LIVE
Welcome back to the Smart Driving Cars podcast. Thanks for spending time with us once again.
I'm Fred Fishkin, along with the faculty chair of autonomous vehicle engineering at Princeton
University, Alan Kornhauser. Hi, Alan. Hey, good morning, Fred. Good morning. Hey, that doesn't
look like Princeton. Well, well, that's a virtual backdrop that I just created using
Chachi B. Poop. And therefore, put it behind me, okay? It's really, really good. It's really
good. If you believe that, then, you know, whatever, I have a bridge to sell you. Yes,
Elizabeth and I are enjoying a couple of days. It's the end of spring break, so we're going to be
back at it on Monday, but came to Bermuda, our favorite place for a couple of days. Excellent.
Well, the reefs, the reefs, if you're going to go in, you go to the reefs and they didn't pay me
for that, then, whatever. Excellent. A quick reminder to everyone right at the start here
that you can also find us now on the Transportation Channel. Download the app for iOS or Android or
look forward on Apple TV, Fire TV, and Roku or on the web. Alan, you were in Washington, D.C.,
done a lot of traveling this past week as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
hosted a National AV Safety Forum. The event was very significant, and so was the news coming
out of it. Let's talk about that. And the headline was, NHTSA plans to reduce regulations for autonomous
vehicles. Yeah, and we've been at this really in this era of adding automation to transportation
for about 20 years, I guess. I like to pitch the start of this as 2004 or 2005 with the DARPA
challenge, of course, you know, Kardegi Mellon and even Ohio State University and even RCH
Zarnoff, right near the Princeton campus, been doing automated things for numbers of years,
going back 40 years from there from that time. And my goodness, the atmosphere
and the discussion and the seriousness of the discussion at this session was completely different
than what I've experienced in the past. Even the sessions that I put on with the
six Princeton smart driving car summits and so on, mostly dealing with academic questions of
of technology development and so on. This one really focused on saying, I'm looking at,
hey, we really are here with now the technology or essentially here. And now let's make it so that
we can get some of the value proposition of this technology, that the deployment,
the actual putting it out there to the giving of rides, the improvement of mobility,
the improvement of quality of life, the improvement of happiness, the improvement of the economy
associated with this technology. And it was just a different discussion.
Yes, safety is important. But safety really wasn't the objective of this. It's a constraint,
one wants to make it better. But it really ended up, at least maybe it's just the way I was
listening as opposed to what was said, was really about getting it out there and capturing the value
proposition of this mobility for society, for the US, for America, for the world really.
And it was, I don't know, I came back saying, my goodness, this is going to happen.
And really, all the major players were there?
All the major players, all the players that were important,
and maybe the trial lawyers weren't there. But I think even the teamsters were there.
I mean, if one looks at the opportunity of driverless vehicles,
increasing the productivity of a driver of a long haul truck,
that today is only permitted to extract 10 hours of productivity out of that truck,
because she has to sit there behind the wheel, yet has been retained by the
transportation, the mobility company, really for all 24 hours. Because tomorrow she's going to have
to drive another 10 hours. And the next day, another 10 hours. And appropriately, so needs a break.
Which is what the hours of service do.
But if she didn't need to be there, ensuring that the vehicle stays between two white lines,
otherwise she dies, that a machine was doing that, and doing that reliably,
she can just be called on for the whatever sort of emergency that crops up every
not even maybe even once a day. Certainly if the truck has to pull over to the side of the highway,
for some reason, sure, she can wake up and take the placards out there and put them out there.
Just like, you know, the teamsters would like to see that done. If that's actually the best way to
protect that truck from being rammed by a passing vehicle. And therefore, just she's with the vehicle
24 hours. She can still be with the vehicle 24 hours doing these tasks. But yet the vehicle
can get 24 hours of productivity, or maybe 23, it's got to be refueled. Okay. But instead of the 10
hours of productivity out of the vehicle, one and that driver, one gets 20 plus hours of productivity
out of that vehicle. So whatever the mobility, the logistics, the transportation company
that has put that asset out there to provide flow to goods movement, which goods movement is all
about flow. It's not about staying stationary. I mean, that's just cost. That's inventory.
One one doesn't want to have any, minimize inventory. Well, you minimize inferences,
you kept keep it moving from where it's produced, where it's going to get consumed.
Movement. Now with this automation with this driver, you don't only get at least equivalent
safety, hey, maybe even improve safety. But now you get double productivity out of that one person.
Why? Because the stuff that's in the back of the truck isn't sitting, it's moving.
I mean, that's fundamental logistics. That's fundamental value to the GDP, the economy,
the quality of life, the more jobs you name it. And this is the opportunity that exists.
You don't have to, you don't need that to remove the driver. And you probably don't want to anyway.
Because intermittently, that driver, she can provide other valued services to that
commodity that's in motion, that inventory. It's a brave new world of logistics.
It's, you know, it's, you know, what did containerization do to the whole shipping industry?
It allowed container to move, to move and move on the ship and move as opposed to
stuff getting piled up and then having to put in and then have to be taken out and one.
This is the opportunity. And that's with people, the opportunity to then give,
you know, others a chance to get the quality of life improvement,
the mobility provides the individual, the happiness that provides the individual.
And now the most important thing that I heard is that the discussion wasn't just about safety,
even though it was NHTSA. And I've sort of always argued, NHTSA is not a single objective
entity of government. It's not just safety. It's also mobility.
And trying to do a trade-off of the risk and reward such that the net is the most positive.
And so you obtain that by decreasing or increasing safety and increasing mobility.
And the thing that I heard, that I don't think I've really heard before,
was that, in fact, AVs were being talked about, not only for safety,
but safety and affordability. Now, I would prefer to be affordability and safety, but,
my goodness, to add the affordability piece on there and to seriously say it,
not as a throwaway. And it's affordability, affordability, as I like to say,
without arms for the poor. It's affordability on the cost of good sold side, not on the price side.
And, oh, my goodness, if it's affordability on the cost of good sold side, then, my goodness,
you add this value proposition out there to the economy and improve the economy.
I mean, it's almost, but, of course, that's what the opportunity is. And to have that,
I mean, I think the Secretary of Transportation, I think we have it linked in the e-letter.
I mean, the title was, you know, safety and affordability.
When DOT talked about connected vehicles, there's never a discussion about affordability.
There's never a discussion about improved mobility. There's always, you know, a discussion about,
I guess, safety. And safety, yes, is important. But if you look at safety,
you know, our safety problem is associated with our misbehavior of the person in the loop.
It's not the average driver. Average driver is fantastic. Basically, never has a collision.
What were you just telling me, Fred? You were just out there. In a parking lot, you got boomed.
Right. You got boomed by someone, what? Someone backing out of a space that didn't look behind
them or said they couldn't see from their mirror or whatever. And not a big deal.
Dog ate their homework. My goodness.
But the technology, as you've pointed out, would have not allowed the person,
if it had been in that vehicle and turned on. Yeah. If only we would somehow get that technology
in the vehicle, that person, you know, wouldn't that, and you wouldn't, and whatever.
Right. And I sure hope that because your vehicle happens to have other technology,
you don't have to go report it. So then somebody can say, oh, my goodness,
that technology had another crash. I mean, it got hit.
Five what? By somebody who didn't have the technology.
What? Really, folks that are looking at safety or accounting, not anybody, really,
that was at this session. And it was so well attended. I guess 500 people there.
It was standing remotely at US DOT. So proud of DOT and NHTSA for putting it on.
And not to deal with the tough problem of let's sort of change the regulations that are in some
sense holding us back on this thing. And let's get it out there. And yes, nothing is perfect.
But the net, the balance between risk and reward on this sucker,
I mean, I don't know. It should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.
I don't know my perspective. Sorry.
Well, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy did make some headlines with his opening remarks there.
It is really remarkable the innovation that's on the horizon. And we have cities that are
experiencing this technology, but not all of our cities. And it's going to be exciting,
not just for how people move, but we have transit here at DOT as well. And I think how
transit is going to work in America is going to be radically transformed by the technology that
we're talking about today. So we're excited for the future. But cars that don't have steering
wheels, cars that don't have pedals, it's kind of wild. I haven't ridden in the non-pedaled
or non-steering wheeled vehicle yet, but have sat in them. They're pretty neat. So go check them
out. I want to take a moment to just talk about what we have done over the last year. Because
the four years before that, there was a hiatus in the thought process on how do we advance
the industry? How do we support the industry at DOT? And our president oftentimes talks about
the golden age of America. And what does that look like? And what do we have to do to accomplish it?
But us here at DOT, we talk about the golden age of transportation. And we think that golden age
is about safety and the golden age is about innovation. And we want to make sure that the
United States leads the way on safety and on innovation. And I kind of think of this as my
Goldilocks approach. So we're regulators, right? We want innovators to innovate, but we have to
regulate and make sure we keep the public safe. And if we move the regulation too far, too fast,
and something bad happens, the consequences we get set back, whether it's years or decades,
with our innovators. We don't want that. If we move too slow with our regulations,
we'll see that our innovators fall behind the rest of the world.
Phase one or phase two, they just, they go somewhere else. They leave us to go to another
country. So like Goldilocks, we have to get our regulations just right, making sure that
our innovators have the right regulatory structure to safely move forward with a new
technology that's coming online. And it's more of an art than a science. But Jonathan and I think
our team has done a very good job of navigating this together. But over the last year, we began
the work on a single federal AV framework, right? We can't have 50 rules, 50 states, and try to
think that our companies can scale with all of these different rules. We should have one American
standard, that you can develop a vehicle, deploy a vehicle, scale a vehicle, and it can be used in
all of the states throughout the country. So we've been working on that over the last year.
We've leveled the playing field, so American-made AVs could use the same simplified,
less burdensome exemption process that our foreign competitors were able to use in our
country. Again, we were given an advantage to foreign companies as compared to U.S. companies.
So we just kind of think minimally putting America first means that America should be
in America at the same level as foreign competitors. So we've done that. We've streamlined the
reporting process for AV crashes, so we can get the right safety data and get it faster.
Again, a data dump to NHTSA and DOT isn't helpful for companies, a lot of time, a lot of money,
and it's not good for us to sort through all that data. So working with our companies to get
the right data, to make the right decisions, and do all of this faster, again, is better for
everybody as we want to move as quickly as possible with our rules and regulations.
And then we've exempted or we've expedited exemptions for non-compliant AVs for commercial use,
ensuring U.S. automakers could ramp up production and get on the road faster
while still maintaining safety with novel vehicle designs. And all this happened because we have
a Rockstar NHTSA team. I couldn't be prouder of what NHTSA has done under Administrator Morrison's
leadership, but they have just put the pedal to the metal, if you will, if there was a pedal,
it would be to the metal. All the while, again, making sure that we keep the American people
safe, and that is always the balance that they're using. And so just quickly today, what we are
going to announce, I can show a little bit of leg, not the full leg, just a little bit here.
It's going to be a big year in 2026. So first off, NHTSA is officially seeking public comment
on what would be the nation's first ever commercial deployment of a purpose-built steering wheel-free
robot taxi built by Zooks. This marks a major milestone towards providing the American AV
industry with a streamlined pathway to scaled commercial deployment of novel AV fleets. So
that's coming this year. Number two, we will be releasing the next set of technical guidance
for AV developers. Again, this guidance is important to enhance safety,
but also give manufacturers clear roadmaps to move forward. And I think it's important to note that
the last time that this was done was almost 10 years ago in 2017. So again, a lot has changed in
the last nine years. And so that's on the horizon as well. And then number three,
we're also proud to announce that I just approved NHTSA's next tranche of proposed updates to current
federal motor vehicle safety standards. These updates would remove unnecessary requirements
for manufacturers when they make an AV. So if we don't have a driver, do I need windshield
wipers? Do I need something to defog my car? You might want those might be nice, right? But
do I need them if I don't have a driver? So we're going to take a look at what should we have
on these vehicles if we don't have an actual driver in the vehicle. And so I think all this
matters because we are in a race, right? Everyone is trying to have the best technology
that will be deployed around the world. And I want the technology to be developed in America.
I want the jobs in America. And I want the rest of the world to use American technology. I don't
want to see a foreign competitor slash foreign adversary slash communist party beat America
and have their technology deployed around the world. This is a national security issue. This is
an economic issue. This is a safety issue. And so as we put what we're doing in that context,
we should also look at every year we lose almost 40,000 people on our roads.
Sean McMaster from Federal Highways is here understands that very well and it knows that
very well also. And I think we do a lot of things trying to get those numbers down. But
if you've known someone who's been in one of these crashes, it devastates a family
through the loss of a loved one forever. Their lives are changed forever. And I think this
technology can have a profound impact on saving more lives in America, taking that number from a
stubborn 40,000 and bringing it down, making progress on saving more lives, which I think will
only make this country better and stronger and help us accomplish the mission of keeping our
people safe. So again, I want to thank you all for being here. It's going to be an exciting day.
This is our again, again, the great, the biggest event we've held so far at DOT. And
let's dig in. By the way, I'm going to give you four last things. This will be my last thing.
We partner with industry, but we have a lot of people here. We look forward to your ideas.
What can we do differently? What are we thinking about that if we thought about it a little bit
differently, we'd be more successful? What aren't we thinking about that we should be thinking about?
So if you have those ideas, today is the time frame in which to give us your great feedback.
And what we love is to take your ideas, make them our own, sound really smart and innovative.
And we're both winners. We look great and you guys look great. So let's share ideas today.
And again, I want to thank you for being here. I want to thank Jonathan. I want to thank Nitsa.
I want to thank our companies. Let's have a great day. God bless.
It wasn't that he was looking at the teleprompter. He did have his prepared notes,
but he was saying it from up here. So I mean, when people say it from up here,
it's really, to me, it's really coming from them. And he wasn't the only one from the White House,
from the administrator of Nitsa, the whole thing from Waymo, from Zooks, from even Koopman.
I mean, Koopman wants us to be able to forecast crashes. Yes. I wish I could forecast anything.
Then I wouldn't be buying high and selling low all the time. I mean, I buy high,
sell low because I can't forecast. Forecasting is tough. And I don't know anybody who does
forecasting without basically extrapolating the past. Because my goodness, I don't know.
I still haven't found a student who could help me know what I don't know.
Before it hits me over the head. Do you have a sense of where things go from here after this
meeting? I sure hope that I think the sense goes that there are serious discussions with
respect to Nitsa to try to sort of a little bit be quicker about changing whatever rules they have,
looking at the federal motor vehicle safety standards, which have been continuously changing
over time and allowing them to change. I mean, this business about having a steering wheel in a car
is really actually almost silly. Because actually all you need is a camera in the car.
Because in a camera in a car, you can watch my hands. I can be having a virtual steering wheel.
Now, it could turn the car based on it. It doesn't need a physical steering wheel.
The business about needing mirrors. Hey, cameras do it. Unfortunately, the cameras don't just
don't do it if you don't look at the image, which may have been what happened to you.
You know, probably likely the car had a backup camera. But if you're not looking in the mirror
and you're not looking at the camera, you don't know. But there's no reason for the system not to
know. There's really no reason to compute power, the time latency, all that stuff, especially at
the speeds that things were going in that parking lot. This is not 1970 anymore when I'm there with
my slide rule trying to do stuff. We're on cobalt, or fort, no, I guess maybe 65. Let's go back 65.
I don't know. I'm so damn old, I can't, whatever, never mind. But we aren't still at slide rules.
We aren't still at, you know, taking decks of cards and putting them into the
the mainframe and getting one turn around a day.
We've progressed from that. Let's use it.
Although that did take us to the moon. Or did we go there?
Actually, I think I heard you bring up that anecdote when you and both Catherine Freund
were on a podcast. Catherine is with ITN America, the founder there. You were a guest on an episode
of the Aging Rewired podcast, Senior Planet with AARP. Everybody should give a listen to that,
but I think you filled that anecdote there. Yeah, well, you know, I guess when I did that one,
I must have, you know, since I guess I'm still only 39, although with what is it, 43, 39,
birthday or whatever, I don't know. It just, since it was, you know, talking about old people,
I thought that I was an old person. But I started my class this spring that way. I brought my little
bag and I took out my, showed my, has my name on it. They didn't know what I was. They didn't
realize that we used to look up values of cosines in our chemical rubber tables.
I mean, instead of having math functions. So we have advanced enormously, yet we,
I think we did a lot with what we had. But now to just let all these advancements and not use them
and say, oh my goodness, because, you know, some algorithm can sit there and process the image and,
and, and, and not just yell, yikes, hit the brakes, but actually hit the brakes.
Why aren't we just really, we're afraid of just doing that? Somehow we've lost control.
Guess what? The thing does it better than we do it. Why do we want to insist on doing stuff we
don't do well? When we focus on stuff we do do well. Now, I've got to think of anything I do well.
But, but seriously, and that's, that's at least, I don't know. I mean, that's,
that's what I came back with. Or maybe I just wanted to come back with that attitude. So,
Elizabeth and I could come here from here and have a good weekend before we go back to the salt mine.
I don't know if it was mentioned at the conference, but are you aware that Sean Duffy used to be a
that takes some things up here and some things over here, okay? I don't know that,
yeah, the machines can do a lot of helping. But that's what we've always, that's what we've done.
That's, that's what the Industrial Revolution was all about. That's what Steve mentions were all about.
It's what the car was all about. That's what all this, the car, the car unfortunately,
you know, made us have to be there to do it.
Really, why aren't we there to, why aren't we there to enjoy it and then get to where,
wherever it is we're going and enjoy that and do that?
Instead of, I mean, I just look at, I just have so much appreciation for truck drivers.
I sit there every day feeding their families on trying to keep that darn thing between two white
lines because if they don't, they're done. Man, the pressure, you know, nobody at Goldman Sachs
has that kind of pressure on that. I'd rather call them Goldman Sachs, but you know,
I'll call them Goldman Sachs for that one, whatever. I'm just jealous, that's all. Just jealous.
Alan, in the, in the latest newsletter among the links you have is one to a greater Washington
study. It's the name of it, the AVs will supercharge vehicle miles traveled. And you have some
extensive comments here. And congestion and I just, you know, it's researchers claim.
And then I saw researchers, researchers at University of Texas and I'm like, oh no, can't be
UT. What? How if we improve mobility that allows some people, because the mobility was so crummy,
they couldn't improve their quality of life by going someplace.
They couldn't improve their happiness. And all of a sudden, we make that mobility.
So reduced in its costs, generalized costs, such that they now can go places
that they haven't been able to go before and improve their quality of life and improve their
happiness. Somehow they should be blamed as the folks that cause all the problems of congestion
and increase VMT. How are they blamed for that? And not the who knows what multitude of others
who have enjoyed the advantages that they have so that they could go
and improve their quality of life and improve their happiness. How did they not, how did they get
off without, without being blamed? In some sense, they've been getting all the value of this thing
up to down. But now because somebody else gets to be able to use it too, that's been, you know,
the secretary transportation did talk about leveling the mobility playing field. He actually
said that. Listen to it. I've linked it. Whoa.
Whoa, because if you look at it, the hams and ham knots and mobility,
if you don't own a car, if you don't have a driver's license, if you don't want to drive,
if you can't, if society won't let you, if economically you can't,
you're stuck unless you live in Manhattan. Then you have a subway at least, you know,
24-7 who at least get you from a short walk to a short walk any place you need to go in Manhattan.
Outer boroughs? Not so much unless you're going to Manhattan.
You're going from, you're going from Queens to the Bronx.
Queens to Brooklyn. Forget about Staten Island. I mean, Staten Island might as well be New Jersey.
Okay. If you're in New Jersey, unless you're going to Manhattan or along the rail lines,
you're done. I mean,
you know, and all of a sudden you have a mobility system that allows you to be able to
drive. I mean, and somehow, oh my goodness, now you're the problem. Well, wait a minute.
Just, I don't know. And for researchers that take that view on this,
yipes, talk about bias. Hmm. Never mind. Well, I don't know.
And then, right after, I mean, you have a link to the Spast Company piece, which I don't,
I guess, Toad, whether or not we should even mention it. It was headlined,
uncovered records reveal the hidden costs of Waymo robotaxies on San Francisco streets.
I mean, or Waymo. I mean, really, they're going to complain about Waymo's behavior during a power
outage. Did anybody worry about anybody else's behavior? How did Mooney fare? How did all those
trolleys fare? I mean, was the cable car running? I don't know. I mean, it'd be unfair to say,
my goodness, hey, and all of a sudden, nobody's there worried about the electric company that,
I mean, all of a sudden has a power failure. And people aren't just focused on that to make
that not happen again. No, they have to focus on Waymo's extra careful to not run dark lights
in case somebody else was running a dark lights perpendicular to them, and something would go
boom. And so they were being careful. And they get, they get attacked. I mean,
I mean, really are clicks worth that much? What has happened to journalism?
What the heck has happened to journalism?
And then I found the one, the other one, the, you know, some other, I can't even,
you don't even want to report on this anymore. I think on the Texas, Texas study,
the author of the, of the, of the, of the report in one of these other publications,
if we can call on that, just said, oh, we're just going to copy this report from somebody else,
I guess from fast company or I don't know what the heck. And then down describing the author of
this thing said that this person was a, you know, really good journalist and really would have,
you copy something from somebody else and you print it and you put your name on it.
I mean, I just, I can't comment on this stuff anymore. Hey, I have no journalistic training.
I have no idea, you know, what it takes. Well, I mean, I've kind of done it for about 50 years
and journalism is not what we're seeing in very often today. It's not about
clickbait, sensationalism, et cetera. It's about finding what's real and providing information to
people that's as accurate as you can, as you can muster. I would think so. And somehow now it's,
I don't know. I'd so it, you know, for a while I was putting these letters out there every week
and I just can't, I just don't want to be sitting here complaining like I do. It just,
I just don't want to do that anymore. And I hate to include these complaints and, you know,
I went through my come on man phase. I can't even do a come on. It's not even funny anymore.
It's not even, it's just, you're really wonder. And then, and then I guess one that I might include
is that I think ITS intelligent transportation systems has put out this report of the extent
that the US and Israel controlled the traffic signals and the traffic system in Iran
that basically enabled whatever to happen over the past whatever weeks,
which I think maybe true, which is true, but I don't know if we should be proud of that.
Because if we can do it to them, they can do it to us. And if they do it to us,
then we got problems. And, and, and then of course, one of the discussions with respect to AVs is,
is, you know, that was talked about on Tuesday was, you know, we as the United States want to
develop this and want to be leaders in the world in this. And, and of course, hey,
I'm happy to hear that. And I think we should. But that also means with respect to this other
thing that's where everything that we do with this thing better be made in the US of A.
Because if it isn't, what Trojan horse is hidden in, which ones are these things?
And even, even that would not guarantee that you wouldn't be vulnerable, but at least there's a
better shot. There's a better shot. But you know, that becomes a necessary condition on this thing.
Right. So the thought of cooperating with China on this, I guess, out the window,
the thought of letting anything from China and here associated with this has to be out the window.
Can anything from Europe come in here? Can anything from Canada or Mexico?
You know, what's going on here? I mean,
so anyway, I don't know, I'll put related in the letter a little bit. But this is, to me,
this is very troubling. This is, to me, it's very troubling because, you know, it's nice that we
were able to do it so that our only casualties, our friendly fire casualties,
said, kind of says, well, how good are we if we have, but never mind, we won't go down that one.
But I don't know that that's, I haven't wrapped my own mind around that one yet.
That's too deep for me. I'm just so happy that I'm so happy for the opportunity to provide
mobility, affordable, high quality mobility to people who have struggled up to this point
to be able to get the places to improve their quality of life to me. That's
where we've been, Fred. That's where we've been for a while. That's where Elizabeth and I are.
That's what we're trying to make happen. And I think we have the opportunity to
make that happen and recognize that nothing is perfect. And so there's going to be some
downsides on that. But to me, if you want to know what scares me is the capabilities we apparently
demonstrated and ran all of a sudden being demonstrated on us. Whoa. But whatever.
Notive caution for sure. Yeah, I guess. Can we, can we end up on an upside or something,
Fred, or something like that? That's a really bad one. I don't want to end like that.
We can end this way. It would seem that providing mobility to those who need it,
the doors have been opened a little bit wider this week to allow that to happen.
I'd say not a little bit, a lot, a lot, a lot. And I think it matters that the
USDOT wants the lead and it matters that the USDOT wants the lead,
so that it's across all 50 states, not just in Texas and not just in Georgia and not just in
Nevada and Arizona and some parts of California, but it can come to New Jersey too.
That's a great note to end on. Why not? Anyway, and also please listen,
Catherine Freund is just fantastic. I mean, forget my piece. Catherine Freund's on that
piece with the AARP podcast. AARP was just fantastic. Yeah, well, I don't know, but she's
fantastic and it's so substantive what she's doing. Right. Well, that does wrap up this edition.
You can find the newsletter and more at SmartDrivingCar.com. My tech reports are at
Textination.com. Thank you all again for taking the time to watch or listen,
stay safe, and enjoy the beach, Alan. This is real. And you know, the clouds,
we've had marvellous. It's better in Jersey. I shouldn't say better in Jersey. Jersey's great.
0:00
47:26