

75 

Federal and State motor fuel excise taxes, State and Local fees on car rentals, 

ride-hailing services and taxis, and State and Local vehicle registration and 

sales taxes. 

• Harmonization—The customers of ACRA members cross state lines in their current rental cars without restrictions and likely will anticipate the ability to do 

the same with respect to HAVs rented from ACRA members. As a result, a myriad of complex and perhaps contradictory State laws or regulations with respect 

to technical, safety or operational standards for HAVs should be avoided wherever possible. Continued State regulation of HAVs in traditional areas such as 

licensing, registration and insurance requirements would not in most instances 

pose impediments to the introduction of HAVs in ACRA’s opinion. 

• Privacy—Federal and State regulators have started to wrestle with the difficult 

challenges of maintaining individual privacy with respect to data generated by 

today’s increasingly complex and technologically advanced motor vehicles and 

promoting transportation safety and enforcement of Federal and State laws. 

Such thorny privacy issues will only be multiplied with HAVs, and ACRA urges 

policymakers to preserve the right of vehicle owners to control and own the data 

generated by HAVs. 

• Cybersecurity—The increased automation of motor vehicles, leading ultimately 

to deployment of HAVs, heightens the risk of cyber-attacks on single cars or 

groups of vehicles. Such risks must be managed by vehicle manufacturers and 

designers. However, the same technology that opens HAVs to cyber-attacks may 

hold the promise of reducing motor vehicle theft and other crimes involving vehicles. The cybersecurity issues related to HAVs must be balanced between protection of the vehicle’s occupants and aiding law enforcement agencies in crime 

prevention and the apprehension of criminals. 

• ‘‘Training’’ of HAV Users—Unless an individual purchases an HAV and is 

briefed by the seller on the operation of the vehicle (much as is done at many 

vehicle dealerships today when a vehicle is purchased), most consumers’ first 

interaction with an HAV likely will be in a car rental transaction or other shortterm use scenario such as a taxi or ride-hailing use. Manufacturers of the 

HAVs’ hardware and software must assume responsibility for providing consumers with a training manual or user interface presentation upon entry into 

the HAV. Placing this training requirement on the manufacturer will be much 

more efficient and effective than a requirement that the owners—whether individuals or fleet management companies—of the HAVs provide this training on 

the use and operation of the HAV. 

Special Attention to Data/Information Ownership and Control—ACRA posits that 

the owners of HAVs—whether an individual, a corporate entity, or a fleet management company—and their agents (such as property and casualty insurers) must retain full, real-time access and control over the personal and vehicle information associated with and generated by HAVs. 

Such information access and control must include data ‘‘read’’ and ‘‘write’’ capabilities, as well as authenticated, remote command and control of a stationary vehicle. In addition, owners of HAVs with multiple users, such as consumers with multiple drivers in the same family, or car rental companies with many customers using 

one HAV, must be provided with a secure and simple means of erasing personal information from the info-entertainment systems of all vehicles, including HAVs. 

Currently, the owner of a motor vehicle has full ownership over the personal information stored in that vehicle and the vehicle information generated by and stored 

by the vehicle. Such a data ownership construct must continue as we transition to 

HAVs to protect consumer privacy, to ensure that the safety promise of HAVs is 

fully realized, to promote competition, and to permit owners of HAVs to manage the 

information generated by their vehicles—whether it is one HAV owned by an individual or 100,000 HAVs owned by a car rental company. 

Some stakeholders may suggest that access to personal and vehicle data must be 

limited to hardware or software providers in order to fully deploy HAVs. Such a 

closed silo of access to vehicle information would represent a complete public policy 

reversal of decades of consumer and privacy protection. The proponents of such a 

closed data system have not advanced convincing arguments as to why they should 

be granted a monopoly on this data—a monopoly that would be in place even when 

the hardware or software company doesn’t own the HAV in question. 

ACRA looks forward to working with the Committee and all stakeholders to formulate a personal and vehicle information and data access public policy for HAVs 

that is consistent with consumer protection and privacy principles while at the same 

time achieving the safety goals promised by HAVs. 

76 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement for the record at this 

hearing. ACRA stands ready to work with the members of the Committee and all 

State and Federal legislators and regulators, as well as the many stakeholders interested in the development and introduction of HAVs, in the months and years 

ahead. 

STATEMENT FROM CONTINENTAL

Continental is a leading Tier 1 supplier that develops intelligent technologies for 

transporting people and their goods. We provide our automotive customers with sustainable, safe and affordable solutions that enhance automotive safety. In 2016 we 

generated more than $43 billion in sales within our five divisions, Chassis & Safety, 

Interior, Powertrain, Tires, and ContiTech. Continental employs more than 20,000 

employees in the U.S. at more than 80 facilities located in 27 states and has more 

than 220,000 employees in 55 countries worldwide. 

In 2015 there were more than 35,000 lives lost in the U.S. due to traffic crashes. 

Projections for 2016 are expected to increase to more than 40,000 fatalities, a level 

we haven’t seen in a decade. While this is an alarming number, it is even more startling at a global level—more than 1.2 million people die in roadway crashes and another 50 million are injured. This is unacceptable and reversing this trend is what 

motivates each and every employee at Continental. 

In the last 45 years the U.S. has experienced a relative declining trend in traffic 

fatalities with respect to an increased number of vehicles on the road and number 

of miles driven. This is due in large part to improved vehicle safety technologies. 

In the early 1970s the number of injuries and fatalities were at an all-time high. 

The introduction of the seat belt helped to reduce the total number of traffic fatalities by 10,000 in a few short years. In 1983, the number of fatalities was the lowest 

in 20 years due to the introduction of anti-lock braking systems. As numbers began 

to rise again, the airbag became standard in vehicles reducing injuries and fatalities 

down to its lowest number in 30 years. The introduction of electronic stability control in the mid-1990s helped to reduce traffic accidents to the lowest number in 50 

years. Continental projects new crash-avoidance technologies will once again reverse 

the recent increase in fatalities as the auto industry moves toward a more widespread implementation of Advanced Driver Assist Systems (ADAS). 

Innovation has always been at the heart of the automotive industry. From the 

original concept of the automobile in the late 1800s, the mass production lines pioneered in Detroit, to today, the automotive industry has always invested in research 

and development to make their products safer, more reliable and more affordable. 

Today, we are witnessing the automotive industry evolve from a crashworthiness 

mindset, where manufacturers try to make the passenger cabin more survivable in 

the event of an accident towards a crash avoidance mindset—after all, the best way 

to survive a crash is to avoid one in the first place. 

Continental, and our dedicated employees, are committed to developing Safe and 

Dynamic Driving technologies towards Vision Zero. Vision Zero means a future with 

zero traffic fatalities, injuries and ultimately zero accidents. Such a future can only 

be achieved with the help of innovative active and passive safety, driver assistance, 

and automated driving technologies. As Continental brings these technologies to 

market, we exhaustively test products, and subsystems, as part of a larger system 

of advanced driving assistance technologies that will be integrated with a variety 

of components by original equipment manufacturers. 

Our Vision Zero philosophy is embedded in each technology we develop as we continue to enable automated driving. At Continental, we describe our systems approach through three primary actions—sense, plan, and act. Whether the technology 

simply assists the driver like many systems on the road today, or ultimately takes 

over the driving task completely, it first must SENSE the surrounding environment 

and gather the necessary data that can be interpreted. Sophisticated sensor systems 

can help eliminate human error and distractions by providing 360-degree awareness 

of the road at all times. The data gathered from the sensors is then analyzed to 

identify obstacles or hazards. Our systems then dynamically develop a PLAN to determine how to assist the driver. Once that plan is in place, the systems will ACT 

to execute the plan to safely and comfortably pilot the vehicle and in certain cases 

avoid a hazard or crash situation. Our Sense, Plan, Act approach is the foundation 

behind Continental’s active safety and Advanced Driver Assistance System technology, and is a key component to advancing automated driving systems. We believe 

that when fully automated driving is possible, traffic fatalities can be reduced by 

90 percent because that is the percentage of accidents that are caused by human 

error. 

77 

Continental has been an active participant globally in policy discussions and initiatives with governments, automotive industry partners, trade associations and 

other standard setting organizations. The collaborative efforts to help establish consistency within the emerging self-driving market has been crucial to the advancement of automated driving technologies. Continental is currently engaged with the 

Department of Transportation’s Smart Cities Program. Several of our divisions are 

working together to develop a highly sophisticated intersection in Columbus, Ohio, 

with vehicle and integrated infrastructure technologies that will help save the lives 

of vehicle occupants as well as pedestrians while improving transportation efficiency 

in urban environments. We support the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s recent adoption of the SAE International definitions of automation, as we 

believe it is beneficial to helping educate the public in order to distinguish between 

different automated technologies and garner public acceptance. 

Continental is one of the leading suppliers in this market, with a complete portfolio of technologies for all defined levels of automation. Each innovative safety feature undergoes an extensive testing process before becoming available to the market. As a supplier, we currently develop a multitude of innovative technologies that 

can save lives and enhance the driving experience under the Level 0 to Level 2 definitions of automation. These products are designed based on the needs of our customers to assist the driver in interpreting the surrounding environment and control 

the vehicle in order to prevent an accident from occurring. 

Continental has been integral in the deployment of current crash avoidance technologies such as lane keep assist, rear back up assist, automatic emergency braking, 

and adaptive cruise control, to name a few. These crash avoidance technologies are 

the building blocks to higher levels of automated driving and need to be embraced 

as crash avoidance technologies that save lives. All of these technologies can be 

found throughout the fleets of most vehicle manufacturers. 

As the industry moves forward towards Level 3 automation technology and beyond, Continental is positioned to supply public and personal transportation needs 

with the safest and most advanced technology available on the market. The world 

and the behavior of drivers within it are ever changing, and the vehicle must adapt 

to these changing trends. Our children seem to rely on smartphones more so than 

vehicles. Living in a world of distractions has become commonplace. Automotive 

technology must be developed accordingly. That is why Continental has put a great 

deal of effort into Human Machine Interface technology. We want the driver to be 

aware of their surroundings, be aware of what the systems in the vehicle are doing, 

and be aware of when it is safe to relinquish control of the vehicle and when to reengage with the vehicle. In addition to informing the occupants, keeping them safe, 

and pedestrians safe, we must also secure the systems within the vehicle. As part 

of system development for Highly Automated Driving, we focus on redundancy of 

vehicle safety systems. That is why we are developing complimentary systems and 

technologies that support existing safety systems in the vehicle’s architecture. 

Since 2011, we have continued a pursuit of testing and developing highly automated driving with next generation technologies like automated parking, cruising 

chauffeur and a complete self-driving vehicle in combination with V2V/V2X technology. We were the first supplier in the U.S. to be awarded a testing license for 

automated vehicles in Nevada and are currently testing our third generation automated vehicle on highways and roads throughout the country and around the world. 

We are currently integrating sophisticated technologies such as high resolution flash 

lidar, which will expand the vehicle’s detection capabilities. This is the same technology that has been deployed on space shuttles at the most advanced technical 

level, and we are working to utilize its potential for road applications. But, our continued efforts in this direction would benefit greatly from an investment in infrastructure that promotes vehicle to X communication, a dedicated spectrum communication band that can be utilized by current and future safety systems, and harmonization of safety laws that allows for the full real world testing of these technologies. 

The challenges in broadly testing this new and innovative safety technology across 

the country are great. The industry currently faces considerable uncertainty on 

state and Federal requirements that would require clarification from the Federal 

Government’s exclusive authority to regulate all motor vehicles. The safe commercial deployment of potential life saving technology depends on the ability to extensively test on public roads under all conditions. In order to envision a future of full 

automation, the government must review Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

that would allow for vehicles that may not be under the full control of a driver at 

all times. Similar to the need of improved road conditions as automobiles 

transitioned from rural landscapes to metropolitan areas in the early 1900s, we 

78 

need a road infrastructure that complements automotive advancements, and a legal 

framework that supports a new system of mobility. 

The automotive world is one of excitement. Software developers are becoming 

automotive suppliers, automotive companies are becoming software developers, and 

our vehicles are becoming our smart-device. The world of mobility has the capability 

of expanding to unimaginable independence and personal freedom without sacrificing the safety of future generations. Continental stands at the ready, alongside 

our industry colleagues, to work with the Committee and Congress in helping construct laws that foster innovation, enable mobility, and create a safer environment 

for the public. 

STATEMENT OF PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

The promise of ‘‘self-driving’’ vehicles to improve road safety and mobility continues to generate debate about the appropriate regulatory framework for the testing and deployment of such vehicles. While determining how our existing vehicle 

regulatory systems need to change is very important, there is a fundamental mismatch between the public perceptions that auto accidents and insurance costs are 

decreasing with the stark reality that our roads are becoming increasingly dangerous resulting in rising costs. Auto accident deaths have increased by 14 percent 

over the last two years, and the number of people injured on our roads has increased by more than 12 percent since 2014. Someday in the future self-driving cars 

may reduce the number of accidents and deaths. However, the potential of automated vehicle technology stands in sharp contrast to what is happening on our 

roads today. The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) is composed of 1,000 member companies, representing the broadest cross section of insurers of any national trade association. PCI members write $202 billion in annual premium, 35 percent of the Nation’s property casualty insurance. That figure includes 

over $97 billion, or 42 percent of the auto insurance premium written in the United 

States. PCI’s has analyzed the recent increase in auto insurance claim frequency 

and found strong correlations with traffic congestion and distracted driving, weaker 

correlations from increasing populations of novice and older drivers, and some correlation with liberalized marijuana laws. While it is important to prepare for the 

automated vehicle of the future, we urge policymakers to continue to focus on the 

auto safety challenges that face us today such as distracted and impaired driving. 

The FAST Act provides for continuing efforts to increase public awareness and improving enforcement as well as establishing an enforceable impairment standard for 

drivers under the influence of marijuana. These are critically important measures 

for reducing accidents, injuries and deaths on our Nation’s roads. The importance 

of addressing these issues was also the subject of a 2016 bipartisan letter from 23 

members of congress urging prompt implementation of these provisions of the FAST 

Act by the Department of Transportation. 

Increasing automation of driving functions will mean that some motor vehicle 

laws and regulations will need to be changed to accommodate the testing and deployment of self-driving cars. Testing requirements, guidelines and standards for 

use on public roads should set clear expectations for the public and provide clear 

direction for technology developers and manufacturers for compliance. Modifications 

to existing auto safety laws and motor vehicle safety standards should be rare and 

limited to only the highest levels (i.e., fully autonomous) of automated driving and 

should clearly define the levels of automation to which the modification applies. 

Clear and effectively enforced auto safety laws and vehicle standards can save lives 

on our roads today and, when applied to automated driving systems, develop public 

confidence that will ultimately determine if the technology realizes its potential. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) ‘‘Federal Automated Vehicle Policy,’’ is intended to provide guidance for states on the testing and 

deployment of highly automated vehicles (HAV’s). This policy guidance briefly references insurance yet does raise issues that are important to the automobile insurance market as it seeks to adapt and develop new products to meet consumer’s 

needs that should be considered in any policy discussion of self-driving vehicles. 

Recognition of State Regulation of Insurance and Liability Issues 

NHTSA’s policy identifies as Federal responsibilities: setting and enforcing safety 

standards for motor vehicles, recalls, promoting public awareness and providing 

guidance for the states. NHTSA’s policy also recognizes that it is the state’s role to 

license drivers and vehicles, enforce traffic laws and regulate motor vehicle insurance, tort and criminal liability issues as they pertain to automated vehicles. PCI 

shares the view that the states should continue to have primacy on motor vehicle 

79 

insurance and liability issues as they do today, and we support NHTSA’s recognition 

of that role. 

NHTSA’s policy also repeats the recommendation from its 2013 guidance that entities testing automated technology should provide proof of financial responsibility 

coverage of at least $5 million. PCI has not taken a position on this coverage requirement. But as highly automated vehicles (HAV’s) are deployed for public, states 

will need to consider what, if any, changes need to be made to the states existing 

motor vehicle financial responsibility laws. 

Data Collection and Access 

As policymakers consider what data should be collected and retained by automated vehicles it is essential for providing customer service that the rules provide 

for reasonable access to that data for insurers for claims handling and underwriting 

purposes. In many auto accidents, apportionment of liability is likely to hinge upon 

whether a human driver or the vehicle itself was in control and what actions either 

the driver or the vehicle did or did not take immediately prior to the loss event. 

Access to data for insurers will speed claims handling and potentially avoid disputes 

that could delay compensation to accident victims. Access to historical anonymized 

data on the different automated vehicle systems will also be important to help insurers innovate and develop new insurance products as the nature of the risk 

changes. 

Conclusion 

Automated driving technology holds great promise for the future, and implementing clear policies on the Federal and state roles in regulating automated vehicle technology and ensuring that insurers have access to vehicle data on reasonable 

terms to efficiently handle claims, develop products and underwriting methods are 

an essential first step toward that future. However, policymakers must not lose site 

of the auto safety issues that face us today. We look forward to working with policymakers at the Federal and state level to reduce accidents on our roads today and 

in future. 

UBER

June 13, 2017 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, Chairman, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. BILL NELSON, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide written testimony on the future of selfdriving or automated vehicle technology. 

Self-driving cars have the potential to bring unimaginable benefits to cities, and 

drastically improve quality of life for millions of people around the world. But it is 

a relatively young and rapidly changing field. How policymakers choose to regulate 

this space will play a critical role in determining whether the full potential of this 

technology will be realized. 

About Uber 

Uber is a technology company with a simple vision: make safe and affordable 

transportation available everywhere, for everyone and everything at the push of a 

button. Since our founding, we have worked to change the way people think about 

mobility, and continue to use technology to connect people and goods to places. 

Today, 75 percent of the U.S. population lives in a county where they have access 

to Uber. 

Two years ago, we established our Advanced Technologies Group in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania. And today, we employ one of the strongest self-driving engineering 

groups in the world, with the practical experience that comes from 1.2 billion miles 

traveled on roads every month through our ridesharing and delivery services in 

hundreds of cities, and world-class manufacturing partners. 

Our goal is to make safe self-driving cars available to people everywhere. After 

thorough testing and evaluation in closed settings—and on-road testing with employees—we began operating Self-Driving Ubers on public roads in Pittsburgh last 

80 

1 ITF study, SDV future requires vehicle fleet less than 10 percent of its current size: http:// 

www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/15cpb_self-drivingcars.pdf 2 UC Berkeley study, SDVs with EVs could reduce emissions per vehicle mile by more than 

90 percent https://drive.google.com/a/uber.com/file/d/0BzdDAOtdz76gUTFlX0x1bERnN2M/ 

view?usp=sharing 3https://mobilitylab.org/2017/03/20/autonomous-vehicles-safety-add-traffic/ 

4http://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/15cpb_self-drivingcars.pdf 

September, giving uberX riders an opportunity to experience self-driving technology 

for themselves. In February, our Self-Driving Ubers started picking up passengers 

in Tempe, Arizona. 

Before any rider experiences our technology, we validate it in simulation, monitor 

it on a closed test track, and test it on-road without passengers. In addition, we ensure that trained operators are in the driver’s seat for each release of the nascent 

technology to continually monitor and learn from the performance of the system. We 

believe that the deployment of self-driving cars will only succeed if we are able to 

learn from real-word situations. It also provides us with an opportunity to gain and 

preserving user trust. Through our Pittsburgh and Tempe operations, we are accomplishing both. 

While we have not yet deployed fully self-driving cars—i.e. vehicles that operate 

without a driver—we hope to do so in the coming years. Our hope is that by 

transitioning to fleets of self-driving cars, we can help save more than a million lives 

each year around the world, reduce parking and traffic on roads, open up more land 

for commercial and residential development, reduce carbon emissions overall, and 

reduce the cost of transportation for average households.1,2 According to the University of Texas, these self-driving-led improvements could lead to cost savings of over 

$1.4 trillion per year in avoided car crashes, reduced congestion delays, and productivity gains en route.3

To unlock these outcomes, it’s critical that our regulatory environment does the following: 

1. Enables and encourages shared vehicle operation and use (through ridesharing 

or commercial vehicle fleets) in addition to the traditional direct-to-consumer 

sales model for passenger vehicles; 

2. Acknowledges the differences between self-driving software and traditional vehicle equipment software and sets the appropriate rules for each; 

3. Does not fundamentally re-balance powers between local and Federal authorities that regulate vehicle safety or tie the industry to standards that are still 

evolving. 

Encouraging shared vehicle operation and use 

To date, policies addressing passenger vehicle operation and use have largely been 

based on a traditional manufacturer-sold, owner-operated model. But that is not the 

approach that many technology companies and automakers are taking for self-driving cars. Rather, companies are investing in shared, self-driving fleets because the 

model creates far more potential for the faster and safer development of self-driving 

technologies for several reasons: 

• First, the sheer expense of owning and operating a self-driving car, which is expensive and difficult to build, makes the technology cost-prohibitive for most 

households. The vast majority of people will encounter, experience, and become 

familiar with this technology through shared self-driving fleets that are deployed through a ridesharing network. In addition to gaining access at a more 

affordable cost, a fleet approach will also provide access to higher quality sensing and computing features that will be continually updated. 

• Second, a world where people simply trade the cars they have today for selfdriving ones will neither reap the benefits of less congestion and pollution, nor 

eliminate the expense of owning a car. The International Transport Forum has 

studied the potential of shared self-driving cars, and proposed that a city that 

moves to a shared, self-driving future will require a vehicle fleet less than 10 

percent its current size.4

• Third, fleet operators will be better equipped to ensure the safe use of self-driving cars than individual owner-operators. In a direct-to-consumer model, an 

owner-operator would be responsible for maintaining hardware and downloading software updates to improve the safety of his or her vehicle. He or she 

would also be responsible for making decisions about when, where, and how to 

operate the vehicle. By contrast, a fleet operator has the ability to hire qualified 

professionals, perform vehicle maintenance on a daily basis if necessary, update 

81 

both software and hardware, and impose operational restrictions on use of all 

the vehicles in the fleet. For example, if a fleet operator understood that a particular route was difficult for self-driving cars, that operator could mandate 

navigational paths around that route; similarly, an operator could restrict the 

use of self-driving cars during difficult weather conditions. 

• Finally, a fleet approach allows companies to control how cars are deployed to 

ensure they only operate in conditions that the cars are capable of handling. 

Companies are then able to adjust the operating conditions and improve the 

software as-needed. Today, Self-Driving Ubers only run along certain roads that 

have been pre-selected based on software capabilities and corresponding road 

conditions; these roads have been mapped in advance and programmed to take 

road signs and other infrastructure into account. By contrast, self-driving cars 

sold to individuals must be able to operate on all roads and under all conditions 

before they are distributed. 

Our decision to operate self-driving cars using a ridesharing fleet, rather than following the end-consumer model traditionally used by automotive manufacturers, is 

a natural byproduct of these facts. 

To be clear, this vision of the future does not reflect a dispute between technology 

companies and traditional automakers. Many traditional automakers have also indicated they are interested in pursuing various types of fleet models—such as Mercedes Boost and GM Maven. So as policymakers consider legislation addressing selfdriving and automated technologies, it is critical they take the benefits of a paradigm shift from private car ownership to shared self-driving cars into account. 

Self-driving software cannot be regulated the way other vehicle equipment 

is 

The embedded software (e.g., Ford SYNC or cruise control technology) in today’s 

motor cars sold to end consumers is installed once and rarely—if ever—updated. By 

contrast, self-driving software (e.g., maps, routes, sensing and perception) must be 

updated frequently for safety and security. NHTSA’s guidance last year demonstrated a desire to regulate self-driving technology under its authority over motor 

vehicle equipment and embedded software, but the proposed approach overlooks the 

fundamental difference between self-driving software and the software traditionally 

embedded in motor vehicle equipment. 

A regulatory development and enforcement process that takes months or years to 

complete may be sensible for embedded software that cannot be easily updated after 

a vehicle is sold. But this process should not prohibit companies from upgrading 

their self-driving software daily. Given the speed of our learnings, and the safety/ 

security concerns each software update may address, voluntary standards imposed 

by industry groups will prove more effective than regulatory enforcement (more on 

those standards below). Overly burdensome restrictions on software updates will 

only reduce the pace at which safety/security improvements are deployed, and 

NHTSA is neither equipped nor staffed to keep pace with how rapidly these updates 

must roll out. Ultimately, this will prevent the safest technology from making its 

way onto the roads as quickly as possible. 

As a parallel example, most technology companies already have security teams focused on identifying vulnerabilities and preventing them from being exploited by 

patching each flaw quickly after it is discovered. If a software review process is required each time a vulnerability in self-driving software is discovered, that would 

impede developers’ abilities to keep self-driving cars secure by pushing timely updates. 

While we appreciate that NHTSA’s proposed process (Federal Automated Vehicles 

Policy (Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0090) may have been motivated by a goal to develop a flexible framework that would adapt to the rapidly changing technology, we 

believe it will have the opposite effect. Their approach treats this software as one 

would a rigid product with infrequent (if any) changes, instead of a constantly evolving technology. It also does not take into consideration the idea that self-driving 

cars may only be deployed in certain pre-defined scenarios that companies deem 

their software ready to address (e.g., specific routes). Instead of establishing a burdensome oversight process, the agency’s focus should be on defining what results 

companies must achieve for a specific use-case instead of how they are achieved. 

Self-driving technology does not warrant re-balancing state and Federal 

powers 

In the United States, Federal authorities have always regulated motor vehicle 

equipment, while regulating drivers who operate vehicles has always been in the 

purview of individual states. The states, as a result, have long been an incubator 

for innovative regulatory approaches to improve driver safety. For example, states 

82 

have enacted laws combating driver distraction by setting rules around cell phone 

use and texting, which apply to the driver’s behavior while operating the vehicle. 

States determine what rules of the road are most appropriate for their constituents 

and their environment, and tailor their own regulation of driver behavior and vehicle use to meet local needs. 

Uber has experienced first-hand how innovation at the state and local level allows 

for the creation of rules tailored to the local environment. We were able to work 

with regulators in Florida to develop a framework that suited the state’s needs— 

one that was ultimately very different from the framework used in New York City, 

and different still from the one used in Chicago. As a result, within five years over 

75 percent of the U.S. population has access to ridesharing, and has enjoyed the 

benefits that come with greater access to affordable, reliable transportation. 

Similarly, as self-driving software begins to take the role of the human driver, 

states should be allowed to continue to investigate, innovate, and pilot different approaches as they deem appropriate. States have always defined the standard by 

which humans are licensed to drive on state roads, and evaluate a human’s ability 

to maneuver driving tasks. For example, some (but not all) states require drivers 

to demonstrate an ability to parallel park a vehicle. In keeping with that approach, 

states should evaluate a self-driving car’s ability to successfully maneuver those 

tasks. 

However, some entities have argued that self-driving cars will cross state borders 

and that a national framework is necessary. We believe that self-driving software 

should be able to determine a vehicle’s location and adapt to local requirements as 

needed—particularly if there are specific local dynamics at play like inclement 

weather conditions. In addition, we recognize the role of Congress and NHTSA in 

setting high-level, universal standards, and look forward to working with officials 

and other industry stakeholders on that process. 

Relatedly, industry itself often quickly settles on best practice safety standards in 

working groups. For example, ISO 26262, an international standard for road vehicle 

functional safety, is currently being updated to address self-driving technology. In 

addition, a new standard called SoTIF or Safety of the Intended Function has been 

drafted specifically to address the complexities of self-driving systems. And as 

former Administrator Rosekind himself highlighted during the November 16, 2016 

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on ‘‘The Automated and Self-Driving 

Vehicle Revolution,’’ over 20 automakers agreed to emergency braking features well 

ahead of the regulatory requirement, and industry came together to develop best 

practices on cybersecurity. This approach is preferable, not only because technology 

changes so rapidly, but also because it ensures one technology is not favored over 

another. 

This is also why commonly-used standards like the levels of automation set by 

the SAE must be allowed to shift as technology changes—with industry input—rather than be codified in law. The SAE levels were intended to describe the various 

levels of automation so that developers could self-classify the types of technology 

they were building. They were never intended—and were not drafted—to be binding 

legal standards. Companies are already working simultaneously on technologies 

that fall under different levels of automation. For example, refining street maps and 

routing information for human drivers to use while operating vehicles that require 

human input and monitoring does not preclude a company from developing highdefinition maps and autonomy software that allows vehicles to perceive their surroundings and navigate without human driver input. Multiple investments allow 

companies to leapfrog certain levels as they become obsolete. It’s possible that in 

the future, none of the levels of automation will require human input as technology 

advances. 

Recommendations 

Even under relatively optimistic scenarios, we likely will not see self-driving cars 

become a significant portion of the U.S. vehicle fleet for many years. In the coming 

years, 17 million new vehicles will be sold per year, only a small number of which 

will be self-driving cars; self-driving cars will only be a small proportion of the overall U.S. fleet of over 250 million vehicles for years to come. These facts suggest 

that—despite the heavy interest among regulators, media, and the public—elaborate 

guidance or hasty regulation of self-driving cars would be inappropriate. The tremendous potential of this technology—for instance, to remove the human choice or 

error tied to 94 percent of crashes—can best be achieved through alternative approaches. 

Since conventional vehicles will occupy the vast majority of new vehicles for the 

foreseeable future, we encourage Congress and the DOT to focus their attention and 

limited agency resources on higher-impact efforts that can serve all road users reVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
83 

5 American Society of Civil Engineers, http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/ 

gardless of levels of automation. For example, ensuring that funding is going toward 

adopting Complete Street Design Standards, building uniform pavement without 

potholes, and creating protected bike lanes or separations for pedestrian walkways 

that calm traffic and reduce potential interactions between vehicles and bikers or 

pedestrians. 

To be clear, a dramatic ‘smart infrastructure’ overhaul is not necessary for selfdriving deployment. Rather, Congress should focus on doing what it already does 

best: maintaining our road infrastructure, which has been underfunded for some 

time, and needs $3.6 trillion in repairs by 2020.5 In fact, focusing too heavily on 

‘smart infrastructure’ could generate costly investments and will slow down the 

adoption of self-driving cars and limit their use to only those places able to afford 

costly connected infrastructure adoption. 

Finally, to the extent Congress and NHTSA choose to allocate resources specifically to self-driving matters now, we recommend that the agency investigate amending outdated FMVSS to address self-driving cars. Nearly half of the FMVSS have 

some reference to the driver, driving controls, or driver seating position, and 

NHTSA has not laid out a time-frame for amending them. If they remain unchanged, these likely will be an impediment to the development and design of selfdriving cars, make product planning more difficult, and potentially force companies 

to include equipment that could make self-driving cars less safe. 

Uber thanks Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, Senator Peters and 

other members of the Committee for highlighting the importance of policy frameworks that enable companies able to deploy self-driving cars safely and rapidly. We 

appreciate the opportunity to provide input on how governments and companies can 

work together to maximize the benefits of this technology, and look forward to working with members of the Committee and others to make it a reality. 

Sincerely, 

ERIC MEYHOFER, 

Head of Advanced Technologies Group (ATG), 

Uber Technologies, Inc. 

cc: Hon. Gary Peters, Commerce Committee Member 

March 29, 2016 

MOODY’S FORECASTS U.S. ADOPTION OF SELF-DRIVING CARS ‘SEVERAL DECADES’ AWAY

Reuters Staff 

WASHINGTON (Reuters)—Near-universal adoption of self-driving cars in the 

United States is likely by around 2055 and poses a long-term threat to auto insurance companies, Moody’s Investors Service said in a research report released Tuesday. 

The report forecasts that fully autonomous or driverless cars could be a common 

option on U.S. vehicles by about 2030 and is likely to be standard on all new vehicles sold around 2035. 

That would lead to the technology being in a majority of cars on U.S. roads by 

around 2045. 

‘‘Accident frequency will fall sharply over time, and will ultimately translate into 

significantly 

lower premiums and consequently lower profits for auto insurers,’’ the report said. 

The Moody’s report estimates that over the next five to 10 years, automotive technologies like automatic emergency braking are likely to boost insurance profitability 

as they may reduce crashes but not lead to an immediate reduction in rates. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-moody-s-autos-selfdriving/moodys-forecasts-u-sadoption-of-self-driving-cars-several-decades-away-idUSKCNOWV220 

84 

1Paving the Way for Self-Driving Vehicles, 115th Cong. (2017), S. Comm. on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press 

releases?ID=B7164253-4A43-4B70-8A73-68BFFE9EAD1A (June 14, 2017). 2See generally EPIC, ‘‘Automobile Event Data Recorders (Black Boxes) and Privacy,’’ https:// 

epic.org/privacy/edrs/. See also EPIC, Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2002–13546 (Feb. 28, 

2003), available at https://epic.org/privacy/drivers/edr_comments.pdf (‘‘There need to be clear 

guidelines for how the data can be accessed and processed by third parties following the use 

limitation and openness or transparency principles.’’); EPIC, Comments on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; V2V Communications, Docket No. 2016–0126 (Apr. 12, 2017), https:// 

epic.org/apa/comments/EPIC-NHTSA-V2V-Communications.pdf [hereafter ‘‘V2V comments’’]; 

EPIC, Comments on the Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Roles for the Government in Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things, Docket No. 160331306–6306–01 (June 2, 

2016), https://epic.org/apa/comments/EPIC-NTIA-on-IOT.pdf; EPIC, Comments on Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: ‘‘Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) Communications,’’ Docket No. 

NHTSA–2014–0022 (Oct. 20, 2014), https://epic.org/privacy/edrs/EPIC-NHTSA-V2V-Cmts.pdf; 

EPIC, Comments on the Privacy and Security Implications of the Internet of Things (June 1, 

2013), https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/EPIC-FTC-IoT-Cmts.pdf; EPIC et al., Comments on the Federal Motor Safety Standards; Event Data Recorders, Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0177 (Feb. 11, 

2013), https://epic.org/privacy/edrs/EPIC-Coal-NHTSA-EDR-Cmts.pdf; EPIC, Comments, 

Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18029 (Aug. 13, 2004); https://epic.org/privacy/drivers/edr_ comm81304.html. 3Statement of Khaliah Barnes, hearing on The Internet of Cars before the House Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform, November 18, 2015, https://epic.org/privacy/edrs/ 

EPIC-Connected-Cars-Testimony-Nov-18-2015.pdf. 4 Brief of Amicus Curiae EPIC, Cahen v. Toyota Motor Corporation, No. 16–15496 (9th Cir. 

Aug. 5, 2016), https://epic.org/amicus/cahen/EPIC-Amicus-Cahen-Toyota.pdf. 5 Id. 

6 Connected Cars: Privacy, Security Issues Related to Connected Automated Vehicles, Federal 

Trade Commission, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2017/06/connected-cars 

-privacy-security-issues-related-connected. 7Patrick May, Robot-Human Smackdown: Self-Driving Car and Bicyclist Collide in San Francisco, The Mercury News, Jun. 9, 2017, http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/09/robothuman-smackdown-self-driving-car-and-bicyclist-collide-in-san-francisco/. 

ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER

Washington, DC, June 13, 2017 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, Chairman, 

Hon. BILL NELSON, Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: HEARING ON ‘‘PAVING THE WAY FOR SELF-DRIVING VEHICLES’’ 

Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson: 

We write to your regarding the upcoming hearing ‘‘Paving the Way for Self-Driving Vehicles,’’ 1 on the privacy and safety risks of connected and autonomous vehicles. For more than a decade, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (‘‘EPIC’’) 

has warned Federal agencies and Congress about the growing risks to privacy resulting from the increasing collection and use of personal data concerning the operation of motor vehicles.2

EPIC was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy and 

civil liberties issues. EPIC engages in a wide range of public policy and litigation 

activities. EPIC testified before the House of Representatives in 2015 on ‘‘the Internet of Cars.’’ 3 Recently, EPIC urged the Ninth Circuit of Appeals to protect the 

right of consumers to pursue safety issues with connected vehicles.4 As EPIC explained in that case: 

‘‘Connected vehicles’’ expose American drivers to the risks of data breach, auto 

theft, and physical injury. The internal computer systems for these vehicles are 

subject to hacking, unbounded data collection, and broad-scale cyber attack. Despite this extraordinary risk, car manufacturers are expanding the reach of 

networked vehicles that enable third party access to driver data and vehicle 

operational systems.5

EPIC will also be participating in the FTC/NHTSA workshop on privacy and security issues in connected cars later this month.6

Connected vehicles pose substantial safety and privacy risks. To date there have 

been several high-profile accidents involving self-driving car including: 

• A bicyclist was struck by an autonomous driving car after it suddenly activated 

its brakes;7

85 

8Mike Isaac, Uber Suspends Tests of Self-Driving Vehicles After Arizona Crash, New York 

Times, Mar. 25, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/business/uber-suspends-tests 

-of-self-driving-vehicles-after-arizona-crash.html; Steven Overly, Uber Self-Driving Car Flipped 

On Side In Arizona Crash, Chicago Tribune, Mar. 25, 2017, http://www.chicagotribune 

.com/bluesky/technology/ct-uber-self-driving-car-crash-20170325-story.html. 9Mike Isaac & Daisuke Wakabyashi, A Lawsuit Against Uber Highlights the Rush to Conquer 

Driverless Cars, New York Times, Feb. 24, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/ 

technology/anthony-levandowski-waymo-uber-google-lawsuit.html. 10 Antti Kautonen, Tesla Driver Blames Autopilot for Barrier Crash, Autoblog, Mar. 3, 2017, 

http://www.autoblog.com/2017/03/03/tesla-autopilot-barrier-crash/. 11 Brief of Amicus Curiae EPIC, Cahen v. Toyota Motor Corporation, No. 16–15496 (9th Cir. 

Aug. 5, 2016), available at https://epic.org/amicus/cahen/EPIC-Amicus-Cahen-Toyota.pdf. 12See, e.g., Andy Greenberg, Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep On the Highway—With Me in It, 

Wired (July 21, 2015), https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/. 13See Bruce Schneier, The Internet of Things Will Turn Large-Scale Hacks Into Real World 

Disasters, Motherboard (July 25, 2016), http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-internet-ofthings-will-cause-the-first-ever-large-scale-internet-disaster (explaining that information systems 

face three threats: theft (i.e., loss of confidentiality), modification (i.e., loss of integrity), and lack 

of access (i.e., loss of availability)). 14 Nora Young, Your Car Can be Held for Ransom, CBCradio (May 22, 2016), http:// 

www.cbc.ca/radio/spark/321-life-saving-fonts-ransomware-cars-and-more-1.3584113/your-car 

-can-be-held-for-ransom-1.3584114. 15See generally, Ralph Nader, Unsafe at Any Speed (1965). 16Mike Isaac, Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars, New York 

Times, May 14, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/14/technology/lyft-waymo-self-dri 

ving-cars.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ftechnology&action=click&contentCollection 

=technology®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype 

=sectionfront; Alex Davies, Detroit Is Stomping Silicon Valley in the Self-Driving Car Race, 

Wired, Apr. 3, 2017, https://www.wired.com/2017/04/detroit-stomping-silicon-valley-self-driving-car-race/. 17 Andy Greenberg, After Jeep Hack, Chrysler Recalls 1.4 Million Vehicles for Bug Fix, Wired, 

Jul 24, 2015, https://www.wired.com/2015/07/jeep-hack-chrysler-recalls-1-4m-vehicles-bug-fix/ 

; Andy Greenberg, Hackers Remotely Kill A Jeep on the Highway—With Me In It, Wired, Jul. 

21, 2015, https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/; Andy Greenberg, The Jeep Hackers Are Back To Prove Car Hacking Can Get Much Worse, Wired, Aug. 1, 

2016, https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jeep-hackers-return-high-speed-steering-accelerationhacks/. 

• Uber recently suspending its ‘‘self-driving’’ program in Arizona after one of the 

company’s vehicles struck a car with passengers inside.8 The Uber vehicle was 

in self-driving mode, presumably ‘‘Level 3’’; 

• A self-driving car failed to stop at a red light at a busy intersection;9 and 

• A Tesla owner was recently involved in an accident when the autopilot failed 

recognize a lane shift in a construction zone, resulting in a collision with a construction barrier.10

These accidents should alarm the Committee and the public, but they are only 

one of myriad issues with autonomous vehicles. Wide-scale malicious automobile 

hacking is no longer theoretical.11 Although a full-scale remote car hijacking is certainly a serious risk to car owners and others,12 hijacking is not the only risk posed 

by connected car vulnerabilities.13 Connected cars leave consumers open to car theft, 

data theft, and other forms of attack as well. These attacks are not speculative; 

many customers have already suffered due to vulnerable car systems. For example, 

criminals have exploited vulnerabilities in connected cars to perpetrate car 

‘‘ransomware’’ scams, ‘‘where a car is disabled by malicious code until a ransom is 

paid.’’ 14

Car manufacturers must adopt data security measures. Early mitigation of 

threats to public safety may reduce auto fatalities, spur innovation, and result in 

safer vehicles.15 There should be great concern that each of autonomous car maker 

wants to be the first to have their vehicle available to the public can poses substantial safety risks.16 A functioning autonomous vehicle does not mean security and the 

race to be the first with a functioning, marketable autonomous vehicle jeopardizes 

the safety and security of consumers. 

Recently, Charlie Miller, whose research led Chrysler to recall 1.4 million vehicles 

after he hacked into a Jeep,17 stated the danger in self-driving ridesharing and taxi 

services stating that ‘‘Autonomous vehicles are at the apex of all the terrible things 

that can go wrong . . . Cars are already insecure, and you’re adding a bunch of sensors and computers that are controlling them . . . If a bad guy gets control of that, 

86 

18 Andy Greenberg, Securing Driverless Cars From Hackers Is Hard. Ask The Ex-Uber Guy 

Who Protects Them, Wired, Apr. 12, 2017, https://www.wired.com/2017/04/ubers-former-tophacker-securing-autonomous-cars-really-hard-problem/. 19See e.g., Electronic Communications Privacy Act; Right to Financial Privacy Act; Cable 

Communications Privacy Act; Video Privacy Protection Act; Employee Polygraph Protection Act; 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act; Driver’s Privacy Protection Act; Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. 20Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; V2V Communications, 82 Fed. Reg. 3,854 (Jan. 12, 

2017). 21 Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (Sep. 2016). 22 ‘‘When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. § 30102(b)(1). 23 V2V comments at 10. 24 8 U.S. Gov. Accountability Office, GAO–14–649T, Consumers’ Location Data: Companies 

Take Steps to Protect Privacy, but Practices Are Inconsistent, and Risks May Not be Clear to 

Consumers (2014), http://gao.gov/products/GAO-14-649T; Jeff John Roberts, Watch Out That 

Your Rental Car Doesn’t Steal Your Phone Data, Fortune, Sep. 1, 2016, http://fortune.com/ 

2016/09/01/rental-cars-data-theft/. 

it’s going to be even worse.’’ 18 The potential risks that connected cars pose to the 

driver, as well as the potential risk to the public, cannot be understated. 

In paving the way for the development and deployment of self-driving cars this 

Committee should be aware of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 

recent proposals that would pre-empt states from being involved in this process. 

Historically, Federal privacy laws have not preempted strong state protections or 

enforcement mechanisms.19

However, NHTSA recently proposed issuing a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard for vehicle-to-vehicle communications 20 and the Federal Automated Vehicle Policy envisions NHTSA issuing FMVSS’s as connected cars are developed.21

However, under the Vehicle Safety Act the states are pre-empted from issuing any 

standards for vehicle performance if it is not identical to an existing FMVSS that 

regulates the same aspect of performance.22 As EPIC recently explained to the 

NHTSA: 

States have a unique perspective allowing them to develop innovative programs 

to protect consumers. As [connected car] technology evolves, the states should 

be allowed to operate as laboratories of democracy—a role they have traditionally held in the field of privacy.23

The Committee must make clear that the states must continue to have the same 

pivotal role for developing privacy regulations that they have traditionally held. 

EPIC urges this Committee to take these accidents and security flaws into account as it examines the future of transportation as it relates to these vehicles. In 

addition to the substantial privacy concerns that connected cars present,24 these recent incidents show that there are substantial safety concerns to everyone on the 

road. National minimum standards for safety and privacy are needed to ensure the 

safe deployment of connected vehicles. 

Auto manufacturers have a particular responsibility to ensure the safety of drivers. 

Mr. Mitch Brainwol from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers should be 

asked: 

• What are automobile manufacturers doing to ensure data security in connected 

cars? 

Mr. Rob Csongor from NVIDIA Corporation should be asked: 

• What information is NVIDIA collecting on drivers? 

• What is NVIDIA doing to secure driver data? 

• What cybersecurity measures has NVIDIA adopted to minimize the risk that its 

cars can be hacked? 

We ask that this Statement be entered in the hearing record. EPIC looks forward 

to working with the Committee on these issues. 

Sincerely, 

MARC ROTENBERG

EPIC President 

CAITRIONA FITZGERALD

EPIC Policy Director 

KIM MILLER

EPIC Policy Fellow 

87 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN BOZZELLA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

ASSOCIATION OF GLOBAL AUTOMAKERS, INC. 

On behalf of the Association of Global Automakers (‘‘Global Automakers’’), I am 

pleased to provide the following statement for the record of the Senate Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing entitled ‘‘Paving the Way for 

Self-Driving Vehicles.’’ We commend Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, 

and Senator Peters for their commitment to pursue bipartisan legislation on automated vehicles as reflected in their recently released principles. 

Global Automakers represents international automobile manufacturers that design, build, and sell cars and light trucks in the United States. Our automaker 

members have invested $56 billion in U.S. facilities and directly employ 98,500 employees located throughout the United States. Global Automakers’ members have 28 

manufacturing facilities in twelve states and built 4.6 million vehicles in the United 

States in 2016, a 41 percent increase in production in the last decade. Global Automakers and our member companies are committed to creating the safest, cleanest 

and most technologically advanced vehicles on the road. 

The automotive industry is making major investments in the research and development of automated vehicle technology here in the United States, and Global Automakers thanks the Committee its interest and proactive approach to vehicle automation. As you know, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has demonstrated 

Federal leadership and established a process to provide assurance that safety is 

being addressed at the national level through the issuance of its Federal Automated 

Vehicles Policy. At the same time, a number of states around the country are pursuing policies to regulate automated vehicles. Therefore, it is important and timely 

that the Committee is focusing its attention on this subject. With the right policies, 

the United States can continue to lead in the development of these technologies and 

bring their benefits to the American people as quickly as possible. 

Automated vehicle systems can save lives, enhance mobility, improve transportation efficiency, and reduce fuel consumption. Public policy should spur this innovation, encourage testing, and permit nationwide deployment of vehicles across all levels of automation. Decisions made today will determine how fast and how far our 

systems evolve, and inconsistent policy approaches—particularly as they relate to 

vehicle characterization, performance, and design—could have long-lasting consequences. Only the Federal Government can ensure a framework that encourages 

and enables the development of highly automated vehicles, and it should work with 

state and local policymakers to provide guidance and establish clear policy roles and 

responsibilities. 

The United States has long recognized that the automobile market is a national 

market and that manufacturers’ success rests on the ability to sell vehicles that can 

be operated in all fifty states. The U.S. further recognizes that vehicle safety is a 

national priority, and the Motor Vehicle Safety Act has set clear limits on the role 

of states in regulating the design of motor vehicles. As opposed to the regulation 

of conventional vehicles comprised primarily of mechanical systems, automated vehicles have systems that rely as much on software as on hardware. This presents 

new challenges for policymakers and regulators. To address these emerging issues, 

DOT has established a nimble and flexible approach to oversee the safe testing and 

deployment of automated driving systems. In addition to the Federal Policy, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) maintains existing authority 

over motor vehicle safety to exercise recall and enforcement powers to address areas 

where there is deemed to be an unreasonable risk to safety. Unfortunately, while 

NHTSA examines potential future regulatory action for automated vehicle systems, 

the current scope of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not explicitly prevent states 

from developing disparate requirements in the absence of Federal standards. 

Global Automakers support efforts by Congress and the Administration to ensure 

that there is a consistent national approach to automated vehicle policy in the 

United States and clarify the respective roles of federal, state and local governments. As stated in the Federal Automated Vehicle Policy, the primary roles and 

responsibilities of the Federal Government include setting Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards (FMVSS), ensuring compliance with standards, investigating defects, and issuing guidance for manufacturers and other entities. In contrast, state 

responsibility focuses on issues related to the operation of those vehicles on their 

roads, such as driver licensing and responsibility, vehicle registration, and insurance. This approach has supported decades of improvement in motor vehicle safety. 

Preempting state laws and regulations that prescribe design and performance 

standards for automated vehicles would help spur the further development, testing 

and deployment of this life-saving technology. 

88 

Congress can also help expedite automated technology deployment by providing 

NHTSA with authority to exempt an increased number of highly automated vehicles 

from standards that would otherwise limit their deployment. Existing regulations, 

understandably, did not envision the emergence of automated vehicle technology, 

and as a result there is uncertainty when seeking to certify a vehicle that is designed to operate without the engagement, or possibly the presence, of a driver. As 

noted in a March 2016 report by the U.S. DOT Volpe Center, there are a number 

of FMVSS that may limit the deployment of automated vehicles due to either explicit or implicit references to the presence of human driver. 

Similarly, while expanded exemptions may provide greater opportunities for the 

deployment of automated vehicle systems in the short-term, it may not provide the 

necessary long-term certainty for manufacturers. It is therefore important that the 

Federal Government identify any outdated standards that may unnecessarily limit 

innovation and work collaboratively with industry and other stakeholders to update 

those standards to accommodate automated systems. 

Global Automakers and our member companies believe that automated vehicle 

technologies can provide significant benefits, and we look forward to working with 

the Committee to help bring these benefits to the American people. If policymakers 

can ensure an environment where innovation is permitted to thrive, automated vehicles can truly transform vehicle transportation. 

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) is pleased to 

provide comments to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation as it considers the hurdles for testing deployment of successful automated 

driving systems (ADS) deployment and the roles state and Federal governments will 

play in promoting innovation and American competitiveness. We appreciate the 

Committee’s focus on this important matter with the potential to greatly impact the 

domestic U.S. property/casualty insurance industry. 

NAMIC is the largest property/casualty insurance trade association in the country, with more than 1,400 member companies representing 39 percent of the total 

market. NAMIC supports regional and local mutual insurance companies on main 

streets across America and many of the country’s largest national insurers. NAMIC 

member companies serve more than 170 million policyholders and write more than 

$230 billion in annual premiums. Our members account for 54 percent of homeowners, 43 percent of automobile, and 32 percent of the business insurance markets. 

NAMIC fully supports ADS innovation and competitive development that enhances safety. In this context, ADS innovation will be the deliberate application of 

information, imagination, and initiative by which new ideas are generated and converted into greater driving safety. It is important to note, however, that while technology is a key part of ADS innovation, it is not the only part. Especially in the 

case of a revolutionary change in mobility as will occur with ADS, successful and 

fruitful outcomes will only materialize when innovative approaches to cybersecurity, 

regulation, consumer behavior, and market practices. Integrating innovative practices, operations, rules, and regulations will be just as necessary to ADS innovation 

as technology. 

With respect to ADS, NAMIC has participated in National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) panels relating to state jurisdiction and pre-market approval, serves as a Board Member of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 

and is working with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety supporting the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute as part of the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program. 

Automated Driving Technology 

Enthusiastic advocates of ADS contend that its ability to address driver error is 

its greatest purpose. NHTSA attributes 94 percent of all car crashes on human 

error, and ADS advocates infer or directly state that ADS will eliminate that human 

error, and thus the overwhelming majority of car crashes. That oft-cited 94 percent 

comes from NHTSA’s ‘‘Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National 

Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey’’, which reported data from The National 

Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey conducted from 2005 to 2007. The critical 

reason, which is the last event in the crash causal chain, was assigned to the driver 

in 94 percent (±2.2 percent) of the crashes in that survey. NHTSA defines the ‘critical reason’ as only the immediate reason for the critical pre-crash event, and simply 

the last failure in the causal chain of events leading up to the crash. 

89 

Critical reasons were broadly classified into recognition errors, decision errors, 

performance errors, and non-performance errors: 

• Recognition error, which includes driver’s inattention, internal and external distractions, and inadequate surveillance, was the most frequently assigned critical 

reason (41 percent ±2.2 percent). 

• Decision error, such as driving too fast for conditions, too fast for a curve, false 

assumption of others’ actions, illegal maneuver and misjudgment of gap or others’ speed accounted for about 33 percent (±3.7 percent) of the crashes. 

• In about 11 percent (±2.7 percent) of the crashes, the critical reason was performance error such as overcompensation, poor directional control, etc. 

• Sleep was the most common critical reason among non-performance errors that 

accounted for 7 percent (±1.0 percent) of the crashes. 

• Other driver errors were recorded as critical reasons for about 8 percent (±1.9 

percent) of the drivers. 

These above definitions are relevant to the proposed application of ADS as a remedy to these specific errors. The central premise behind the development and broad 

application of ADS technology is that ADS will have fewer of these specific recognition errors, decisions errors, performance errors and other errors than human drivers represented by the survey. ADS function that results in significant reductions 

in these specific errors should have a corresponding reduction in crashes and result 

in greater vehicle and personal safety. 

The Hurdles for Testing and Successful ADS Deployment 

ADS may have the potential to be much safer than human drivers, and could result in a dramatic decrease in crashes and highway deaths. But ADS are also under 

development, complex, and include numerous known and unknown hazards as well 

as unintended consequences. There are literally millions of related technological and 

policy questions as well as questions related to liability, cybersecurity, vehicle 

connectivity, and infrastructure. 

Possibly the most challenging area is how ADS technology will deal with the transitional period, when human drivers share the road with ADS and continue to make 

the same and new recognition errors, decisions errors, performance errors and other 

errors. As policies and regulations are made toward enabling this ambitious ADS 

safety environment, communicating relevant data and analysis is critical to verify 

the safest transition from human-controlled to automated driving. 

The technical challenges to ADS testing and successful development are vast and 

complex; too vast and complex to even begin to enumerate here. But even if these 

thousands of technical challenges can be successfully addressed, ADS will not be 

adopted unless consumers can be convinced that ADS use will be safe and reliable. 

Recent surveys by both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and J.D. 

Power have indicated that consumer comfort or trust in full automation appears to 

actually be declining. A shift away from trust in automation was observed across 

all age groups, and most notably in younger age ranges (which had been most open 

to ADS in the past). Roughly half of those surveyed stated that they would never 

purchase an ADS vehicle. 

As consumers learn more about ADS, they appear to have more questions rather 

than answers. A critical hurdle for ADS deployment is that consumers lack relevant 

information to adequately gauge the performance and potential benefits of ADS. 

Consumers will require objective assessment and evaluation of just how much safer 

ADS are than human drivers, and in what conditions. Consumer acceptance will require expert collection and evaluation of data and analysis on the ADS as designed, 

as well as objective data and analysis from crashes involving ADS. 

The history of the auto insurance industry provides ample evidence of that experience and expertise, as well as the commitment of the insurance industry to enhancing driving safety. A critical requirement for the testing and successful development 

of ADS will be insurers using their decades of expertise to provide objective databased safety evaluations. This will require ADS companies to collect uniform ADS 

design and safety information and make that information available to insurers to 

enable an objective assessment of ADS safety. Insurers will also need access to ADS 

information and data—including crash and incident information and data—that is 

timely, complete, and useful. 

The insurance industry also supports organizations dedicated to understanding 

crash risk and furthering safety enhancements. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is the premier organization dedicated to reducing the losses—deaths, injuries, and property damage—from crashes on the Nation’s roads. The Highway 

Loss Data Institute provides scientific studies of insurance data representing the 

90 

human and economic losses resulting from the ownership and operation of different 

types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make and 

model. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is an alliance of safety groups and 

insurance companies working together to make America’s roads safer. 

State and Federal Roles to Ensure Safety While Promoting Innovation and 

American Competitiveness 

Promoting innovation and competitiveness will require joint development of state 

and Federal rules and regulations. NAMIC advocates that the roles of states and 

Federal authorities would best facilitate ADS safety development as follows: 

1. The Federal Government—through NHTSA—should have the authority to 

make determinations for the required performance and safety, as well as data 

integrity, of ADS. 

2. States and localities should have the authority to make the determinations of 

the registration, licensing, and operation of ADS in that state/locality. 

3. States should retain the regulation of ADS insurance for the vehicle and/or operator. 

4. States should define and address ADS personal liability issues in state/tort law 

and regulation in line with existing liability constructs. States and Federal authorities should have the authority to define and address ADS liability issues 

in law and regulation. 

5. States and Federal authorities working together should make clear and workable data security and privacy requirements for vehicles with ADS. 

In summary, NAMIC supports ADS development, and insurers are leading advocates toward 100 percent adoption of safe ADS. The realistic support of the potential 

for greater safety requires that the business of insurance put forth significant effort 

to objectively identify and analyze facts and data that comes naturally in the business of insurance. The development and adoption of ADS will require substantial 

policy and structure changes, which will also require the same factual analysis and 

review. As the primary rationale for ADS development is reducing vehicle crashes, 

injuries and fatalities, it is important that insurers have an active role in the assessment and communication of those benefits. 

NAMIC greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide this testimony to the Committee and looks forward to working with the Committee in the development of ADS 

policy and regulation. 

CONSUMER WATCHDOG

June 14, 2017 

Sen. JOHN THUNE, Chairman 

Sen. BILL NELSON, Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Washington, DC. 

Re: Hearing: ‘‘Paving the Way for Self-Driving Vehicles’’ 

Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson, 

We are writing on behalf of Consumer Watchdog, a national nonpartisan, nonprofit public interest group to submit our just-issued report, ‘‘Self-Driving Vehicles: 

The Threat to Consumers,’’ into the formal written record of the Commerce Committee’s public hearing titled ‘‘Paving the Way for Self-driving Vehicles.’’ 

We must also express our deep dismay at the Committee’s failure to include any 

representatives of consumer groups among the witnesses called to speak at the 

hearing. The witness panel includes a spokesman for auto manufacturers, a representative of a company developing robot car technology, and organization developing a test center for robot car technology. A spokesman for MADD has the laudable, but narrow, agenda of combating drunk driving. This is an industry-dominated 

panel with no representatives of auto safety or consumer protection organizations. 

As our report shows, robot cars operating without mandatory safety, security, privacy and ethical standards will pose unprecedented risks to the American public. 

Lost in the hyperbole over robot cars is a realistic assessment of the likely costs to 

both consumers and taxpayers particularly over the coming decades, when robot 

cars and human drivers will share a ‘‘hybrid highway.’’ 

That period will feature complex interactions between people, computers, cars and 

public streets and freeways, during which today’s liability protections and rules restraining insurance rates and unfair practices by insurance companies will become 

91 

especially important. To deal with the challenge posed by autonomous vehicle technology, Consumer Watchdog believes six principles must be adopted. They are: 

1. Protect the civil justice system. The state-based civil justice system—open 

courts, impartial judges and citizen juries—is fully equipped to handle the determination of legal responsibility as our transportation system evolves over the 

coming decades. Disputes over who is at fault in a crash involving a self-driving 

car or truck will require the full power of civil justice system, with its procedural safeguards of an impartial judge, full public transparency, and trial by 

citizen juries, to investigate and publicly expose the cause of crashes, compensate the victims for deaths, injuries and property damage, punish the wrongdoer, and force manufacturers to make changes in their products to prevent future harm. When their autonomous technologies fail, hardware and software 

manufacturers must be held strictly liable. Lawmakers should reject legislation 

to limit or restrict state consumer protection laws. Manufacturers must not be 

permitted to evade these consumer protections by inserting arbitration clauses, 

‘‘hold harmless’’ provisions or other waivers in their contracts. 

2. Enact stronger state consumer protections against insurance company abuses. 

According to a 2013 report by the Consumer Federation of America, ‘‘California 

stands out from all other states in having the best insurance regulatory system 

for protecting consumers.’’ Enacted by California voters in 1988, California’s insurance reform law provides precisely the stronger protections consumers will 

require in the era of robot vehicles. The reforms, known as Proposition 103, 

have protected motorists (along with homeowners, renters, businesses and medical providers) against unjust insurance rates (including product liability insurance rates) and anti-consumer and discriminatory practices. The law’s emphasis 

on rewarding drivers with lower insurance premiums based on their safety 

record, their annual mileage, their driving experience, and other rating factors 

within their control that are ‘‘substantially related to the risk of loss,’’ will be 

critical in the new automotive era. Proposition 103’s mandate for public disclosure and public participation in regulatory matters are essential components of 

a system that will be trusted by consumers. 

3. Enact auto safety standards. Private companies cannot be trusted to develop 

and deploy robot cars and trucks without rules. The Federal auto safety agency 

or other relevant Federal agencies, or in their absence, state auto safety agencies, must develop standards for the testing and deployment of the multiple 

technologies required by robot vehicles. These standards must address safety; 

security; privacy and the software that determines the robot’s actions in the 

event of an impending collision and as it makes life and death decisions. They 

must be enforceable by consumers in courts of law. 

4. Stronger laws are needed to protect consumers’ privacy. The laws have not 

kept pace with the evolution of technology and the collection and monetization 

of consumers’ personal data. Hardware and software manufacturers and insurance companies must be barred from utilizing tracking, sensor or communications data, or transferring it to third parties for commercial gain, absent separate written consent (which should not be required as a condition of accessing 

the services of the vehicle/manufacturer, and which should be revocable by the 

consumer at any time). 

5. Bar Federal interference in state consumer protection laws. Neither Congress 

not Federal agencies should be permitted to preempt or override stronger state 

based civil justice, insurance reform or auto safety laws. 

6. Respect democratic and human values. The sponsors of self-driving vehicles 

have promoted the myth that machines are infallible in order to justify the 

wholesale departure from a panoply of norms that form founding principles for 

the nation, beginning with the rule of law; individual and corporate responsibility; long held legal principles that distinguish between human beings and 

property; and the transparency of public officials and institutions that is a hallmark of democracy. The strategy of substituting robot values for human values 

has reached its apotheosis in the determination by robot car company executives to program computers to make life and death decisions, and to keep that 

decision-making process secret. Lawmakers will need to impose the rule of law 

and other attributes of American democracy upon the executives of the hardware and software companies that manufacture self-driving cars. 

In conclusion, Congress must not succumb to the siren song of the autonomous 

car developers who are over promising what autonomous vehicle technology can do 

today. We call on you to require the development of enforceable Federal safety performance standards. Responsible regulation goes hand-in-hand with innovation. VolVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
92 

untary ‘‘standards’’ in the auto industry have repeatedly been proven to be weak 

and insufficient. Safety must come before the automakers’ bottom lines. Consumer 

Watchdog calls on you to enact the necessary regulations to protect the safety of 

our highways. 

Sincerely, 

HARVEY ROSENFIELD

Founder 

JOHN M. SIMPSON

Privacy Project Director 

JOAN CLAYBROOK

Former President Public Citizen and 

Former NHTSA Administrator 

SELF DRIVING VEHICLES

THE THREAT TO CONSUMERS

By Harvey Rosenfield 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 

2.0 Robot Cars Will Pose Unprecedented Safety, Security, and Privacy 

Risks 

2.1 Risk: Defective Hardware and Buggy or Biased Software 

2.2 Risk: Privacy and Security 

2.3 Risk: Regulatory Failure 

2.4 Current Status of Robot Cars 

2.5 Current Status of Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure 

2.6 The ‘‘Driverless Divide’’ 

2.7 The ‘‘Hybrid Highway’’ 

3.0 The Personal Responsibility System and Self-Driving Vehicles 

3.1 Tort liability 

3.1.1 Negligence 

3.1.2 Product liability 

3.1.3 Common Carrier Liability 

3.1.4 Liability Scenarios 

TABLE: Legal System—Risk/Liability Matrix 

3.2 Insurance 

3.2.1 Insurance and autonomous vehicles 

3.2.2 The Proposition 103 Model 

4.0 The Industry Agenda to Roll Back Consumer Rights 

4.1 Restrictions on liability laws to encourage ‘‘innovation’’ 

4.2 Restrictions on liability laws to ‘‘lower insurance rates’’ 

4.3 Repealing protections against insurance company price gouging and discrimination 

5.0 Guiding Principles 

1.0 Introduction 

Self-driving vehicles have become a cultural and political phenomenon. To peruse 

the breathless headlines is, like a ride in Marty McFly’s DeLorean, to experience 

the sensation of visiting a wondrous future. Millions of hours previously wasted in 

traffic, searching for a parking spot or waiting in line at the DMV, will be restored 

to us, while we sit back in our passenger seats, dine, work or watch movies as robots whisk us around. It’s a world in which there are virtually no car accidents, because infallible computers will replace impatient, emotional, tired, distracted, all too 

error-prone human beings. 

93 

1 ‘‘What Works? A Review of Auto Insurance Rate Regulation in America,’’ Consumer Federation of America, November 12, 2013. 2 U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, ‘‘Torts of the Future: Addressing the 

Liability and Regulatory Implications of Emerging Technologies,’’ March 2017, p.2 3 C. Miller, ‘‘Driverless Cars Give Insurers New Vehicle to Criticize California’s Rates Law,’’ 

The Recorder, May 19, 2017 (http://www.therecorder.com/home/id=1202786779265/DriverlessContinued 

And, wondrously, there will be no need to write another check to the auto insurance company. In the highly unlikely event that anything goes wrong, the robot car 

manufacturers will stand behind their products and pick up the tab, no questions 

asked. 

Not so fast. 

America is decades away from a completely ‘‘self-driving’’ transportation system. 

But the insurance and auto industries are already preparing to exploit the prospect 

of self-driving robot cars and trucks so they can force Americans to pay more for 

insurance on the cars they own or lease, and roll back state consumer protection 

laws so that when their self-driving vehicle gets in a crash, it will always be the 

consumer’s fault. 

The sparkly chimera of robots replacing human drivers—freeing people to spend 

their drive time more enjoyably and productively—has captivated the public and 

media, driven by self-interested auto manufacturers and software developers. But 

there has been very little public discussion of whether self-driving vehicles will coexist or collide with long-standing principles of accountability, transparency, and consumer protection that collectively constitute the Personal Responsibility System. 

The Personal Responsibility System is a set of state-based liability and insurance 

laws that dispenses justice: First, by regulating insurance companies to mandate 

fair auto insurance premiums and rate setting practices that emphasize a motorist’s 

safety record rather than surrogates for wealth, race or creed. Second, by encouraging the safe manufacture, marketing and operation of cars and trucks. Third, by 

determining fault and compensation for, deaths, injuries and property damage 

caused by defective cars or the negligent operation of vehicles. Fourth, by making 

sure that auto insurance companies handle crash claims fairly by paying promptly 

and fully. 

At the intersection of the Personal Responsibility System, insurance laws and 

robot cars, California is of particular interest. Sweeping reforms passed by the voters in November 1988, known as Proposition 103, have protected motorists (along 

with homeowners, renters, businesses and medical providers) against excessive 

rates, and discriminatory practices by insurance companies that have historically 

targeted individuals they deem ‘‘undesirable’’ based on their race, religion, or income. Thanks to Prop 103, California is the only state in the Nation where the average auto insurance premium went down between 1989 and 2010, according to a report by the Consumer Federation of America, saving motorists alone over $100 billion in premiums since 1989;1 CFA’s report concluded that ‘‘California stands out 

from all other states in having the best regulatory system for protecting consumers.’’ 

Dating back to the American Revolution and enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the 

Personal Responsibility System has made the American marketplace a paragon of 

safety, fairness and prosperity. 

But insurance companies and automakers now say that it’s outdated and incompatible with self-driving vehicles. 

They argue that America can dispense with the civil justice system—open courts, 

impartial judges and citizen juries—because these core consumer protections will 

‘‘chill this promising technology [autonomous vehicles] and the huge advances in 

overall public safety it promises,’’ as the leading lobbying group for corporate defendants recently put it.2 That the manufacturing and insurance industries are exploring ways in which they can limit or shift their responsibility is not particularly 

surprising, given that safety-related costs and claims are likely to increase as the 

result of the new, riskier and so-far unregulated technologies. However, these strategies—historically employed by industries seeking a government bailout of risks— 

undermine competition and distort incentives in the marketplace. 

The insurance industry is also opportunistically targeting consumer protections 

against insurance company abuses like overcharging consumers and discrimination, 

claiming they will be unnecessary once self-driving vehicles arrive. In California, insurance companies are using robot cars as the excuse to challenge Proposition 103. 

As a recent report explained, ‘‘Over three decades, insurance companies have spent 

millions of dollars trying to chip away at Prop 103’s regulations both through litigation and at the ballot box—with little success. Now, however, the industry has found 

a new source of optimism in a different phrase: driverless cars.’’ 3

94 

Cars-Give-Insurers-New-Vehicle-to-Criticize-Californias-Rates-Law?mcode=1202617072607&cur 

index=0). 4 A number of automakers have proclaimed they will sell autonomous vehicles over the next 

few years, but are short on the specifics. Ford has announced it intends to have a ‘‘fully autonomous’’ vehicle for commercial ride-sharing or ride-hailing applications by 2021, but according to 

the fine print the vehicle will offer only ‘‘high,’’ not ‘‘full,’’ automation. (https:// media.ford.com/ 

content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2016/08/16/ford-targets-fully-autonomous-vehicle-for-ridesharing-in-2021.html.) 5 It is more likely that self-driving vehicles, when they become available, will be initially 

adopted by commercial enterprises such as ride-sharing operations. 6See https://x.company/waymo/ (last visited June 12, 2017). 7See B.W. Smith, Automated Driving & Product Liability, 2017 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1, at 31 re 

‘‘at least a billion hours of testing,’’ also citing Philip Koopman & Michael Wagner, Challenges 

in Autonomous Vehicle Testing and Validation, 4 SAE Int’l. J. Transp. Safety 15, 15–16 (2016). 

And if history repeats itself, the insurance and auto lobbies may ask the Trump 

Administration to impose Federal rules that would override the Personal Responsibility Laws of the fifty states. 

Even a cursory analysis of the risks that robot cars and trucks will pose over the 

coming years shows that the industries’ argument is wrong. Issues of corporate responsibility, liability and insurance will become far more important as self-driving 

vehicles are rolled out. 

To understand the crucial role that the Personal Responsibility System will play 

in the coming decades, two points are critical. 

First, a fully autonomous transportation system is decades away at best. No completely self-driving vehicle is offered for sale today, and notwithstanding a great 

deal of marketing hype, no manufacturer has set a firm date when it will market 

a passenger vehicle that is able to operate in all conditions without human intervention, or, importantly, what it will cost to buy.4 Indeed, the system of vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-satellite, and vehicle-to-road sensor communications infrastructure 

that would enable tens of millions of vehicles to simultaneously, securely and autonomously operate in proximity to each other on streets and highways without human 

intervention is barely in the planning stages. Nor is there any consensus on how 

local, state and Federal governments will pay for it. After all, most municipalities 

these days are struggling to fill potholes. And it is far from clear that every American consumer is going to be ready to abandon America’s love affair with the open 

highway, or to surrender the steering wheel to a machine that is going to cost many 

thousands of dollars more than today’s vehicles. 

Even if we assume that someday fully autonomous vehicles will be safe enough 

to deploy, and that all Americans will be ready and able to surrender the steering 

wheel,5 for the foreseeable future traditional vehicles driven by humans will share 

a ‘‘hybrid highway’’ filled with cars and trucks of widely varying degrees of automation and autonomy. Relatively few of them will be truly self-driving. 

Second, the argument that robot cars and trucks will virtually eliminate crashes 

is based on a fallacy: that machines are infallible. It makes sense that carefully tested automation technologies will improve the safety of cars and trucks in the future. 

However, completely self-driving cars don’t exist yet and we don’t know how they 

will change transportation patterns once they arrive. So for the moment, the claim 

that robot vehicles will dramatically reduce vehicular deaths, injuries and property 

damage is simply speculation. 

But we know this: machines make mistakes—sometimes catastrophic mistakes. 

Consider the automation-related mass disasters that have befallen the commercial 

airline industry in recent years, notwithstanding its self-avowed goal of zero tolerance for failure. Google/Waymo boasts that its computer-controlled test vehicles 

have logged the equivalent of over 300 years of human driving experience.6 But the 

duration of testing that would be required in order to match the safety tolerance 

of commercial airplanes is 114,000 years.7

In any case, even if robot cars and trucks someday become 100 percent safe, we 

can say with certainty that in the short term, autonomous vehicles will pose new 

and unprecedented risks as they interact with traditional cars and trucks on the hybrid highway. 

The #1 safety threat posed by self-driving vehicles is bugs or biases built into the 

robots’ brains. 

A crucial and controversial component of the self-driving car or truck is the set 

of algorithms that will determine how the vehicle responds when confronted with 

an unexpected, life-threatening emergency such as children playing in the street, pedestrians, roadside construction, and weather conditions. Initially these rules will 

be programmed by corporate engineers; eventually the engineers will teach the cars 

95 

8M. McFarland, ‘‘For The First Time, Google’s Self-Driving Car Takes Some Blame For A 

Crash,’’ Washington Post, February 29, 2016 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/02/29/for-the-first-time-googles-self-driving-car-takes-some-blame-for-a-crash/ 

?utm_term=.f19f6bdc6f4d). 9See Section 2.4. 

10See Section 2.2. 11See Section 2.2. 12See Section 2.4. 13See Section 3.1.4. 

how to think for themselves using artificial intelligence, so-called ‘‘machine learning.’’ 

These algorithms will be responsible for life and death decisions that will place 

their financial interests in conflict with their customers’ lives. But Google and other 

software developers have refused to disclose to the public or regulators the robot 

values that they are programming into their computers to replace human values 

and judgment. When Google’s self-driving vehicle sideswiped a bus in Mountain 

View, California, the company called it a ‘‘misunderstanding’’ between the bus driver and the robot.8 A software ‘‘misunderstanding,’’ even at 2 m.p.h., cannot be dismissed. Just as occurs every day on our roadways, the robot will confront situations 

in which the choice is not whether to smash into someone, but rather who to hit— 

an oncoming vehicle, a pedestrian in a crosswalk, a mom pushing her infant in a 

stroller on the sidewalk? 

Other risks include failures in the extremely complex hardware (Google and other 

companies’ robot test vehicles have been involved in multiple accidents and hundreds of near-misses 9); privacy breaches (now endemic in the United States 10); 

criminal hacking or even terrorist cyber attacks involving hundreds or thousands of 

vehicles, as the FBI has warned.11

When one or more of these serious risks inevitably results in a crash on the ‘‘hybrid highway,’’ the inquiry into what caused the crash and who is responsible will 

include the manufacturers of the automated vehicle’s hardware and software. There 

is no reason to believe that they or their vendors will respond any differently than 

they do today: deny their liability and attempt to shift the blame to the human driver. Indeed, in the limited experience so far, the companies that have deployed robot 

technologies have not readily accepted responsibility for their crashes and nearmisses. This is particularly true of Tesla, which has denied responsibility for two 

fatalities involving its ‘‘Auto Pilot’’ software.12 While some car companies have stated that they will assume liability for the failure of their robot technologies, nothing’s 

in writing, and their pledge appears to be conditioned on a determination that their 

technology was at fault.13

Crashes aside, consumers who own or lease self-driving vehicles will face far 

greater responsibility for vehicle maintenance than they bear today. Self-driving vehicles will be extraordinarily reliant on external sensors—the eyes and ears of the 

robot car’s brain. An accidental driveway ding in a sensor could have deadly consequences when the vehicle is on the road. What happens if the consumer fails to 

download a software update? No one has suggested that manufacturers will be prepared to assume liability for a crash caused by the consumer’s failure to maintain 

the vehicle’s operational status. 

That leads us right back to the Personal Responsibility System of insurance and 

liability laws. 

With the heightened risks that the new automated technologies will pose over the 

coming years, the legal requirement that manufacturers be held strictly liable for 

defective products, a mainstay of America’s consumer protection regime, will remain 

essential. Disputes over fault will require the full power of the civil justice system, 

with its procedural safeguards of an impartial judge, full public transparency, and 

trial by citizen juries, to investigate and publicly expose the cause of crashes, compensate the victims for deaths, injuries and property damage, punish the wrongdoer, 

and force manufacturers to make changes in their products to prevent future harm. 

For the same reasons, protections against abusive practices by insurance companies will be critical. So long as motorists face legal responsibility for the proper 

maintenance and safe operation of vehicles they own, lease, rent or control, they will 

require the same liability insurance coverage that they purchase today. Pointing to 

the new risks of the Hybrid Highway, and the greater costs of repairing the automation technology, insurance companies will no doubt ask their customers to pay more 

for it. Preventing insurance companies from overcharging motorists, and from hightech forms of redlining that rely on manipulation of data about each customer, will 

necessitate forceful consumer protections such as those contained in Proposition 

103. 

96 

14 NHTSA, 2015 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (August 2016). 15 NHTSA, The Economic and Societal Impact Of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised May 

2015). 16 NHTSA, 2014 Vehicle Recalls by Manufacturer (available at http://www.safercar.gov/ 

Vehicle+Owners/vehicle-recalls-historic-recap); 2015 data: Statement Of Joan Claybrook Consumer Co-Chair Advocates For Highway And Auto Safety, on ‘‘Examining Ways To Improve Vehicle And Roadway Safety’’ before the Committee On Energy And Commerce Subcommittee On 

Commerce, Manufacturing And Trade, October 15, 2015, p. 2. 17 ‘‘NHTSA Admits Faults In GM Investigation,’’ Detroit News, June 5, 2015 (http:// 

www.detroitnews.com/story/business/ autos/general-motors/2015/06/05/gm-nhtsa-report/2854 

0239/); ‘‘Why General Motors’ $900 Million Fine For A Deadly Defect Is Just A Slap On The 

Wrist,’’ Washington Post, September 17, 2015 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ business/wp/2015/09/17/why-general-motors-900-million-fine-for-a-deadly-defect-is-just-a-slap-onthe-wrist/). 18 ‘‘Everything You Need to Know about the Takata Airbag Recall,’’ Consumer Reports, December 23, 2015 (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/10/everything-you-need-toknow-about-the-takata-air-bag-recall/index.htm?loginMethod=auto). 19 ‘‘Toyota Says It’s Settled 338 Cases So Far In Acceleration MDL,’’ Law360, July 22, 2015 

(http://www.law360.com/articles/681915/toyota-says-it-s-settled-338-cases-so-far-in-acceleration-mdl). 20The crash of Asiana Flight 214 at San Francisco airport in 2013 killed two passengers and 

injured 181 others; investigators have determined that the pilots did not understand the highly 

automated flight systems and were unable to recover control of the plane when a crash was imminent. (M. Wald, ‘‘Pilots in Crash Were Confused About Control Systems, Experts Say,’’ New 

York Times, December 11, 2013.) An Air France jetliner disappeared into the Atlantic off the 

coast of South America in 2009, killing 216 passengers and a crew of twelve, including three 

The proponents of autonomous vehicles like to describe themselves as 

‘‘disruptors,’’ and take pride in refusing to accept the norms of what they deride as 

the decrepit status quo. But behind the scenes, industry players are employing decidedly Old World lobbying and political strategies to avoid public and regulatory 

scrutiny and oversight, while at the same time urging lawmakers to pass legislation 

that would limit or even eliminate their legal accountability to injured consumers. 

Consumer Watchdog, a non-profit founded in 1985, has deep roots working for the 

public interest on the issues that will be of tremendous concern to consumers as 

automated vehicles evolve: civil justice and corporate accountability; public safety; 

the premiums and underwriting practices of the insurance industry; the diminishing 

privacy of consumers in the digital age; and the importance of government oversight, public scrutiny and participation in decision-making. 

This report will discuss the safety, security and other risks posed by robot cars; 

why the consumer protections of the Personal Responsibility System will be critical 

in the coming decades as self-driving vehicles come ‘‘on line’’; and the campaign by 

insurance companies, automakers and possibly even the Federal Government, already underway, to undermine those essential consumer protections. 

2.0 Robot Cars Will Pose Unprecedented Safety, Security, and Privacy 

Risks 

The safety of driverless vehicles should be the paramount concern of the auto and 

insurance industries, if for no other reason than flaws and failures in automated 

vehicle systems will impose potentially enormous, even catastrophic liability upon 

hardware and software manufacturers in the event their products cause harm, and 

lead to more, and more costly, insurance claims. 

In this context, it’s worthwhile to consider the current state of American vehicle 

safety. Car crashes in the United States killed 35,092 and injured over 2.44 million 

people in 2015;14 including property damage, the total estimated economic cost of car crashes was estimated at $242 billion in 2010.15 There were a record 801 separate recalls involving 63.7 million vehicles in 2014, and 613 recalls of 40 million vehicles as of mid-2015.16 Three of the largest recalls in recent years concern vehicle 

safety failures—defective GM ignition switches,17 exploding Takata airbags,18 and 

unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles 19—that have taken hundreds of American lives. 

The unprecedented number of recalls in recent years suggests a dangerously cavalier attitude toward public safety on the part of vehicle manufacturers. It raises serious concerns as to whether manufacturers are presently, or will be, capable of 

building safe robot cars and trucks, which will far exceed the complexity and sophistication of today’s vehicles. 

When assessing whether autonomous vehicles will ever be 100 percent safe, consider the transportation sector in which automation is by far the most advanced and 

the concern for safety is arguably greater than in any other: commercial air travel. 

Recent airline disasters cast doubt on whether one hundred percent reliance on ‘‘flyby-wire’’ technology will ever be safe.20

97 

pilots; again, the black box revealed that the pilots did not understand the plane’s automated 

functions, some of which had failed. (See W. Langewiesche, ‘‘The Human Factor,’’ Vanity Fair 

(October, 2014) (http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash)). 21K. Naughton, ‘‘Regulator Says Self-Driving Cars Must Be Twice as Safe,’’ Reuters, June 8, 

2016 (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016–06–08/u-s-auto-regulator-says-self-driving-cars-must-be-twice-as-safe.) 22See B. W. Smith, Automated Driving & Product Liability 2017 Michigan State Law Review 

1 for a careful but admittedly provisional analysis suggesting simplistic assumptions about costs 

and savings may be incorrect. 23 H. Hsu, ‘‘Estimate: Human Brain 30 Times Faster than Best Supercomputers,’’ IEEE Spectrum, August 26, 2015 (http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/estimate-human 

-brain-30-times-faster-than-best-supercomputers.) 24http://news.mit.edu/2014/in-the-blink-of-an-eye-0116 25http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/geeks-weigh-in-does-a-human-think-faster-than-acomputer/ 26 ‘‘Self-Driving Mercedes-Benzes Will Prioritize Occupant Safety over Pedestrians,’’ Car and 

Driver Blog (http://blog.caranddriver.com/self-driving-mercedes-will-prioritize-occupant-safetyover-pedestrians/). 

To our knowledge, no one has suggested that the manufacturers of robot cars can 

or will aim for that level of safety; the former head of NHTSA suggested in 2016 

that autonomous vehicles will merely be twice as safe as human-driven cars.21 By 

definition, that leaves a lot of carnage on America’s streets. 

No one disputes that the evolution of motor vehicle technology has the potential 

to prevent deaths, injuries and property damage. New technologies such as automatic emergency braking, lane keeping, collision warning, and assisted parking are 

already doing so, and indeed should be made standard equipment in all vehicles. 

The point is that the gradual automation of driving will introduce a new set of risks. 

These risks will necessarily be far broader than those posed by vehicles today—suggesting that the ramifications for liability and insurance will be significant. A fully 

autonomous robot-based transportation system will likely reduce the number of 

crashes caused by human error, but that does not tell us anything about the overall 

impact of a fully autonomous system.22

2.1 Risk: Defective Hardware and Buggy or Biased Software 

The core hardware components of an autonomous vehicle are the computer and 

sensors. An array of electronic devices—presently, radar, lidar, and video—will be 

responsible for detecting the external conditions that the vehicle must navigate: 

road signs, and in their absence street markings; other vehicles (including bicycles, 

motorcycles, trucks); pedestrians (including seniors, and children); pets; traffic 

lights; street and highway signs; road construction; law enforcement activities; 

weather (fog, snow or heavy rainfall) and other natural phenomena (such as trees). 

The on-board computer system will collect the data from these inputs as well as external communications sources such as other vehicles, intelligent highways (more on 

that below) or satellite based traffic control systems, process the information and 

make decisions in a few milliseconds (a millisecond is 1/1000 of a second) that are 

presently executed by humans. Scientists have estimated that the human brain is 

thirty times faster than the fastest super computer;23 it takes a neuron 0.5 milliseconds to transmit a signal 24 and 13 milliseconds for the brain to process an 

image.25 A truly driverless vehicle must be capable of fully replicating and processing the immense data stream currently processed by the human brain, such as 

hand gestures, the facial expressions of other motorists and pedestrians, and a virtually infinite number of other variables in the interior and external driving environment. 

Software will analyze the sensor and communications data flow and instruct the 

vehicle how to navigate. A particularly critical function of the software will be to 

replace the judgment of human motorists not just to avoid collisions but also to comply with traffic laws and rules. It will therefore be necessary for the software in 

driverless vehicles to make the split-second life and death decisions that human 

drivers make today when a collision is unavoidable. Confronted with the prospect 

of imminent harm to passengers in other vehicles, pedestrians, or the occupants of 

the AV itself, how will the self-driving software decide which course to take? On 

what basis will the software make such decisions? Who will it kill? 

These life and death deciding programs will be coded by human engineers working for private corporations, at least initially. 

Will engineers program their computers with human ethics as well as a database 

of traffic laws? When Mercedes announced that its software would protect the occupants of Mercedes vehicles at the expense of everyone else, it provoked a public 

firestorm that led Mercedes to amend its statement.26

98 

27Markey, Sen. Edward J., ‘‘Tracking and Hacking: Security and Privacy Gaps Put American 

Drivers at Risk;’’ https:// www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2015-02-06_MarkeyReportTracking_Hacking_CarSecurity%202.pdf, last accessed Nov. 28, 2015. Consumer Watchdog has 

warned that ‘‘black box’’ data recorders in vehicles could be misused in ways that threaten motorists’ privacy. See http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/feature/pay-you-drive-workshop-comments-california-department-insurance. 28Letter from Robert Hunter, Consumer Federation of America, to state insurance regulators, 

December 9, 2016 (http:// consumerfed.org/testimonial/cfa-calls-insurance-commissioners-attention-unfair-price-optimization-practices/); ‘‘CFA’s Hunter Reacts in Actuarial Battle: Allstate’s 

Plan Is Price Optimization,’’ Carrier Management, November 29, 2016 (http://www.carrier 

management.com/features/2016/11/29/161466.htm). 29K. Sheridan, ‘‘Data Breaches Exposed 4.2 Billion Records In 2016,’’ Information Week, January 25, 2017. 

Will companies like Google, that have developed real-time facial recognition software, write algorithms to avoid harm to high net worth individuals, thus limiting 

their own liability? We simply do not know, because there are no rules that specify 

the answers to these questions, and software companies like Google consider their 

algorithms highly proprietary and steadfastly refuse to disclose the decision-making 

principles, values or formulae that determine the vehicle’s actions. 

Eventually, the engineers will teach the robot cars and trucks how to learn for 

themselves, a form of Artificial Intelligence called ‘‘machine learning.’’ Once robots 

are taught how to learn for themselves, their decision-making process will be further removed from human oversight. 

What we can say, with certainty, is that bugs in commercial software are frustratingly rampant, and take notoriously long for their manufacturers to eradicate. Consumers are unlikely to tolerate becoming ‘‘beta testers’’ for driverless vehicles, serving as human guinea pigs when the consequences are not a lost page of text but 

a loss of life. 

2.2 Risk: Privacy and Security 

Modern cars have become computers on wheels, collecting significant amounts of 

data about the vehicle and the habits of the motorist that drives them; some insurance companies have installed ‘‘black boxes’’ in the vehicles they insure to track vehicle location, speed and other metrics.27 By definition, evolving automation technologies will collect, process and communicate vast amounts of information. The recipients of the data stream will include, eventually, other vehicles and likely the 

government agencies that operate the intelligent transportation grid. 

The data is extremely valuable to hardware/software manufacturers and insurance companies, but could prove costly for consumers. 

• Auto makers and software designers will want the data for performance monitoring and safety improvement purposes, but also to dispute their liability for 

crashes. 

• Google and other data collection companies will also want to enhance the vast 

digital dossiers they already compile on each American by including where motorists are going and what they’re doing, so advertisers can target their products, and perhaps even subject motorists to continuous locality-based advertising as their vehicle chauffeurs them through the streets. 

• Insurance companies will seek data from cars to determine who was at fault 

in an accident. But, increasingly utilizing ‘‘big data,’’ insurance companies will 

also seek to use the data they collect to make underwriting decisions, enabling 

them to avoid certain customers they deem too risky—a form of the notorious 

historical practice of redlining– and to set premiums so as to maximize profits 

rather than price risks, a highly controversial practice known as ‘‘price optimization.’’ 28

As data becomes increasingly valuable, it increasingly becomes a target. Data 

breaches involving the accounts of billions of users reflect the hacking epidemic in 

recent years.29 These incidents demonstrate that only to the extent the legal system 

imposes significant financial liability for such breaches will data collectors be motivated to undertake the expensive hardening of their systems to prevent third-party 

data incursions. 

It’s not just the data that is vulnerable in increasingly automated vehicles. The 

interconnected vehicles of the future will themselves be subject to criminal and even 

terrorist hijacking. In 2015, two security researchers managed to remotely hack into 

a 2014 Jeep Cherokee from a laptop ten miles away and disable critical functions 

99 

30 U.S. Says Only Jeeps Had Hacker Vulnerability Via Radios, Associated Press, Jan. 9, 2016 

(http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-only-jeeps-had-hacker-vulnerability-via-radios1452372453). 31 ‘‘Autonomous cars to have ‘thousands of security risks,’ ’’ Autocar, 12 September 2016 

(http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/autonomous-cars-have-‘thousands-security-risks’). 32S. Khandelwai, ‘‘Hackers take Remote Control of Tesla’s Brakes and Door Locks from 12 

Miles Away,’’ Hacker News, September 20, 2016 (http://thehackernews.com/2016/09/hacktesla-autopilot.html?utm_so. . .e+Hackers+News+-+Security+Blog%29&_m=3n.009a.1326.en0ao 

0609g.rxj.) 33 ‘‘Motor Vehicles Increasingly Vulnerable To Remote Exploits,’’ Federal Bureau of Investigation, March 17, 2016 (http://www.ic3.gov/media/2016/160317.aspx#fn1). 34 Id. 35 Committee Report on S. 3005, The Traffic Safety Act of 1966, June 23, 1966, at 274. 36 ‘‘U.S. DOT And IIHS Announce Historic Commitment Of 20 Automakers To Make Automatic Emergency Braking Standard On New Vehicles,’’ NHTSA (Press Release) March 17, 

2017(https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-and-iihs-announce-historic-commitment-20- 

automakers-make-automatic-emergency). See Consumer Watchdog’s letter to NHTSA criticizing 

this action: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrelease/consumer-advocates-demand-federal-agency-act-auto-safety-petition). 37 NHTSA, Request for Comments, New Car Assessment Program, Docket No. NHTSA–2015– 

0119, p. 110–118. In 2016, Consumer Watchdog and other advocates formally petitioned NHTSA 

to promulgate a safety regulation making AEB standard equipment. Ultimately NHTSA denied 

the petition. For more information: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/search/apachesolr 

_search/NHTSA%20AEB?filters=type%3Anewsrelease). 

such as the accelerator, paralyzing the car.30 Fiat Chrysler had to recall 1.4 million 

vehicles to fix the Jeeps’ vulnerabilities.31 Another research firm reported its was 

able to remotely take control of a Tesla Model S and unlock the door of the car, 

take over control of the dashboard computer screen, move the seats, activate the 

windscreen wipers, fold in the wing mirrors and apply the brakes while the vehicle 

was in motion—from ten miles away. Tesla uploaded an over-air ‘‘software update’’ 

to fix the vulnerability—ten days later.32

In March 2016, the F.B.I. issued a warning to vehicle manufacturers stating: ‘‘it 

is important that consumers and manufacturers are aware of the possible threats 

and how an attacker may seek to remotely exploit vulnerabilities in the future.’’ 33

The F.B.I. pointed out that hackers could gain access through a vehicle’s cellular, 

USB, Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi Internet connections: ‘‘An attacker making a cellular connection to the vehicle’s cellular carrier—from anywhere on the carrier’s nationwide 

network—could communicate with and perform exploits on the vehicle via an Internet Protocol (IP) address.’’ 34

A wide variety of criminal misconduct could be facilitated via hacking of automated and fully autonomous vehicles, ranging from smuggling, to kidnapping, to 

homicide. A systemic attack on the intelligent highway system could result in catastrophic loss of life and by orchestrating traffic jams, grind commerce literally to a 

halt, with serious financial repercussions. 

2.3 Risk: Regulatory Failure 

Failure to properly regulate the safety of self-driving vehicles is rapidly becoming 

another serious safety risk. Congress enacted the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (NTMVSA) fifty years ago ‘‘to reduce traffic accidents and 

deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents.’’ The analysis of the proposed 

legislation by the U.S. Senate concluded that: 

The promotion of motor vehicle safety through voluntary standards has largely 

failed. The unconditional imposition of mandatory standards at the earliest 

practicable date is the only course commensurate with the highway death and 

injury toll.35

The central safety focus of the NTMVSA, and NHTSA’s activities since its creation, has been the promulgation, after careful study and a public hearing process, 

of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. However, in an unprecedented departure from its statutory mission, NHTSA entered into an unprecedented ‘‘voluntary 

agreement’’ with twenty auto manufacturers in March 2016 to allow the industry 

to self-regulate the sale of three safety technologies, known as Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), that assist cars in braking to avoid or limit the damage from 

collisions.36 NHTSA rejected a petition by Consumer Watchdog and other consumer 

advocates to require manufacturers to install even established safety technologies, 

such as Automatic Emergency Braking, as standard equipment in light vehicles— 

which NHTSA itself has acknowledged would prevent tens of thousands of deaths 

and serious injuries annually.37

The decision marked a radical departure from the agency’s traditional mission. 

NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind argued that, ‘‘the agency cannot make vehiVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
100 

38 Exclusive: U.S., Major Automakers to Announce Safety Accord Friday, David Shepardson, 

Detroit News, January 11, 2016). 39 J. Peltz, ‘‘Automakers agree to make automatic braking a standard feature by 2022,’’ Los 

Angeles Times March 17, 2016 (http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-auto-safety20160317-story.html). 40 Id. 41 NHTSA, Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles, May 15, 2013, 

p. 3. 42POLITICO, Pro Transportation Report, Friday January 15, 2016. 43 NHTSA, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, September 2016, p. 15–16. 44 ‘‘California Robot Car Disengagement Reports Show Technology Not Ready for Safe Deployment Without Human Driver Behind Steering Wheel to Take Control, Consumer Watchdog 

Says,’’ February 1, 2017 (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrelease/california-robot-cardisengagement-reports-show-technology-not-ready-safe-deployment-wit). 45 ‘‘Consumer Watchdog Cites Shortcomings In Driverless Car Technology; Says DMV Rules 

For Robot Cars Must Require Steering Wheel So Human Drivers Can Take Over,’’ March 19, 

cles safe simply by imposing new regulations and handing down fines. . . . We’re 

going to have to find new tools—that means new collaborations, new partnerships.’’ 38 Referencing the voluntary agreement for the deployment of AEB technology, NHTSA claimed that ‘‘bypassing the regulatory process would save three 

years in making automatic braking systems standard equipment.’’ 39 ‘‘The unprecedented commitment means that this important safety technology will be available 

to more consumers more quickly than would be possible through the regulatory 

process.’’ 40

As recently as 2013, NHTSA had adopted a go-slow approach to self-driving vehicles, concluding, ‘‘At this point, it is too soon to reach conclusions about the feasibility of producing a vehicle that can safely operate in a fully automated (or ‘driverless’) mode in all driving environments and traffic scenarios.’’ 41

But in early 2016, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation told reporters that he ‘‘wants to ease some of the regulatory restraints to make it easier for 

the technology to develop.’’ 42

In September 2016, NHTSA issued a 116 page ‘‘Federal Automated Vehicle Policy,’’ which called upon manufacturers of automated and self-driving vehicles to 

‘‘self-certify’’ that they have considered a fifteen point ‘‘checklist’’ of issues related 

to driverless vehicles.43 NHTSA’s Guidance leaves the evolution and deployment of 

automated vehicles to hardware and software manufacturers, where it will remain 

shrouded in secrecy and outside the purview of the public generally, and motorists 

in particular. 

If NHTSA’s abdication of its safety responsibilities continues, the introduction and 

deployment of autonomous technologies will proceed on a manufacturer-by-manufacturer basis, without any enforceable, industry-wide standards. Without industrywide standards, the cost of safety features will be prohibitive for all but the wealthiest consumers. The deregulated deployment of automated vehicles will exacerbate 

safety, liability and insurance issues. 

2.4 Current Status of Robot Cars 

No fully autonomous passenger vehicle is presently approved for sale, much less 

being marketed. While proponents insist robot cars are right around the corner, 

more objective observers expect a step-by-step progression toward greater automation of vehicle functions—but with the driver required ultimately to assume control. 

Google, whose robot car unit is now known as Waymo, began testing self-driving 

cars in 2009. California enacted AB 1298 in 2012 requiring the Department of Motor 

Vehicles to enact self-driving vehicle regulations. Rules covering testing robot cars 

took effect in 2014 requiring a test driver behind a steering wheel. The regulations 

required companies to get a permit, report any crashes within 10 days and file annual disengagement reports explaining when the self-driving technology being tested failed. Most of what we know about testing activities in California comes from 

the reports which the DMV, after pressure from Consumer Watchdog and others, 

posts on its website. Currently 21 companies have permits to test robot cars in California. The firms have refused requests to disclose other important information, including on board video and telemetry, from their testing. 

The disengagement reports demonstrate that the self-driving vehicles are not 

ready to be deployed, at least without human drivers behind a steering wheel who 

can seize control when the self-driving technology fails. The latest report shows that 

Google/Waymo’s test vehicles logged 635,868 miles and the human test driver had 

to intercede 124 times.44 In the past, the company has said that its robot cars had 

difficulty correctly perceiving commonplace ‘‘threats’’ such as potholes, rain, wind 

and overhanging tree branches.45 There were also software glitches and instances 

101 

2015 (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrelease/ consumer-watchdog-cites-shortcomingsdriverless-car-technology-says-dmv-rules-robot-cars). 46See footnote 44. 47M. McFarland, ‘‘For The First Time, Google’s Self-Driving Car Takes Some Blame For A 

Crash,’’ Washington Post, February 29, 2016 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/02/29/for-the-first-time-googles-self-driving-car-takes-some-blame-for-a-crash/ 

?utm_term=.f19f6bdc6f4d). 48See footnote 44. 49 Id. 50 N. Boudette, ‘‘Self-Driving Tesla Was Involved in Fatal Crash, U.S. Says,’’ New York Times, 

June 30, 2016 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fatal-crash-investigation.html); N. Boudette, ‘‘Autopilot Cited in Death of Chinese Tesla Driver,’’ New York 

Times, September 14, 2016 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/business/fatal-tesla-crashin-china-involved-autopilot-government-tv-says.html?_r=0) 51F. Lambert, ‘‘Tesla Autopilot ‘Nags’ And Restrictions Under V8.0 Software Update—Breakdown,’’ Electrek, September 22, 2016 (https://electrek.co/2016/09/22/tesla-autopilot-nags-andrestrictions-under-v8–0-software-update-breakdown/). 52 N. Boudette, ‘‘Tesla’s Self-Driving System Cleared in Deadly Crash,’’ New York Times, January 19, 2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/tesla-model-s-autopilot-fatalcrash.html). See Consumer Watchdog’s criticism of this decision: http://www.consumer 

watchdog.org/newsrelease/‘‘midnight-action’’-nhtsa-ends-probe-fatal-tesla-florida-crash-accepting-company’s-propaga. 53See Smith, Automated Driving & Product Liability, footnote 22, p. 31. 54S. Collie, ‘‘Focusing On Tricky Situations Could Accelerate Testing Of Self-Driving Cars,’’ 

New Atlas, May 29, 2017 (http://newatlas.com/university-michigan-self-driving-testing-acceleration/49768/). 

when the human test driver took over because the robot car made an unwanted maneuver.46 In the February 2016 sideswipe of a city bus by a Google robot test car 

in northern California, requiring the bus to stop and its passengers to disembark, 

Google claimed that the accident was a ‘‘misunderstanding’’ and a ‘‘learning experience.’’ 47 Delphi’s 2016 report stated that its two test robot cars drove 3,125 miles 

in self-driving mode and had experienced 178 ‘‘disengagements.’’ Reasons given for 

disengaging included: construction zones; problems changing lanes in heavy traffic; 

poor lane markings; the presence of emergency vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists; failure 

to detect a traffic light and unexpected behavior from another driver.48 Mercedes, 

which has asserted it will deploy an autonomous vehicle by 2020, reported 336 

disengagements in 673 miles.49

Tesla reported two fatal crashes in 2016 (one in Florida, one in China), both of 

which occurred while Tesla’s ‘‘Auto Pilot’’ feature, which the company famously introduced in 2014, was engaged.50 Tesla continues to deceptively refer to its automated system ‘‘Auto Pilot,’’ though after the fatalities, it reprogrammed its Auto 

Pilot software to, among other changes, disengage unless the driver touches the 

steering wheel at regular intervals, indicating they are monitoring the vehicle.51

Surprisingly, NHTSA later cleared Tesla of responsibility for the Florida fatality, 

but an agency spokesperson incongruously noted that humans must still manually 

pilot a Tesla equipped with Auto Pilot: ‘‘Autopilot requires full driver engagement 

at all times.’’ 52

In the rush to market of so-far unregulated robot technologies, the adequacy of 

the current testing paradigm is questionable. Google/Waymo claims that its computer-controlled vehicles have logged 300 years of human driving experience. But 

the testing that would be required in order to match the safety tolerance of commercial airplanes is estimated at over one hundred millennia.53 A lower level of safety— 

‘‘a level of 80 percent confidence that the robotic vehicle is 90 percent safer than 

human drivers on the road,’’ would still require 11 billion miles of testing (or about 

5,000 years), according to researchers at the University of Michigan, which is why 

they are looking to shortcut the testing process, at least partly through computer 

simulations.54

2.5 Current Status of Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure 

The system of vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle -to-satellite, vehicle-to-road sensor communications—collectively referred to as vehicle-to-everything, or ‘‘v2e’’—infrastructure that would permit tens of millions of vehicles to simultaneously and securely 

operate without human intervention is not even in the planning stage. 

Studies of the technology are underway, but NHTSA only just proposed uniform 

standards needed to ensure that all vehicles can connect with each other regardless 

of manufacturer in December 2016, and the proposal faces opposition from teleVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
102 

55 R. Beene, ‘‘Federal V2V Mandate Meets Growing Resistance,’’ April 17, 2017 (http:// 

www.autonews.com/article/20170417/OEM06/170419865/federal-v2v-mandate-meets-growingresistance). 56 NHTSA, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, September 2016. 57See, e.g., N. Brown, ‘‘Conventional Car Repair Costs Increased, While Hybrids Saw a Decrease,’’ CleanTechnica.com, April 13, 2013 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/15/conventional-car-repair-costs-increased-while-hybrids-saw-a-decrease/); S. Finlay, ‘‘More Technology in 

Cars Increases Repair Costs,’’ WardsAuto.com, September 17, 2013 (http://wardsauto.com/ 

dealerships/more-technology-cars-increases-repair-costs); J. Selingo, ‘‘Repair Shops See Roadblocks Set by Dealers,’’ New York Times, October 25, 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/ 

25/automobiles/autospecial/25repair.html ). 58 Hirsch, Jerry, ‘‘Better Quality Raises Average Age Of Cars On U.S. Roads To 11.5 Years,’’ 

Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ihs-average-car-age-2015 

0729-story.html last accessed Nov. 4, 2015. 

communications companies that want to use wireless channels for other purposes.55

How to include pedestrians in such a system has not been resolved. Nor is there 

any consensus on how to construct such a system—much less how local, state and 

the Federal Government will cover the cost of upgrading the 4.12 million miles of 

roadway in the United States. 

2.6 The ‘‘Driverless Divide’’ 

The affordability of automated vehicles (and the cost of insuring them) is an important safety issue in its own right, with profound consequences when it comes to 

assessing the impact of autonomous vehicles on liability and insurance. 

Because no autonomous passenger vehicles are presently for sale, any discussion 

of pricing is speculative. However, the price of robot cars will directly affect the rate 

of deployment of the vehicles; the higher the price, the fewer the number of people 

who will be able to afford them. Those who cannot afford them will continue to operate traditional cars that lack at least some safety features, placing them at some 

correspondingly greater risk in the event of a crash. 

Deployment will be further reduced because of NHTSA’s abdication of its regulatory responsibilities, discussed above. This is because the Nation’s auto safety regulator indicated through its 2016 ‘‘Federal Automated Vehicle Policy’’ that it intended to rely on industry self-regulation for self-driving vehicles, rather than promulgate formal Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that would require all new vehicles be equipped with the fully autonomous capability as standard 

equipment.56

Mandatory Federal safety standards create manufacturing economies of scale 

from mass production that dramatically reduce the price of the technology. Automakers resist industry-wide safety standards because they can then treat expensive 

safety innovations as options to be introduced in their most expensive vehicles, for 

which such options are priced at a premium. It is not until the features become 

mandated through the FMVSS process that they are rolled out in all vehicles fleetwide, and manufacturers drop the price. Thus the cost of cars equipped with higher 

levels of automation will likely put them out of reach of all but the wealthiest motorists. 

Other price factors that will affect broad deployment will be car repair and insurance premiums. Present day automotive electronics, though increasingly complex, 

are relatively simple compared to the technologies that will be needed to even partly 

automate passenger vehicles. However, they have significantly raised the cost of repairs (and insurance) for cars of more recent vintage. 57

In other words, at least for the foreseeable future, there will be the equivalent 

of what, in the early era of personal computing, was described as a ‘‘digital divide’’: 

a significant disparity among Americans between those who can afford vehicles with 

substantial automation capabilities and those who cannot. 

2.7 The ‘‘Hybrid Highway’’ 

There are diverging estimates of the date when a fully autonomous vehicle—one 

that requires no human intervention—will be marketed to the American public. 

However, any objective analysis demonstrates that America is decades away from 

a transportation system that is completely automated: one in which all vehicles on 

the road operate autonomously, and there are no human drivers, no steering wheels, 

no brakes, nor other human-based control devices; in which cars are in constant 

electronic communication with each other, with ‘‘intelligent’’ road systems built and 

maintained by municipal, state and Federal governments, and with pedestrians 

equipped with their own electronic devices. 

The average age of vehicles on the road today is estimated at 11.5 years.58 Thus, 

even if a vehicle capable of operating under all conditions without any human involvement (and absent the assistance of intelligent highway infrastructure) were to 

103 

59The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute concurs: 

‘‘Vehicles with humans at the wheel still will dominate the fleet for many years. ‘Even if the 

U.S. Government were to require all new vehicles sold to be autonomous tomorrow, it would 

take at least 25 years until nearly 95 percent of the vehicles on the road would have the capability.’ ’’ ‘‘Robot cars won’t retire crash-test dummies anytime soon,’’ Status Report, Vol. 51, No. 

8, November 10, 2016 (http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/driver-seat-robot-cars-wontretire-crash-test-dummies-anytime-soon). 60The sole exception is Louisiana, which is known as a ‘‘civil law’’ state. In Louisiana, courts 

lack any authority to adjudicate a matter absent a statute. 

come to market far sooner, such vehicles will constitute a very modest percentage 

of the total number of vehicles on the road. 

Thus, it is clear that there will be a lengthy period in which motorists and robots 

will share the roads in a hybrid system of human-driven and highly automated, if 

not autonomous, vehicles.59

This ‘‘hybrid highway’’ period will feature complex, potentially dangerous interactions between people (motorists and pedestrians), computer-driven cars, trucks 

and buses, remote-controlled drone vehicles, and eventually the so-called ‘‘intelligent’’ public streets and freeways that are supposed to help them all navigate safely. 

3.0 The Personal Responsibility System and Self-Driving Vehicles 

3.1 Tort liability 

The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting and applying laws. However, 

state courts 60 also play a unique legislative role: they are the source of what is 

known as ‘‘common law.’’ Originating from ancient English law, and often dating 

back to the formation of the United States, common law is a body of case decisions 

issued by state courts that defines rights and remedies in the absence of any underlying statutory authority. State legislatures have the authority to amend or even repeal the state’s ‘‘common law,’’ and they frequently do so. 

A tort is a wrongful act that causes bodily injury or property damage. The common law of torts is a collection of legal rights, responsibilities and remedies developed and applied by civil courts when a wrongful act has caused harm. The purpose 

of tort law is to expose wrongdoing, compensate victims of the wrongdoing, punish 

the wrongdoers and deter future wrongdoing. 

3.1.1 Negligence 

Generally, tort liability is predicated upon the following judicial determinations: 

(1) the defendant owed to the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care; (2) the defendant 

breached that duty (3) the breach caused damage to the plaintiff. Under the Personal Responsibility System established by tort law, a person or company who committed a tort is liable for the injuries, property damage, lost wages, physical pain, 

emotional damage any and other kind losses that arise as a result. Intentional 

wrongdoing that is considered particularly egregious or oppressive may be punished 

by punitive damages: the wrongdoer is penalized for such misconduct. 

Disputes over torts are typically adjudicated through the civil court system, which 

is the practical embodiment of the common law right to a trial by jury, one of America’s most hallowed traditions. However, as discussed below, auto insurance has 

evolved as a mechanism for ensuring compensation without necessity of bringing 

legal action in modest disputes. 

3.1.2 Product liability 

A separate set of consumer friendly rules has evolved for relatively more rare 

torts involving products that are considered ‘‘inherently’’ dangerous, such as cars. 

In California, for example, a defendant is held strictly liable for injuries caused by 

such products, when a product was used in intended or reasonably foreseeable manner (includes reasonably foreseeable misuse, abuse, changes, alterations, etc.); was 

in defective condition when it left defendant’s possession; and the defective product 

was the legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries or damages. 

Unlike regular negligence cases, in product liability disputes the injured consumer 

is not required to prove that the defendant was negligent, i.e., that the defendant 

failed to exercise reasonable care, or intended to cause harm. The public policy behind this variation in tort law is that it would be prohibitively difficult and expensive for a consumer to prove that the manufacturer of a product was careless in 

making the product, nor would a consumer have the ability to determine whether 

the product was defective prior to purchase. The protections of strict liability rules 

have been extended to include entities that re-sell or distribute the products. However, defects in road design, construction and maintenance are sometimes governed 

by more restrictive state statutes. 

104 

61 ‘‘Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice,’’ Society of Vehicle Engineers (J3016), September 

2016. 

It is widely assumed that as vehicle automation progresses, and motorists cede 

driving functions to the vehicle’s computer systems, responsibility will shift from 

motorists to manufacturers of the hardware and software, and claims will be adjudicated under product liability law. 

3.1.3 Common Carrier Liability 

Another long established common law principle is common carrier liability. Common carriers are companies that transport people (or goods) pursuant to a license 

provided by a government agency. Common Carriers include taxis, buses and ferries. Common Carriers are held to a very high legal standard. Under California law, 

for example, ‘‘A carrier of persons for reward must use the utmost care and diligence 

for their safe carriage, must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and 

must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill.’’ ‘‘Common carriers are responsible for any, even slightest, negligence to passengers and are required to do 

all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably can do under all the circumstances.’’ 

3.1.4 Liability Scenarios 

As noted above, human-operated vehicles will remain the predominant form of 

personal transportation for the foreseeable future. Vehicles with wide disparities in 

the level of onboard technology will share the roads with newer vehicles containing 

an equally wide variety of the more sophisticated automation technologies. The intelligent infrastructure of vehicle, satellite and road communications that many 

view as integral to the safety of an autonomous transportation system has yet to 

be planned, much less constructed, and will not play any significant role for the 

foreseeable future. 

This Hybrid Highway will be the product of a hugely complex system of hardware 

and software built, marketed, maintained and operated by corporations manufacturing hardware and software, engineers, software programmers, public agencies as 

well as motorists. 

Compounding the threat matrix are vehicle security failures, ranging in consequence from privacy breaches to criminal or terrorist hacking; the absence of Federal safety rules to standardize technologies; wealth based disparities in the affordability of autonomous technology. Flaws and failures in any single aspect of this 

complex environment could lead to death, injury and property damage. 

Even in a distant theoretical future in which all vehicles are controlled by robots, 

the same concerns apply. 

The table below is based on the taxonomy for self-driving vehicles published by 

the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),61 which has been broadly endorsed as 

a tool for discussion of these issues. The table illustrates who will be responsible 

under some likely risk and liability scenarios; the leftmost column describes the 

SAE level of automation and the top row lists particular liability risks. 

105 

As the table illustrates, there is no scenario in which disputes will not require 

resolution through the civil justice system. Note the SAE taxonomy explicitly assumes that the vehicle may issue a ‘‘request to intervene’’ to a human occupant of 

a fully self driving vehicle (though in the highest automation modes, the robot car 

or truck will not have an ‘‘expectation that a user will respond’’ to such a request). 

It is implicit in this analytical framework that the vehicle will contain the necessary 

equipment (steering wheel, brake pedal, etc.) that will enable the occupant to seize 

control. In other words, the SAE framework envisions no scenario in which a human 

cannot ultimately obtain control of a robot car. No company planning to sell robot 

vehicles has stated whether they will come equipped with the complement of control 

devices present in traditional vehicles today. (For purposes of shifting liability to 

consumers, manufacturers of self driving vehicles may choose to retain those devices.) 

Assume, for example, that a vehicle is capable of operating autonomously, but a 

passenger is still expected to seize control of the vehicle in some circumstances 

(Level 3–4 under the SAE taxonomy). That person, presumably clearly designated 

as such by the vehicle itself, will remain subject to liability for failure to intercede 

properly. 


614SELFD1.eps
106 

62See, for example, D. Shephardson, ‘‘Google Takes the Blame—Sort of—for Its Self-Driving 

Car Crash,’’ Reuters, February 29, 2016 http://time.com/money/4242030/google-self-drivingcar-crash-fault/); ‘‘Tesla Says Autopilot Not to Blame in Crash With Bus in Germany,’’ Reuters, 

September 29, 2016 (http://fortune.com/2016/09/29/tesla-autopilot-crash-germany/); C. Davies, ‘‘In New Model X Crash, Tesla Suggests Autopilot Not To Blame,’’ Slash Gear, July 6, 2016 

(https:// www.slashgear.com/in-new-model-x-crash-tesla-suggests-autopilot-not-to-blame-0644 

7354/). 63 ‘‘Witness Saw Uber Robot Car Drive Through Red Light Three Weeks Ago in San Francisco,’’ Consumer Watchdog, December 20, 2016 (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/ 

newsrelease/witness-saw-uber-robot-car-drive-through-red-light-three-weeks-ago-san-francisco); J. 

Hood, ‘‘California Orders Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Off The Road,’’ Consumer Affairs, 

December 15, 2016 (https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/california-orders-ubers-self-driving-cars-off-the-road-121516.html). 

Assume a vehicle is capable of full autonomous operation, but a person in the vehicle is still able to request that the vehicle ‘‘surrender control’’ (SAE Level 5). Or 

assume that the vehicle issues a request for the user to intervene—even though the 

user is not expected to. In the event of a crash, a person’s failure to demand control, 

or agree to accept control, could itself be the basis for liability. 

And as automated technologies become more sophisticated, and cars and trucks 

are able to operate autonomously from human intervention, manufacturers of the 

hardware and software will face strict liability for design or manufacturing defects 

that caused a crash. 

In all of five of the SAE scenarios, third parties, including manufacturers, will be 

permitted to dispute whether the vehicle, or the motorist, was responsible. Facing 

strict liability for crashes, manufacturers will certainly have an incentive to dispute 

their responsibility. And it’s worth noting that in several of the most highly publicized crashes involving Tesla to date, the company has been reluctant to accept 

full responsibility. In a highly-publicized accident in which a Tesla owner died when 

his Tesla, on Autopilot, failed to recognize a truck crossing the road, Tesla went so 

far as to release ‘‘black box’’ data from a vehicle to support Tesla’s position that the 

driver was at fault, not the car.62 Similarly, the ridesharing firm Uber blamed test 

drivers when its vehicles, illegally operating in self-driving mode, were caught running red lights in San Francisco.63

While a self-driving vehicle will collect vast amounts of data that will potentially 

offer enormous insight into the reasons for a crash, key questions may not be answered by that data. For example, did the vehicle correctly inform the designated 

passenger of the status, such that the passenger should have known to assume control? Did the vehicle fail to request human intervention? Did the vehicle improperly 

reject a user’s demand for surrender of control? Would it matter to the inquiry what 

the passengers were doing at the time of the crash? It is not clear to what extent 

the vehicle will collect all the data necessary to determine what happened in the 

seconds before a crash. Will there be a continuously recording camera and microphone in the passenger compartment, such that third parties could argue the passenger was distracted? 

Consumers who own or lease self-driving vehicles will face far greater maintenance responsibilities than they bear today. For example, self-driving vehicles will 

be reliant on external sensors—the eyes and ears of the robot car’s brain. A scrape 

or dent that impairs a sensor while the vehicle is in the driveway could lead to 

deadly consequences when the vehicle is on the road. 

Moreover, the computer brains of robot cars will inevitably require software updates. What happens if the consumer fails to download a software update, or visit 

the dealership if that is required? No potential manufacturer of a self driving vehicle has offered to assume liability for a crash caused, even partly, by the consumer’s 

failure to maintain the vehicle’s operational status. 

Each of these scenarios confirms that an inquiry into a consumer’s ‘‘fault’’ will be 

necessary even in the era of fully autonomous vehicles. 

Complicating these scenarios is the fact that hardware and software manufacturers consider their technology proprietary; indeed, for security reasons, it may be impossible for even the owner to access any vehicle data. 

Finally, the manufacturers of automated vehicles acknowledge their self-interest 

when it comes to liability. Not one manufacturer has agreed to assume all liability 

for the harm caused by their automated vehicles. Three companies have been quoted 

as stating that they will accept legal liability when their cars are in fully autonoVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
107 

64M. Harris, ‘‘Why You Shouldn’t Worry About Liability for Self-Driving Car Accidents,’’ IEE 

Spectrum, October 12, 2015 (http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/why-you-shouldnt-worry-about-liability-for-selfdriving-car-accidents). 65M. Ballaban, ‘‘Mercedes, Google, Volvo To Accept Liability When Their Autonomous Cars 

Screw Up,’’ Jalopnik, October 7, 2015 (http://jalopnik.com/mercedes-google-volvo-to-accept-liability-when-their-1735170893). 66 Id. 67Other insurance coverage, though typically optional, is often purchased by consumers to 

protect their own vehicles against fire or weather damage (comprehensive coverage), or crashes 

that don’t involve a third party—such as with a tree or other object (known as collision coverage). In states where many motorists operate without insurance, consumers often find it prudent to purchase ‘‘uninsured motorist’’ coverage, so that if they are hit by an uninsured motorist, 

their expenses are covered. 68 ‘‘What Works? A Review of Auto Insurance Rate Regulation in America,’’ Consumer Federation of America, November 12, 2013. 69 ‘‘Annual Report On The Insurance Industry,’’ Federal Insurance Office, U.S. Department Of 

The Treasury (September 2016), p. 12. 

mous mode: Volvo,64 Mercedes and Google.65 But news reports indicate that Mercedes and Google added a salient limitation on their pledge: that ‘‘their technology 

is at fault.’’ 66 Of course, that caveat will leave the owner of the robot car exposed 

to liability in cases where the manufacturer insists the crash was not the fault of 

its hardware or software—necessitating an inquiry into the drivers’ fault. 

The search for truth and justice in such circumstances will require the full powers 

of the civil justice system. The right to challenge corporate mistakes and reckless 

profit-driven conduct, in an impartial judicial forum with all the procedural protections of the civil justice system, starting with trial by jury, and including the strict 

liability of hardware and software manufacturers, will be critical. 

3.2 Insurance 

The determination of fault and compensation for injury and property damage are 

matters made by courts. However, the evolution of the automobile as the predominant form of transportation in the United States led to the establishment of mandatory minimum auto insurance coverage requirements—known as ‘‘compulsory financial responsibility laws’’—in Massachusetts in 1927; today every state but New 

Hampshire requires such coverage. Thus motorists, as a condition of owning or leasing a vehicle for operation on public roads, must buy insurance that will cover, to 

at least a minimum extent, that motorist’s liability should he or she cause injury 

or damage to another person or their property. California, for example, requires 

most motorists to obtain a policy that would pay up to $15,000 in bodily injury compensation per person (for a maximum of $30,000 among all injured parties) and 

$5,000 in property damage.67

In the event of a crash, persons who suffer loss or damage as a result of the atfault driver make a claim upon the at fault driver’s insurance coverage. The insurance company is required to make an objective determination of the fault of its insured (the exact requirements for that determination vary depending upon state 

law, and in California are governed by Proposition 103—see below), and pay the 

claim. 

Mandatory auto insurance coverage assures that motorists will have the means 

to provide at least a minimum level of compensation for modest accidents they 

cause—hence the term ‘‘financial responsibility.’’ Absent such insurance, the at-fault 

motorist risks a potentially devastating civil judgment against his or her home or 

other assets. Auto insurance also alleviates what would otherwise be a significant 

burden on courts to adjudicate even minor disputes involving car accidents. 

The cost of insurance and the underwriting and marketing practices of insurance 

companies have long been a source of public dissatisfaction and are often highly controversial. Regulation of insurance rates and practices is a matter of state law. The 

requirement that motorists purchase third party insurance coverage from private insurance companies has necessitated the establishment of consumer protections to 

assure that consumers are treated in a fair and non-discriminatory fashion when 

buying insurance, and in the event an insurance claim has been filed. However, the 

degree of protections afforded consumers varies sharply from state to state, as a 

2013 report by the Consumer Federation of America found.68

3.2.1 Insurance and autonomous vehicles 

In 2015, United States-based insurance companies held a total of $8.4 trillion in 

assets.69 They wrote roughly $192 billion net auto insurance premiums nationwide 

108 

70 Insurance Information Institute (http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/auto-insurance, last visited June 12, 2017). 71See Section 2.6. 72 In 1984, the California Legislature amended its financial responsibility law to address the 

growing number of uninsured motorists. The amendment allowed police officers to request proof 

of insurance and to cite those who did not produce it. While Californians were required by law 

to purchase insurance, California’s insurance law did not require insurance companies to sell 

it to all individuals; nor were there any limits on the price insurance companies charged. Many 

Californians could not afford to purchase auto insurance, particularly in neighborhoods that 

were subject to insurance ‘‘redlining,’’ even if it was available. The inequities of the mandatory 

purchase requirement, combined with escalating auto, home and business insurance premiums, 

sparked a voter revolt that led to the passage of Proposition 103 in November, 1988. The measure (Insurance Code section 1861.1 et seq.) fundamentally rewrote California’s insurance laws. 

For a detailed discussion of the origin, purposes and provisions of Proposition 103, see Harvey 

Rosenfield, Auto Insurance: Crisis and Reform, 29 University of Memphis Law Review 69 (Fall 

1998). Much more information about Proposition 103 is available at www.Consumer 

Watchdog.org. 

in 2015 (not including commercial insurance) and projected they would pay $145 billion in claims.70

The insurance industry initially appeared to view self-driving vehicles as an existential threat. Within the insurance industry, there has been frequent speculation, 

sometimes verging on panic, at the prospect of that revenue stream evaporating 

with the advent of accident-free, driverless vehicles: if there are no accidents, the 

industry reasoned, then why would anyone buy insurance? 

With the benefit of several years of hindsight, the insurance industry’s immediate 

fears appear to have subsided. Under any transportation system in which a consumer is or may be required to operate a vehicle, or even simply to maintain it, 

state tort laws will hold them accountable. Consumers will continue to purchase insurance coverage to protect innocent third parties against injuries or property damage and to cover their own repair expenses. 

Indeed, as automation technologies enable vehicles to operate without human 

intervention, the makers of the vastly more complex hardware and software will 

face increased tort liability for defectively designed or manufactured products. These 

firms will seek to purchase insurance product liability insurance coverage to pay 

such claims. Self-driving cars and trucks will create new markets for vehicle insurance coverage that do not exist today. 

It is too early to know the full financial, economic or social impacts of robot cars 

will be at this juncture. But we do know that insurance coverage will remain an 

essential protection in the era of driverless vehicles. 

For consumers, the pricing of insurance, historically a significant concern, is likely 

to become a major economic factor as vehicle automation increases. 

As noted previously, while it seems logical that the evolution of auto safety systems will lead to fewer crashes, there is as yet no evidence behind the surmise that 

robot cars will lead to an overall reduction in crash frequency, severity or claims 

costs. The incorporation of electronics in today’s cars and trucks, though rudimentary by comparison to the complex hardware and software needed to maneuver 

vehicles without human drivers, have already spiked repair costs and insurance premiums.71 The far greater cost of repairing automated vehicles will likely lead insurance companies to dramatically inflate the price of liability, collision and comprehensive insurance coverage. 

Moreover, risks that today are not especially relevant to cars and trucks—such 

as privacy, security or even mass terrorism—will be much more of a threat to robot 

vehicles. Insurance companies will likely assess the heightened risk/threat matrix 

of the new and untested technologies and the hybrid highway as a basis to argue 

for substantial rate increases in the near term. 

Finally, there is a very real danger that insurance companies will pursue a new 

form of ‘‘redlining’’ to favor motorists who can afford more expensive cars with expensive computer-based systems and discriminate against those who cannot by refusing to sell them insurance, or adding surcharges to the price of insurance –practices with pervasive historical antecedents in the insurance industry. 

Strengthened consumer protections against excessive insurance premiums will 

prove crucial for as insurance companies price the risk of highly automated vehicles—particularly since state insurance regulators often lack the authority (or desire) to bar abusive rates and practices. 

3.2.2 The Proposition 103 Model 

According to a 2013 report by the Consumer Federation of America, ‘‘California 

stands out from all other states in having the best regulatory system for protecting 

consumers.’’ 72 Enacted by California voters in 1988, California’s insurance reform 

109 

73See California Insurance Code section 1861.02(a). The current list of authorized optional 

rating factors can be found at 10 CCR 2632.5(d). 

law provides precisely the stronger protections consumers will require in the era of 

robot vehicles. 

• Review of insurance rates. Proposition 103 applies to automobile, homeowner, 

business, and all other property-casualty insurance. It mandated a one-time 

rollback to November 1987 levels and a further 20 percent reduction in premiums. Over $2 billion in refunds were paid by insurance companies under this 

directive. The measure requires all property-casualty insurance companies to 

open their books and justify existing or proposed rate changes, subject to stringent controls on insurance company profiteering, waste, and inefficiency, and to 

obtain the Insurance Commissioner’s approval before such changes may take effect. Insurance companies must show that their rates are based on verifiable 

loss data and legitimate expenses. 

• Prohibition on anti-consumer and discriminatory practices. The measure bars 

‘‘unfairly discriminatory’’ rates or premiums. It also subjects the insurance industry to lawsuits for violation of Proposition 103’s provisions and California’s 

civil rights, consumer protection and other laws. 

• Public disclosure and transparency. The law authorizes the Insurance Commissioner to obtain any data—such as rate and premium data—from insurance 

companies that is needed to regulate their rates and practices. The Commissioner must disclose to the public all information –that insurance companies 

provide. 

• Public participation. The law authorizes and encourages consumers to monitor 

and challenge existing rates, applications for rate changes, or any other practices that may be unlawful, either in the courts or before the California Department of Insurance. Under certain conditions, the Insurance Commissioner must 

hold a public hearing on such challenges. The law requires insurance companies 

to pay the legal fees and expenses of consumers who participate and make a 

‘‘substantial contribution’’ to the outcome of a legal proceeding. The law also 

made the Insurance Commissioner, usually an appointed position, an elected 

post. 

Preventing insurance companies from seeking unjustified rate increases will be 

critical as self-driving vehicles become more commonplace, particularly because initially insurance companies will have limited experience in assessing the risk they 

pose, and for that reason alone will seek to inflate projections of future claims and 

the cost of repairing or replacing vehicles. 

• Special protections against unfair automobile insurance premiums. Particularly 

relevant to self-driving vehicles, Proposition 103 established a special set of 

rules that govern the pricing of automobile insurance. 

Auto insurance premiums must be determined principally by three specified rating factors—the insured’s driving safety record; annual mileage, and years of 

driving experience—and, to a lesser extent, by any ‘‘optional’’ rating factors that 

‘‘the commissioner may adopt by regulation and that have a substantial relationship to the risk of loss.’’ 73 The use of any other criterion constitutes unfair 

discrimination and is unlawful. 

Making the driver’s own safety record the principal determinant of premiums 

gives motorists a strong incentive to drive safely. The measure further requires 

insurers to offer a 20 percent good-driver discount to all qualifying consumers: 

individuals with a virtually clean driving record (one moving violation is permitted) for the preceding three years. This provides a further incentive for careful driving. 

Basing auto insurance premiums on a motorist’s individual responsibility, as reflected by their driving record, will remain of paramount importance for consumers in the era of self-driving vehicles, because in every conceivable scenario 

the consumer may still bear potential liability in the event of a crash. 

As today, when a motorist is driving a vehicle, they bear responsibility for any 

injuries or property damage for which they are at fault. During times when the 

robot is driving the vehicle, the consumer occupant will very likely still have 

a legal duty to take control in the event of an imminent accident. Even when 

a self-driving vehicle is parked, the consumer will be responsible for maintaining it in proper condition. A consumer’s driving safety record will be based on 

whether the automated car can avoid tickets and accidents in all these circumstances. And, as noted, the hardware and software manufacturers of autoVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
110 

74 ‘‘What Works? A Review of Auto Insurance Rate Regulation in America,’’ Consumer Federation of America, November 12, 2013. 75See footnote 27. In response to advocacy by Consumer Watchdog, regulations promulgated 

pursuant to Proposition 103 bar insurance companies from collecting data about the location of 

an insured vehicle, except as part of an emergency road, theft, or map service. See 10 CCR 

§ 2632.5(c)(2)(F)(i)5. 76See Section 2.2. 77 In the Matter of the Rating Practices of Farmers Insurance Exchange And Mid Century Insurance Company (File No. NC–2017–00003). 

mated vehicles will have a financial motive to dispute fault. Because there will 

never be a 100 percent guarantee that the occupant will not be responsible for 

a traffic violation if a vehicle fails to properly stop as a pedestrian enters a 

crosswalk or crosses into an intersection in heavy traffic or if a vehicle’s sensor 

fails, or the computer is hacked, and a crash results, a motorist’s driving safety 

record should be the predominant factor is setting premiums. 

Similarly, annual mileage and years of driving experience, along with several 

of the optional rating factors previously adopted by the Commissioner, reflect 

the motorist’s risk, without regard to whether the policyholder is driving a car 

equipped with automation technology. Cars equipped with improved technology 

will be rated, as they are today under Proposition 103, based on their repair 

or replacement cost for purposes of comprehensive (weather damage, fire and 

theft) and collision coverages. 

Other optional rating factors that will remain applicable: the percentage use of 

vehicle by rated driver; type of vehicle; vehicle performance capabilities, including alterations made subsequent to original manufacture; and vehicle characteristics, including engine size, safety and protective devices, the vehicle’s vulnerability to damage, repairability, and installed theft deterrent devices. Cars and 

trucks equipped with improved technology will be rated, as they are today 

under Proposition 103, based on their repair or replacement cost for purposes 

of comprehensive (weather damage, fire and theft) and collision coverages. 

Assessing the overall impact of these reforms in its 2013 analysis, the Consumer 

Federation of America determined that California was the only state in the Nation 

where the average auto insurance premium went down between 1989 and 2010, saving motorists alone over $100 billion in premiums since the law took effect.74

Apart from preventing price gouging and discriminatory practices, Proposition 103 

provides regulators and consumers with the tools and methodology to address other 

issues raised by autonomous vehicles. 

For example, as noted above, insurance companies collect significant amounts of 

data about motorists; some have begun installing black boxes in their vehicles to 

track mileage and other metrics.75 An even more troubling abuse is the recent phenomenon, previously noted, of insurance companies utilizing the vast trove of personal data collected by Google, Amazon, various credit bureaus and other firms to 

individualize a motorist’s premiums based on algorithms that consider rating factors 

that have nothing to do with risk, such as the likelihood that a particular consumer 

will accept a modest overcharge without protest—a practice known as price optimization that is unlawful in nineteen states and the District of Columbia.76 Under 

Proposition 103, such practices can be challenged in court and investigated by state 

Department of Insurance. Acting at the request of the Los Angeles Superior Court, 

where a class action has been filed, the California Department of Insurance is presently investigating whether Farmers Insurance is engaged in the practice, which is 

unlawful under Proposition 103.77

As another example, the evolution of the car industry into a more frequent litigant may create conflicts in the duties the insurance industry owes its policyholders. 

Some manufacturers of self driving hardware and software may purchase large 

quantities of insurance coverage against product liability suits. If so, significant conflicts of interest may arise: if the same insurance company sells insurance policies 

to motorists or owners of automated vehicles and to manufacturers, the legal duty 

to handle its policyholders’ claims in good faith, which each insurance company owes 

its individual policyholders, could well collide with its financial incentive to protect 

the interests of the manufacturer that bought a product liability policy. 

In other words, in the era of self-driving vehicles, manufacturers and insurance 

companies may have a vested financial interest in protecting each other’s bottom 

line, in which case the threat to consumers when it comes to crashes is that every 

accident will be treated as ‘‘your fault.’’ New rules to protect consumers against such 

conflicts will likely be necessary. Proposition 103 provides the Commissioner and 

the courts with the authority to adjudicate these unexpected secondary effects in an 

open and transparent forum. 

111 

78 R. Nader, ‘‘Suing for Justice,’’ Harpers, April 2016. 79D. Vladek, ‘‘The Emerging Threat of Regulatory Preemption,’’ The American Constitution 

Society, January 2008. 80M. Levin and A. Miller, ‘‘Industries Get Quiet Protection From Lawsuits,’’ Los Angeles 

Times, February 19, 2006 (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/19/nation/na-preempt19).. 81P. Rucker, ‘‘Obama Curtails Bush Policy That Let Federal Rules Override State Laws,’’ 

Washington Post, May 22, 2009 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 

2009/05/21/AR2009052104016.html). 82D. Shephardson, ‘‘U.S. Plans To Update Self-Driving Guidelines In Coming Months,’’ Reuters, June 5, 2017 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-selfdriving-idUSKBN18W2JR). 

4.0 The Industry Agenda to Roll Back Consumer Rights 

Over the last five decades, Americans have benefitted from a paradigm change in 

consumer protection. Across the economy, rules have been put in place to expand 

the rights of consumers exposed to physically or financially injurious products or 

services. Many of these laws, such as those barring and punishing false advertising, 

defective products, sharp financial practices, have become deeply ingrained in consumers’ bedrock expectations of the marketplace. 

These norms have long been the target of a national attack by insurance companies, automakers and other powerful corporations, their lobbyists, and sponsored allies in academia, seeking to restrict consumer rights under the Personal Responsibility System. They are now recycling discredited anti-consumer proposals to limit 

corporate accountability, backed by big business, insurance companies and their network of lobbyists and academics, that have failed throughout the United States, and 

which California voters have rejected multiple times at the ballot box (Propositions 

101, 104 and 106 in 1988; Propositions 200, 201 and 202 in 1996). 

As noted previously, the suggestion that the transformation to a completely automated transportation system is imminent is a fantasy. But it’s a fantasy that automakers and insurance companies are now attempting to exploit in order to press 

lawmakers to re-write consumer protection laws in their favor. 

To do so, they are replicating themes that have proven successful in previous campaigns. 

4.1 Restrictions on liability laws to encourage ‘‘innovation’’ 

Manufacturers of hardware and software are quietly proposing to revise liability 

laws and rules so as to limit their financial responsibility for deaths and injuries 

caused by their automated or self-driving technology. Insurance companies, which 

profit primarily through the investment of premiums, have a similar financial motive to press for limits on liability, since the fewer and smaller claims payouts leaves 

more premium dollars for insurance companies to invest, particularly in states 

where regulators do not have the authority to limit rate increases to reasonable projections of future losses. 

Among the proposals advanced by manufacturers and insurance companies are arbitrary caps on how much compensation juries can award to victims of negligence 

or intentional misconduct that causes deaths or injuries, and restrictions on how 

much attorneys can charge for their representation of such victims.78

A different approach, adopted by the George W. Bush Administration although 

most certainly unconstitutional,79 called for NHTSA and other Federal agencies to 

override state consumer protection laws.80 The Obama Administration later reversed it.81 (The Trump Administration is reportedly preparing its own ‘‘guidelines’’ 

for self driving vehicles; according to the new Secretary of the Department of Transportation: ‘‘We don’t want rules that impede future technological advances.’’ 82) 

Often, arguments in support of such proposals are couched in a threat: that absent such liability limits, manufacturers will not bring a product to the American 

marketplace. Thus the liability protections are described as ‘‘impediments’’ to innovation. 

Perhaps the most illustrative example is the liability bailout of the American nuclear power industry in the 1950s. After World War II, Americans were enamored 

with atomic energy; the ‘‘peaceful use’’ of the atom was heralded as providing electricity so inexpensive for American households that it would be ‘‘too cheap to meter.’’ 

There was catch. In what should have been understood as a grave warning sign of 

the risks of nuclear power, the insurance industry claimed it could not provide the 

insurance that the nascent atomic energy industry needed to cover its potential liability for a nuclear meltdown or other accident. Potential liability is what stood in 

the way of ‘‘progress,’’ supporters of nuclear power insisted. In 1957, Congress obligingly passed the Price Anderson Act, which immunizes the atomic energy industry 

from liability to the American public in exchange for a tiered fund consisting of a 

contribution from the nuclear industry of up to $13 billion, followed by an expected 

congressional bailout. Nuclear power has proven to be an economic disaster for 

112 

83 R. Nader, ‘‘Nuclear Power’s Insanities—Taxpayer-Guaranteed,’’ Common Dreams, September 06, 2014 (http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/06/nuclear-powers-insanitiestaxpayer-guaranteed). 84 Y. Obayashi and K. Hamada, ‘‘Japan nearly doubles Fukushima disaster-related cost to $188 billion,’’ Reuters, December 9, 2016 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushimacosts-idUSKBN13Y047). 85 U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, ‘‘Torts of the Future: Addressing 

the Liability and Regulatory Implications of Emerging Technologies,’’ March 2017, p.2. 86 Id., p. 54. 87 J. Anderson, et al., Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers, RAND, 

2016, p. 118. 88 Id., p. 116. 89 H. Rosenfield, ‘‘Auto Insurance: Crisis and Reform,’’ 29 U. Memphis Law Review 69 (Fall 

1998), p. 87–97. 90 Id., p. 83–84. 91See https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_200,_No_Fault_Automobile_Insurance_ 

(1996) (last visited June 12, 2017). 92 H. Rosenfield, ‘‘Auto Insurance: Crisis and Reform,’’ 29 U. Memphis Law Review 69 (Fall 

1998), p. 87–97. 

American taxpayers and ratepayers.83 (The $13 billion limit on the nuclear industry’s liability is woefully inadequate: the Japanese government’s latest estimate of 

the cost of the 2011 meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant—still underway—is $188 billion.84) 

A report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s dedicated anti-liability law unit insists that legal liability will ‘‘chill this promising technology [autonomous vehicles] 

and the huge advances in overall public safety it promises.’’ 85 It continues: ‘‘Where 

liability exposure poses a threat to an emerging technology, legislators should adopt 

reasonable constraints on liability.’’ 86

In a lengthy paper on legal liability and self driving vehicles published in 2016, 

RAND Corporation, which has received substantial funding from the insurance industry and has been a long-time advocate of restrictions on victim compensation 

rules, makes the same point: 

Current liability laws may well lead to inefficient delays in manufacturers introducing AV [autonomous vehicle] technologies. The gradual shift in responsibility for automobile operation from the driver to the vehicle may lead to a similar shift in liability for crashes from the driver to the manufacturer. Recognizing this effect, manufacturers may be reluctant to introduce technology that 

will increase their liability.87

4.2 Restrictions on liability laws to ‘‘lower insurance rates’’ 

The insurance industry is now resurrecting a long-abandoned and discredited 

scheme known as ‘‘no fault’’ auto insurance. RAND’s report concludes: ‘‘Th[e] shift 

in responsibility from the driver to the manufacturer may make no-fault automobileinsurance regimes more attractive.’’ 88

Insurance companies have long blamed liability laws for escalating insurance premiums, and proffered restrictions on compensation to auto accident victims—socalled ‘‘no fault’’ laws—as the solution. ‘‘No fault’’ barred or gravely limited compensation to people for so-called non-economic losses: principally the intangible pain 

and suffering uniquely experienced by a human being that cannot be reduced to a 

specific dollar value. In exchange, the insurance industry promised lower premiums 

and richer insurance benefits for objective out-of-pocket losses such as medical expenses and wage loss. At its peak, twenty-four states had adopted some form of ‘‘no 

fault’’ auto insurance. 

As a practical matter, however, ‘‘no fault’’ proved to be a disaster for consumers. 

‘‘No fault’’ auto insurance became vastly more expensive than the traditional liability system, and insurance companies quickly argued they needed to cut the benefits 

in order to bring prices under control.89

The turning point was the electoral contest over insurance reform in California. 

The insurance industry and its allies placed two ‘‘no fault’’ related proposals on the 

California ballot in 1988, as an alternative to Proposition 103. They were rejected 

by the voters by a three to one margin.90 Insurance companies placed another ‘‘no 

fault’’ initiative on the ballot in 1996. It, too, was decisively rejected, with 65 percent of Californians voting against it.91 Four states significantly altered or repealed 

their no-fault systems between 1989 and 1995: Georgia, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, 

and New Jersey, experiencing rate reductions as a result.92 Today, only twelve 

states employ any form of ‘‘no fault’’ insurance. 

113 

93 ‘‘CA Supreme Court Rebuffs Insurance Industry Assault on Proposition 103 Rate Protections,’’ Consumer Watchdog, May 11, 2017 (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrelease/casupreme-court-rebuffs-insurance-industry-assault-proposition-103-rate-protections). 94 I. Adams, ‘‘Does Prop 103 Violate Itself?’’ Personal Insurance Federation of California, October 21, 2014 (http://www.pifc.org/prop-103-violate/). 95 Id. See also R. Peterson, New Technology—Old Law: Autonomous Vehicles and California’s 

Insurance Framework, Santa Clara University School of Law, May 21, 2012; D. Jergler, ‘‘Prop. 

103 vs. Self-driving Cars Revving up in California,’’ Insurance Journal, Sept. 17, 2014 (http:// 

www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2014/09/17/340898.htm); I. Adams, ‘‘Can Prop 103 

Handle Driverless Cars?’’ R Street, August 27, 2014, (http://www.rstreet.org/2014/08/27/canprop-103-handle-driverless-cars/). 96 H. Rosenfield, ‘‘Auto Insurance: Crisis and Reform,’’ 29 U. Memphis Law Review 69 (Fall 

1998), p. 76. 

4.3 Repealing protections against insurance company price gouging and 

discrimination 

The insurance industry reliably opposes any form of regulation or consumer protection legislation, and the potentially destabilizing advent of self driving vehicles, 

with its host of unique and unprecedented risks to consumers, is certain to inspire 

the consideration of broader regulation at the state level. Proposition 103’s protections will no doubt be considered a model for consumers in other states as automated vehicles are rolled out. 

Insurance companies vehemently opposed Proposition 103 at the ballot box— spending a record $63 million in their campaign to defeat it—and many insurers 

have sought to evade or contest its reforms since they were upheld in a series of 

unanimous decisions by the California Supreme Court after the measure passed. 

The industry, as well as individual insurance companies, continues to fight the rate 

reductions and premium rollbacks in the courts.93 So it is hardly a surprise that 

some insurance companies hope to exploit the discussion about insurance and liability in the era of autonomous vehicles to argue that, as one industry source candidly 

put it, ‘‘the Prop 103 model should be scrapped entirely.’’ 94

The industry contends that Proposition 103’s protections against discriminatory 

rates and practices are outdated and will no longer be necessary once robots, not 

humans, are driving vehicles.95 However, as discussed above, no fully autonomous 

vehicle is available for purchase today, nor has any date been set for the sale of 

such vehicles, and America is decades away from a fully autonomous transportation 

system (if it ever happens). Between now and that very distant future, our roads 

will be a ‘‘Hybrid Highway’’ of vehicles with greatly varying degrees of automation, 

ranging from none to a great deal. So long as consumers are subject to liability for 

injuries and property damage caused by the crash of a self-driving car or truck, they 

will require insurance coverage. And so long as insurance companies attempt to 

overcharge motorists for that protection, the protective provisions of Proposition 103 

will remain essential. 

Self driving vehicles will place the insurance industry at a crossroads. Rather 

than resist or work to undermine reform, insurance companies would be better advised to focus their resources on the extremely important consumer protection role 

they could choose to play as vehicle automation increases. Historically, the insurance industry has exhibited limited interest in safety and ‘‘loss prevention,’’ perhaps 

because insurers are cost-plus, cash flow based institutions: their profits are largely 

based on their projected costs, so when claims rise, insurers can justify charging 

higher premiums, and earn more investment income.96 These incentives have discouraged insurance companies from using their vast information database on vehicle 

hazards to alert manufacturers of vehicle dangers and press them—and lawmakers—for safety improvements. This moment in history, marking a rapid evolution in vehicle technology, is the time for the insurance industry to weigh in—with 

a commitment to strong Federal safety regulation, for example, and much more resources for affiliated organizations whose mission is public safety and loss prevention. 

5.0 Guiding Principles 

To protect consumers against the challenges posed by autonomous vehicle technology, Consumer 

Watchdog believes six principles must be adopted. 

1. Protect the civil justice system. The state-based civil justice system—open 

courts, impartial judges and citizen juries—is fully equipped to handle the determination of legal responsibility as our transportation system evolves over the coming decades. Disputes over who is at fault in a crash involving a self-driving car or 

truck will require the full power of civil justice system, with its procedural safeguards of an impartial judge, full public transparency, and trial by citizen juries, 

114 

to investigate and publicly expose the cause of crashes, compensate the victims for 

deaths, injuries and property damage, punish the wrongdoer, and force manufacturers to make changes in their products to prevent future harm. When their autonomous technologies fail, hardware and software manufacturers must be held strictly 

liable. Lawmakers should reject legislation to limit or restrict state consumer protection laws. Manufacturers must not be permitted to evade these consumer protections by inserting arbitration clauses, ‘‘hold harmless’’ provisions or other waivers 

in their contracts. 

2. Enact stronger state consumer protections against insurance company abuses. 

According to a 2013 report by the Consumer Federation of America, ‘‘California 

stands out from all other states in having the best regulatory system for protecting 

consumers.’’ Enacted by California voters in 1988, California’s insurance reform law 

provides precisely the stronger protections consumers will require in the era of robot 

vehicles. The reforms, known as Proposition 103, have protected motorists (along 

with homeowners, renters, businesses and medical providers) against unjust insurance rates (including product liability insurance rates) and anti-consumer and discriminatory practices. The law’s emphasis on rewarding drivers with lower insurance premiums based on their safety record, their annual mileage, their driving experience, and other rating factors within their control that are ‘‘substantially related 

to the risk of loss,’’ will be critical in the new automotive era. Proposition 103’s mandate for public disclosure and public participation in regulatory matters are essential components of a system that will be trusted by consumers. 

3. Enact auto safety standards. Private companies cannot be trusted to develop 

and deploy robot cars and trucks without rules. The Federal auto safety agency, or 

in its absence, state auto safety agencies, must develop standards for the testing 

and deployment of the multiple technologies required by robot vehicles. These standards must address safety; security; privacy and the software that determines the robot’s actions in the event of an impending collision and as it makes life and death 

decisions. They must be enforceable by consumers in courts of law. 

4. Stronger laws are needed to protect consumers’ privacy. The laws have not kept 

pace with the evolution of technology and the collection and monetization of consumers’ personal data. Hardware and software manufacturers and insurance companies must be barred from utilizing tracking, sensor or communications data, or 

transferring it to third parties for commercial gain, absent separate written consent 

(which should not be required as a condition of accessing the services of the vehicle/ 

manufacturer, and which should be revocable by the consumer at any time). 

5. Bar Federal interference in state consumer protection laws. Neither Congress 

not Federal agencies should be permitted to preempt or override stronger state 

based civil justice, insurance reform or auto safety laws. 

6. Respect democratic and human values. The sponsors of self-driving vehicles 

have promoted the myth that machines are infallible in order to justify the wholesale departure from a panoply of norms that form founding principles for the nation, 

beginning with the rule of law; individual and corporate responsibility; long held 

legal principles that distinguish between human beings and property; and the transparency of public officials and institutions that is a hallmark of democracy. The 

strategy of substituting robot values for human values has reached its apotheosis 

in the determination by robot car company executives to program computers to 

make life and death decisions, and to keep that decision-making process secret. 

Lawmakers will need to impose the rule of law and other attributes of American 

democracy upon the executives of the hardware and software companies that manufacture self-driving cars. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. BRIAN SCHATZ TO

MITCH BAINWOL

Question. There is conflicting research on whether self-driving cars will increase 

congestion and vehicle emissions overall. For instance, vehicle-miles traveled could 

increase because automation lowers the opportunity cost of driving. Do you think 

the widespread deployment of self-driving cars will increase congestion or vehicle 

emissions? How do we ensure that this does not happen? 

Answer. It is thought that self-driving vehicles will be initially deployed primarily 

in a ride-hailing, ride-sharing, or goods delivery fleet context. These vehicles will be 

part of Transportation as an Operating ecosystem that will allow better fleet management and more efficient transportation, which, coupled with the general trend 

toward drivetrain electrification, offers the possibility of reduced congestion and 

emissions. We are also excited about potential for self-driving vehicles to reduce 

traffic fatalities, improve transportation efficiency, and expand mobility to traditionVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
115 

ally underserved populations. We feel those reasons are quite compelling in the 

overall debate about permitting the deployment of self-driving vehicles. 

Regardless of vehicle powertrain, it would be speculative to definitively state that 

self-driving vehicle deployment will increase vehicle emissions or congestion. However, it is well documented that current advanced driver assist technologies have 

a positive impact on congestion because the technology is preventing accidents that 

would otherwise occur due to driver error. 

Note, attached is a projection from Moody’s Investors Services that outlines the 

expected rate of use and ultimate saturation for HAV technologies, including fully 

autonomous vehicles. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH TO

ROB CSONGOR

Question. Data access is an issue raised by a number of stakeholders, ranging 

from public safety advocates, law enforcement, insurers, and environmental organizations. Considering the importance of data access for liability determinations, environmental impact determinations, and determining how safe this technology actually is, how will these issues be addressed to make sure the appropriate stakeholders have access to relevant data that is not proprietary information? 

Answer. In order to develop self-driving cars and ensure they are safe, massive 

amounts of data are required to train AI neural networks. In addition, we will want 

to test them on real roads as well as simulated tests that will be based on data from 

previously driven miles. 

All of this data can be collected from fleets of test vehicles, as well as customer 

vehicles. NVIDIA believes that the data obtained by customer vehicles must be 

treated in a fashion that anonymizes the data. No personally identifiable information should be retained, but rather just the sensor data and other vehicle data will 

be maintained in order that the driving system can be trained. 

With respect to archiving data on the vehicle, it makes sense to have a data recorder that maintains recent driving activity that can be used to understand what 

happened in the case of an incident, and can be used to determine who is at fault. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RON JOHNSON TO

JOHN M. MADDOX

Question 1. A recent Deloitte research paper illustrates how the transportation industry is leveraging the wireless platform to innovate and grow. According to this 

paper, wirelessly connected self-driving cars could reduce travel times by nearly 40 

percent and delays by 20 percent, annually generating $447 billion in savings and 

saving 21,700 lives. Can you describe the American Center for Mobility’s work with 

wireless providers to speed up the delivery of self-driving vehicles? 

Answer. Our current transportation system is comprised of people, vehicles, and 

roads (infrastructure). The American Center for Mobility (ACM) is convinced that 

modern communications networks will make up a critical and necessary component 

of our future transportation system, right alongside people, vehicle, and roads. This 

modern transportation communications network will enable the rapid distribution 

and collection of data, forming a data backbone which will create the possibility for 

a systems-approach for the efficient flow of people and goods. 

Highly Automated Vehicles (HAVs) will rely heavily on this data backbone. HAV 

technology is critical to a future transportation system that continues to support our 

national economy, and deployment of these communications and vehicle technologies 

will help ensure our continued international economic competitiveness. 

ACM is creating a national-scale proving ground for the future of transportation 

where these future transportation products and services can be tested, verified, and 

validated. In addition to testing for vehicles and roads, ACM is building a facility 

for critical testing and development of the communications systems that will form 

this data backbone. 

ACM is collaborating with AT&T, and other companies who will be announced at 

a later date, to design, build, and operate a dedicated network so that manufacturers, developers, service providers, government bodies, and other stakeholders can 

rapidly develop and deploy beneficial transportation technologies in a collaborative 

fashion. This dedicated network will include, among other technologies, 4G/LTE cellular, Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC), Wi-Fi, cloud services, edge 

computing, and 5G when it is ready. 

116 

We anticipate that this transportation communications testing capability will be 

in high-demand and will enable the very rapid development of Connected and Automated Vehicle technology. 

Question 2. As more connected and autonomous vehicles hit the road, they will 

need to ‘‘talk’’ to each other and everything around them in a secure manner to realize the full potential of the technology. There will be an enormous growth in data 

as vehicles and surrounding infrastructure become connected. How is the American 

Center for Mobility working with the wireless industry to ensure that the wireless 

infrastructure exists to handle the vast amounts of data needs that will come with 

autonomous vehicles? 

Answer. The American Center for Mobility (ACM) is convinced that a modern 

communications network is a required component of our future transportation system to enable needed data systems. Highly Automated Vehicles (HAVs) present both 

challenges and opportunities regarding data and data sharing, as the vehicles themselves require that a large amount of data and information be sensed, acquired, 

amalgamated, analyzed for rapid decision-making, and acted upon through control 

decisions and operational monitoring. However, the processing, distribution, and 

eventual storage of these extremely large amounts of data is itself a significant challenge. It is highly unlikely that it will be practical to transfer and store all of the 

data from thousands, much less hundreds of thousands, of vehicles throughout the 

vehicle lifetime. Therefore, data selection and harvesting processes must be developed. 

ACM is working with telecom, automotive, cybersecurity, computing, simulation, 

and infrastructure industry partners to create a model communications system 

whereby they can test, develop, verify, and validate their key technology and offerings. 

We are also focused on partnering with key Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) to rapidly create, publish, and update critical voluntary standards 

around communications systems, as well as the vehicle and roads themselves. It is 

critical that we begin and accelerate the work to establish these voluntary standards to support the deployment on this technology and to help ensure our continued 

international economic competitiveness. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BRIAN SCHATZ TO

JOHN M. MADDOX

Question 1. It is reported that driving a self-driving car for an hour will generate 

four terabytes of data. This data is very valuable for various applications—urban 

planning, for example. But there are currently a wide variety of approaches in state 

legislations when it comes to data ownership. What do you think are good principles 

of data sharing among car operators, car manufacturers, and the government? 

Answer. Highly Automated Vehicles (HAVs) present both challenges and opportunities regarding data and data sharing, as the vehicles themselves require that a 

large amount of data and information be sensed, acquired, amalgamated, analyzed 

for rapid decision-making, and acted upon through control decisions and operational 

monitoring. However, the processing, distribution, and eventual storage of these extremely large amounts of data is itself a significant challenge. It is highly unlikely 

that it will be practical to transfer and store all of the data from thousands, much 

less hundreds of thousands, of vehicles throughout the vehicle lifetime. Therefore, 

data selection and harvesting processes must be developed. 

While data best-practices for HAVs are still under significant development by vehicle manufacturers, testers, suppliers, and service operators, generally, these data 

practices will eventually likely include established processes for maintaining privacy 

and proper ownership, while providing for the collection of in-use event, incident, 

and vehicle information data for crashes, near crashes, malfunctions, degradations, 

failures, and unintended operation outside established operational domains. It is expected that this information will become extremely useful for vehicle development, 

safety monitoring, and operations activities as well as accident/event reconstruction 

purposes. All of these types of data can be useful for creating appropriate safety requirements, but privacy and ownership principles must be maintained. 

Key principles must be established at the policy level, ideally federally to avoid 

a patchwork of requirements, and in concert with industry and consumer groups. 

The basic principles employed in today’s vehicles are appropriate starting points, including the concept that the vehicle-level data ownership is dictated by vehicle ownership, unless voluntarily sharing is ‘‘opted-into’’ by the owner. 

Lastly, data ownership and sharing policies must also take into account the reality that cellular phones, tablets, wearables, and other devices are already colVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:03 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30767.TXT JACKIE
117 

lecting and transmitting large amounts and broad types of data, and that vehiclebased data is not the only source of privacy and ownership concerns in the transportation system. 

Question 2. This year, there has been a lot discussion from both sides of the aisle 

on our Nation’s deteriorating infrastructure. In your opinion, is our physical infrastructure ready for self-driving cars? If not, what has to change? 

Answer. Our transportation system is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. It supports all of our business and economic activities, including the basics of getting people to their jobs and goods to market. It underpins our society and our entire way 

of life. Our deteriorating infrastructure is already weighing down our economy with 

increased congestion, wasted fuel, and significant safety issues. Further lack of investment in our infrastructure will also hamper our ability to deploy Highly Automated Vehicle (HAV) technology in the long term at large scale and will reduce our 

international economic competitiveness. 

While our current infrastructure is less than ideal, HAVs will initially be able to 

accommodate this, much like initial automobiles handled horse-trails 100 years ago. 

But quickly our existing infrastructure, if left unimproved, will increasingly inhibit 

widespread deployment of HAV technology and significantly reduce societal benefit. 

In the short term, we should concentrate on improving the basics, including wellpainted lane markings, high quality and consistent signage, and well-lit and delineated pedestrian crossings and bicycle lanes. We should move quickly to deploy Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) and Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communications systems 

based on DSRC and cellular, as well as regularly updated detailed maps to provide 

HAVs with augmented data for safety and operations. 

In the longer term, we should begin to establish best practices for new infrastructure designs for urban and rural areas, including managed lanes, further improved 

lane and road edge markings, traffic control systems, and parking. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH TO

JOHN M. MADDOX

Question. Auto manufacturers and technology companies continue to develop and 

push for highly autonomous vehicles to enter our transportation landscape and we 

understand that in order to bring these products to market they need to be tested 

not only on secure test tracks but also on actual roads. Many of these vehicles under 

development are being designed to have little if any human intervention features 

should something arise that requires someone or something to take control of the 

vehicle. 

Is the role of insurance being addressed as autonomous vehicle technology is developed and how do you envision liability issues (product liability, strict liability, 

etc.) going to be addressed going forward as we move toward the Level 3–5 environment? 

Answer. It is true that numerous companies are developing highly automated vehicles for deployment and operation over the next 1–5 years. Some of these vehicles 

will not require human intervention for normal operation. And indeed, best practices for development and full validation of these vehicles include a coordinated and 

diligent approach including both on-road and closed course testing, as well as a related computer-simulation approach. 

The role, and nature, of insurance is being considered and logically must be addressed in this same time period. Currently, insurance companies and re-insurance 

companies are analyzing this technology as they would with any new technology: 

examining, collecting data where possible, and attempting to quantify the risk and 

potential benefit of the technology. However, it is largely understood that data is 

scarce and that the examination is still in early stages. Predictably, insurance companies are generally not offering a public view of their planning and analysis efforts 

or results. 

The assumption in the vehicle developer community is that the current liability 

system in the U.S. will likely be in place throughout the near-term roll-out of the 

technology. However other countries and regions, including those with highly developed automotive industries, are critically examining whether other liability regimes, 

including shared liability, would provide greater societal benefit due to faster deployment or other means. 

Æ