Autonomous vehicles are vehicles that can drive themselves. Instead of a person doing all the driving, the car uses sensors and computer systems to handle steering and speed.
Company
NITSA
This is the U.S. government agency that helps set rules for vehicle safety. The transcript spells it “NITSA,” but it likely means the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
“Jurisdiction” means who gets to make the rules. The host is saying the federal government would set more of the rules for driverless vehicles, while states still handle some parts like testing.
Concept
tests can be done
The host is talking about how laws affect whether companies can run real-world trials of self-driving vehicles. Those trials are needed to see how the technology behaves around real traffic.
“Driverless mode” means the car is doing the driving on its own. The host is saying some laws would still require a person to sit in the driver’s seat even if the car can drive itself.
This is a U.S. law from 1966 that created the Department of Transportation (DOT). DOT is one of the main federal groups that helps set transportation rules, which affects how self-driving vehicles can be tested and regulated.
NHTSA is a U.S. government agency focused on vehicle safety. When people talk about self-driving cars, NHTSA is important because it helps set safety rules for vehicles.
The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are the U.S. safety rules that vehicles must meet to be sold and operated on public roads. The host is pointing out that these standards—written decades ago—can be a major hurdle for getting driverless vehicles tested and approved.
Automated vehicles are vehicles that can drive themselves or handle driving tasks with technology. The speaker is arguing they need special rules and oversight, not just the same approach used for normal cars.
DOT is the U.S. Department of Transportation. It’s the federal agency that helps set transportation rules and priorities, including things related to roads and new mobility technologies.
FHWA is a U.S. government agency that focuses on highways and road infrastructure. The speaker is saying the U.S. already has different groups for different transportation areas.
Vision Zero is a safety plan that tries to reduce and ultimately eliminate serious crashes and deaths on roads. Instead of accepting crashes as normal, it focuses on making roads safer and changing how traffic is managed.
That phrase is about crash testing for low-speed bumps. Regulators use a specific speed (like 5 mph) to check whether the bumper and front/rear structures can reduce damage and protect people in small crashes.
This is about safety features that can step in when a crash seems likely. They can automatically brake (or take other actions) to help avoid the collision or make it less severe.
Waymo is a company that builds self-driving cars. The host is saying they generally work well, but they can still get stuck in tough situations like heavy flooding.
Tesla is a car company that also makes self-driving-related technology. In this discussion, it’s being used as an example that these systems can work, but they’re not perfect in every situation.
Autonomous cars use sensors to “see” the world. Radar and laser sensors measure how far away things are and where they are, so the car can tell if another vehicle or person is coming. This is especially important at intersections.
Autonomous technology means the car can drive itself using sensors and software. The point here is that it could help someone get around more independently, even with major vision problems. Instead of relying on a person to drive, the car handles more of the driving work.
Google is referenced here as the company behind the founders who commissioned a short film about autonomous technology. In the context of driverless mobility, it signals the involvement of major tech players in autonomy research and public demonstrations. The segment uses Google’s interest to connect autonomy to real-life accessibility outcomes.
Steve Mann is described as a graphic designer who lost most of his eyesight due to macular degeneration. In the segment, he’s used as a real-world example of how autonomous or assistive technologies could restore independence and productivity. The story emphasizes how long and difficult commuting became without reliable mobility support.
This is the technology that helps a car drive on its own. It uses cameras and sensors plus computer software to understand the road and make driving decisions.
A self-driving car is a car that can do the driving tasks by itself. Instead of a person constantly steering and braking, the car’s computer handles it.
Connected technologies are systems that let vehicles and infrastructure share information, such as traffic conditions, hazards, or routing data. This can improve safety and efficiency by reducing uncertainty and helping vehicles coordinate with the broader transportation environment.
Large language models are AI tools trained on lots of text so they can understand and respond to language. In this talk, they’re being considered as part of the AI that helps systems make sense of information.
EV tolls are toll rules or pricing systems that are set up with electric vehicles in mind. The goal is usually to encourage EV use and manage traffic more effectively.
Spatial technology is tech that helps systems understand where things are in the real world. For self-driving and mobility, it helps the system know its location and plan routes.
Pete Simmshauser is a government official from the U.S. safety agency for vehicles. In this episode, he’s talking about how driverless technology should be handled to keep people safe.
AV technology is the hardware and software that helps a car drive itself. The speaker is saying regulators want to make sure it’s safe before it’s widely used.
“Public trust” means people need to believe driverless tech is safe. The speaker says that comes from sharing proof and results, not just testing in controlled settings.
Rideshare is when people book trips through an app and share vehicles with others or use a service for point-to-point rides. The speaker is saying it’s a practical place to test driverless safety in real life.
Shared mobility means transportation services that multiple people use—like car services or transit options. The speaker is arguing it’s an important real-world setting to test self-driving tech safely.
This means testing in places where you can control conditions, but still simulate important safety situations. The goal is to learn safely before expanding to everyday use.
Transportation digital infrastructure is the “digital backbone” for moving people and vehicles—data, connectivity, and systems that help everything coordinate. The speaker says it’s how driverless tech can be deployed more safely and consistently.
Gemini is an AI tool (a type of computer program) that can read lots of text quickly. Here, it’s being used to summarize what people said about transportation plans.
Concept
procurement to obligation
This phrase is about how long it takes for government projects to move from planning and buying steps to actually committing money. The speaker says they’re trying to speed that up.
A digital corridor is a stretch of route where vehicles and infrastructure can communicate through reliable data connections. The speaker says they’re starting with roads and rail first.
PNT is short for position, navigation, and timing. It’s the tech that helps systems know their location, choose directions, and stay synchronized—important for safe autonomous operations.
Redundant GPS means using more than one way to get location data. If one GPS signal is weak or wrong, the system can fall back to another so it stays accurate.
A driverless car is a car that can drive itself. Instead of paying a person to drive, the system handles driving, which can change how much rides cost.
Productivity here means how much work the vehicle can do each day. If it doesn’t need a human driver, it can spend more time actually doing rides instead of waiting.
This is the money you pay a person to drive the vehicle. The host’s point is that if you don’t need a driver, rides could get cheaper—unless the technology costs end up being too high.
This means the service can add or shift vehicles when more people want rides, and pull back when fewer people do. The idea is that a computer can adjust faster than relying on human drivers.
LIVE
Welcome back to the Smart Driving Cars podcast. Thank you 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. Good morning this first day of June. We're into June of
2026. My goodness, six months. Summer is near. And the weather's nice, right? Finally. And with us
once again from Sweden, the co-author of the Real Case for Driverless Mobility Consultant
and Publisher of Mobility Industry Insights, Michael Senna. Hi Michael. Hi Fred. Hi Alan.
Great to be with you again. Has the snow melted yet? The snow is, it's almost melted. The glaciers
are still in the process of flowing into the rivers. I don't know if anybody saw the video from
the top of Mount Washington, I guess on Friday. Top of Mount Washington got like six inches of
snow on Friday or Saturday. That's what Mount Washington is there for. I guess that's what
it's there for, yes. Well Michael, in the June edition of Mobility Industry Insights, the focus
is on enabling driverless mobility to work for riders, requires the right laws for the right
reasons. You say driverless vehicle making is missing the objective function and therefore the
point. So give us the overview. Well, the overview is simple. There's been a spate of
proposals for new laws and all of them are focused on what the technology, what driverless technology
is going to do. The main reason for, it seems the main reason for most of these laws and there
were two proposed, one is called Stay in Your Lane. We love the names of these, Stay in Your Lane Act,
Self-Drive Act are the two main proposals and then there's the 2026 surface transportation
reauthorization bill that's coming up and they're all focused on technology. But the more we think
about it, the more we understand that the reason for this, the reason that they are technology-oriented
is because the organizations that are proposing them, whether they're at the state level or at
the federal level, they're not in the mobility business. Even though the Department of Transportation
says our dream is more, the golden age of transportation is now begun. Happily thinking
means that it's going to be a period where things will be better rather than gilded.
The Department of Transportation is in charge of ensuring that there are roads and bridges
and the avenues on which cars and trucks and buses and trains and airplanes can travel because
they take the full range. NHTSA National is in charge of safety. They're not
in the business of providing mobility. They're not in the bus business. They're not in the taxi
business. They're not in the driverless or otherwise business. They're in the business of safety.
So the laws that are being proposed and the suggestions for how to improve transportation
are primarily related to safety because there isn't anyone who's in the business of providing
mobility that's affordable or mobility that's meeting certain needs of individuals.
So what I've tried to do in this June issue of mobility industry insights
is to explain what the laws are, what the proposals are, and then to try to move from
that position to the position where we might be getting more transportation for more people,
but that's going to take a different level of
legislation. In fact, it's going to take another department within the Department of
Transportation if this is going to make any difference in the near term.
And organ a group within the government at the federal level, which has responsibility
for how people move, not just on what they move or in what they move. And that's what
this issue is focusing on. And thus far, most of the action has taken place at the state level
when it comes to permitting many of these technologies to be used on the roads.
And that's not what we're seeking here, I suppose.
No. The states decided to play in the federal sandbox because Department of Transportation
and NITSA were not doing their job. They were not doing the kinds of things that were necessary
to allow the Waymos and the other companies to be able to test their vehicles without having
special laws to decide what they wouldn't be able to do. There was enough pressure on the part of
California to require them to do something. And what they did was to establish certain
regulations that applied in certain locations, like initially San Francisco and then extended
throughout the state. So the Division of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Transportation
in California took the matters of their own hands. What the legislation that's now being proposed
is principally intended to do is to get the states out of the legislation business
and into deciding how cars and trucks and pedestrians move on their streets.
But to put driverless vehicles, they continue to call it autonomous vehicles, but put driverless
vehicles under the jurisdiction of the federal government, primarily NITSA. And that's what
these three regulations that are in process and other regulations are intended to do.
Now the states continue to try to do what the federal government hasn't done so that tests
can be done. But unfortunately, we have situations like, for example, in New Jersey with proposed
legislation that would do similar things as was being done in California with one major
difference, the proposed legislation in New Jersey says you can't have driverless cars,
you'd have to have somebody behind the wheel, and we're doing that already. And we have cars that
could be driven in driverless mode, but we're providing rides and we're doing that as part of
a test of the concept of delivering affordable rides to a large number of people within communities.
And I think we can talk a bit more about that. It sounds to me, based on what I've
listened to, the conference that just took place in Boca Raton, and also some other things that
I've been hearing, people are beginning to finally understand that it's not the technology
that's important, it's what the technology is supposed to be doing. The technology is supposed
to be delivering rides for people who can't drive their own cars for whatever reason. They
aren't able to afford to have their own cars, they can't drive their own cars. And that's what
our primary message is. The main purpose for driverless cars is to be able to deliver affordable
rides to people who need to go to the same places that people go with cars, but don't have the
possibility of using cars. And lawmakers at the different levels have primarily, I think,
focused to this point on the safety aspects of this, not on giving rides. Is that a fair assessment?
Well, they've focused on the safety aspects of it because it's the only thing that they can
control. There isn't anyone at a legislative level, whether it's at a state level or at a
federal level, there's no one who's in the business of providing real mobility. The states,
even though there are city or regional transport authorities that have been set up after 1950s,
1960s, everybody went out of business, the government's got into the business of running
trains and running buses. They haven't gotten into the business of running taxis, although there are
there are kind of metropolitan vans that deliver rides, and there are contracts for providing
rides to people with taxis and transport network companies. But there needs to be another focus
on the part of the governments, both at the state level and at the federal level, but it has to
come from the federal level. It has to be nationalized because this is like commercial
operations. People don't just drive around in the city, they don't just drive around in the state,
they go between states, they travel between states. I mean, there are cities like in
St. Paul and Twin Cities, Minneapolis, where people do travel back and forth between two
different jurisdictions, like Kansas, between Missouri and Kansas. But even so, it's normal
that most people, we drive our cars and we see that most people around us are in the same state,
they have the same license plate, but then suddenly cross the border and you think, well,
we're all those cars that were in New York, and am I the only one driving into Pennsylvania
from New York? But as you drive further, you find that there are lots of people who come from New
Jersey and Florida and even other countries like Canada. So it has to be at a federal level,
we can't have 50 different jurisdictions, and this is the kind of thing that's happening in
Europe, because with type approval, the process occurs in one country, and then the laws are
incorporated into the legislations in each of the countries automatically. And somebody doesn't
say, well, I don't want to have that. Once it's type approved, it's incorporated into the laws of
all of the countries. Well, the opportunity has to be for it to be across Europe and across the
United States. These vehicles mobility is an interstate commerce type of thing. It's not
allowed across state lines. It's the same thing that's happened with respect to trucking.
There is an 80,000 pound limit or whatever it happens to be with respect to trucks,
and you can't have a state saying, oh, no, you can only have 60,000 pounds in our state because
it's part of interstate commerce. And so these regulations, either in terms of the implications
on the pavement or the implications on safety, need to be set up and overarched on a national
basis. The whole question with respect to the safety, safety is, I guess, and that is why we
have public oversight on things. Is it anything different than when electricity was just coming
on to the market, whether it be AC or DC, there was a safety aspect of it. And so I guess you have
the United Laboratories or somebody else who's put out there all the safety aspects to make sure
that people don't electrocute themselves on this new fangled technology that all of a sudden gives
you light. Instead of burning your house down with oil or whatever or killing all the whales or
however else you were going to generate light at night, one now has this new gizmo, the electricity
to generate that. And so we've been through this. We've been through the beginning of it. We went
through the build up in the problems with respect to safety. I think where I see us today is that
the safety question is becoming moot because the data that's coming out, at least the current
data of those who are doing it well is absolutely
phenomenal with respect to safety. And the unsafe elements of this, everybody is realizing
is the human in the loop in this driving business. Anybody, I mean, riding around on the freeways
in Florida yesterday, I mean, I thought people were crazy here in New Jersey. I mean, it's just like
it's nuts on 95. Okay. And the problem is the human in the loop. And I think the whole
discourse is about to change. And it would be nice if the insurance entities of this
country instead of just totally focusing on becoming rich and making money
would all of a sudden say, oh my goodness, insurance rates, it costs you more if you're
going to drive because you're less safe. Okay. And we'll have to pick up less. Now, of course,
there's, you know, there are all the ambulance chasers out there. I guess I won't be popular
among them. They happen to be all the legislators that end up writing the laws, whatever. I mean,
it seems like there's might be a little bit of a conflict of interest and all that stuff. But my
goodness, look at any of the current data and these things, my own personal experience,
I can't drive that well. I've never been able to drive that well. I've never been that courteous.
I've never been that nice on the road. Everything that we're doing right now
is based on laws that were established in the 1960s and 1970.
The Department of Transportation Act of 1966 established the DOT. And someone by the name of
Najib Halabi, who was at the time the chief federal aviation, head of the chief of the
federal aviation agency, said to President Johnson at the time, we need to have an organization
that's in charge of all of transportation. And Johnson took him at his word and they combined
the commerce and FAA and they created the Department of Transportation. That was in 1966.
Four years later, under President Nixon, NHTSA was established. And NHTSA was established
with three different organizations. The Highway Safety Act put together the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and they had three different organizations that were part
organized, one bureau, two agencies that were formed into the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration. It's the Transportation Safety Administration. They didn't establish the
National Highway or the National Mobility Association and they didn't establish the
Department of Mobility for people. It's the Department of Transportation and you look at
the missions of each one of these organizations. Even though they say we want to provide, in the
case of DOT, we want to provide a good transportation options for all of our citizens.
They don't establish anything. They don't build international railroads. They build roads,
they provide funding for it, they provide funding to build the railroads. But it's not their job to
see that everybody gets to work on time. That's not what they do or that they get to the hospital.
You know, that's up to the businesses that are operating. But in order for the businesses
to be able to do what they need to be doing, there needs to be legislation in place.
And that's been the biggest problem that we've had with getting
testing done for driverless vehicles because it's the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
which are in charge of ensuring that the vehicles that are on the road are safe to be operated.
It's not the states who do that. The states are in charge of having the roads with proper signage,
with proper speed limits, ensuring that the roads are not filled with debris and that people
are able to drive on the roads properly. But it's the vehicles are the responsibility of
the federal government. And these two things don't necessarily work in concert and they haven't been.
So now the federal government is saying, well, we really do want to get control over this.
But they're doing it with the only tools that they have and the only tool they have is safety.
It's both for the Federal Vehicle Motor Vehicle Standards and for other aspects of what these
organizations are doing. There has to be another approach to this. There has to be a better way
of providing financing encouragement for the development of business cases for mobility.
And that doesn't exist. Well, I agree with you on all that. I guess it must be,
it's got to be 15 years ago or at least, if not before a conference similar to the one that
just occurred at Boca about all this. And I actually raised my hand and said, we need a new
administration in DOT. We have one for cars, FHWA, we have one for pipelines, we have one for airplanes,
the DA maestro, we need one for automated vehicles. And in fact, it probably needs it.
And that should also have not only safety as its objective. If your objective is safety,
and especially if you have a vision zero, you know how to reach vision zero, don't move. Stay home.
That was the proposal. Okay, that's how you reach vision zero. That's almost ludicrous.
One of the professors in Sweden, when I first started working in the
Volvo, someone said, have you read this guy's reports? He's saying that we can reduce deaths
on the highways in Sweden if everybody stops driving. So, well, that's novel. That's interesting.
Oh my goodness. I mean, stay home. Okay, but I like to say, if I stay home, my house burns down,
I die in the house fire, I died anyway. I mean, what the hell? Thank you for, you shouldn't get
any great credit for vision zero. You caused me to be home and when my house burned down,
but whatever, that's almost, it is so silly. It's unbelievable. Okay.
But by the way, don't mix vision zero with what I said, because there's another suite
who was worked for the Swedish National Road Administration who had came up with the concept
of vision zero and ways to get the number of deaths and accidents on roadways down.
And his work, his name escapes me for the moment. And his work
put the number of deaths on roads from somewhere like 5,000 to 250. So, that's his vision zero.
No, but that's not it. That's a vision down. That's not a vision. That's not zero. I mean,
the number of regulations Nitz has tried to put out there over the years with respect to
bumper crash worthiness of five mile an hour bumpers and a whole bunch of other stuff out
there that was supposed to stop cars from crashing. And then the 12 mile an hour or whatever
automated emergency stuff that the IIHS did videos on that was just, there was only one system
of work. I think it was only Subaru's and everybody else's. And now, I guess in 2029,
the existing legislation is in 2029, we're all finally going to have technology in our vehicles
that are not going to, that are going to avoid crashes as long as you're going under whatever
12 miles an hour and actually do avoid crashes, apparently, whatever the regulations are.
Well, at least some of the situations that exist today, at least, I guess, with Waymo
and with Tesla is that, boy, those darn things do work. And even though, maybe Waymo's unfortunately
tried to go across a road that was under flooding conditions and got stuck and so on,
do you know how many other people who were driving themselves probably got themselves stuck in
equally bad situations. And so that's some bad, unfortunate press, but that's all fixable by them.
Those things, my goodness, they are the data coming out is just so overwhelmingly
safer, I'll claim that you've both alluded to it. This this conference that took place in
Boca, Guided in the Jacksonville Transportation Authority, they had their fifth annual autonomous
vehicle conference just a few days ago. Alan, you are a participant and so was the Assistant
Secretary of Transportation for Research and Technology at the DOT, Seval Oz. I think maybe
we can take a little look at at some of what she had to say. She started out with a video that she'd
been involved with 15 years ago when she worked for Google.
So we're here at the stop sign. The car's using radars and lasers to check and make
sure there's nothing coming either way. Old habits die hard, man. They don't die.
Hey, anybody up for a taco? Yeah, yeah. What do you want to do today, Steve? I'm all for
a taco, myself. All right, well, let's go get a taco at the drive-thru.
And we're turning into the parking lot. Howdy. There we go. Kind of creep along here. Does anybody
have any money? I've got money. No, I've got my wallet right here. You roll down your window
in order for you to put that. I'm doing very well. How are you today?
This is some of the best driving I've ever done.
95% of my vision is gone. I'm well past living blind.
You lose your timing in life. Everything takes you much longer. There are some places that
you cannot go. There are some things that you really cannot do.
Where this would change my life is to give me the independence and the flexibility to go
the places I both want to go and need to go when I need to do those things.
You guys get out. I've got places that I have to go. It's been nice.
Thank you all. I don't know if I'm talking from this mic or this mic, but if I can walk around,
it'll be better. In 2011, I made a short film. The founders of the company, Google,
wanted me to show how autonomous technology could change people's life. So I found Steve
Mann, who was formerly a graphic designer who had lost 85% of his eyesight to macular degeneration.
It took him three hours and four different modes to get to work because he wanted to still show up
and do something productive with his life. He was a director of the blind center in Silicon Valley.
We searched and found a way to bring back and restore some of his freedom, dignity,
because you can see movement is essential to life. It's one thing we take very much for granted
that if we do not move, we atrophy. If we cannot visit our loved ones, we isolate, and we eventually
lose our willingness to live. So it's critical that we start measuring up to certain technologies
that are available to change that coming forward 15 years. The true promise of autonomous vehicle
technology is being built as we speak now by most of you in this room today. I'm very excited
and privileged and honored to have been asked to speak because so much of what you're doing right
here right now is a part of what we're trying to do up in Washington. We're making transportation a
vital utility, and I believe I have a vision that soon families may even be able to subscribe to
capabilities just like they do their water, their electricity, and other types of utilities.
So it's great to be here in Boca Raton. I'm excited, and I wanted to thank our friends at
Gaiden, our friends outside, Carson, Adas Tech, Mika, Holon, Volkswagen, Moja, Beep. You all are at
the frontier of really changing the way in which we have built research and technology from the
first self-driving car in 2011 to what we have today, thousands of vehicles ready to deploy
and already in use. We are at a major historic turning point. You all will look back on this as
I look back at my career in 2010 and first started on the self-driving car team when we were 14
engineers and people coming out of the DARPA Urban Challenge programs. It's time to transform
and transmit technology in transportation science. For decades, we solve problems in Washington by
pouring concrete. Today, we must do more. We must digitalize and modernize the movement of goods,
people, and services. And for that, we need data, right? I think many of the folks in my team hear
me saying, in God we trust, everyone else, bring data. We must use artificial intelligence. We must
use these connected technologies and embed large language models into recognizing patterns, recognizing
learnings across all platforms and release these new platforms for movement. Not just in vehicular
side, but we have EV tolls, we have drones, we have a whole new array of spatial technology
that's hitting the curb as well. Our goal is clear. We are here to connect all modes of
transportation to improve safety, eradicate congestion, optimize the flow of freight.
And that is how we lower prices at the store, basically. This is how we give our families
back the time they need and be clever about the way in which we move across the country.
We have a bold mission at the U.S. DOT to prioritize the safe scaling of autonomous vehicles.
You'll hear from our NHTSA deputy, Pete Simmshauser, who's here today, who will be speaking as well to
you all. Safety is our North Star as we integrate this AV technology responsibility, but innovation
gets us there. That is what brings us into that new safety envelope space. So safety always,
innovation every day. The days of building research in sandboxes are over. We must build
the public trust now through transporting safety data, and we know exactly where to start. We start
with rideshare. We start with public transportation. Public transit and shared mobility are the
bedrock of community movement. By mastering safe autonomy in these areas, we prove the technology
in controlled, high-impact environments. And from there, we take our learnings and we scale
across the nation. Maybe we drive differently around these vehicles because computers drive
differently than humans. Those are things we need to learn, study, and prepare for. So deployment
is the way we get those shared learnings. How do we unlock the future? Well, through our transportation
digital infrastructure effort, TDI. That is something we put out in RFI a few months ago.
We received roughly 200 comments and 3,000-plus pages, and we combed those pages. We used our
friend Gemini and other, you know, other fun sort of large language models to understand what you
all were interested in and what your consensus was on transportation digital infrastructure.
And under the hospices of Secretary Duffy, we are moving at lightning pace. We are cutting the
red tape. Much of the procurement to obligation is going down. We're reducing those spin cycles.
We're starting with digital corridors for our surface modes. Highways, rail, transit, motor
carriers, all moving to connectivity and ports, maritime and other geospatial forms of modes.
We hope to seamlessly connect these, but we will not stop at ground transportation.
We are expanding this digital network into the air, working on important national security elements
such as complimentary PNT, which is very important for position navigation and timing.
At high precision, we're looking at redundant GPS. We're looking at things and researching,
tying in under a unified DOT approach, which includes federal aviation.
And eventually, we will expand into space commerce. This is the future of American logistics.
This is unequivocally America first, and I would not bet against America.
So to build this, we demand results. So there's no more research to nowhere.
We're actually needing now scalable, accessible deployment options to adopt and accelerate
the speed of AV modality. We are embedding applied research into our own use cases and asking
for funds to be used for strategic, national strategic transportation
deployment science. This vision requires a very strong persuasive leadership,
but also engagement. Events like today matter. We must slow down to thank our public sector
pioneer partners. So thank you to the Jacksonville Transportation Authority. You are a truly
exemplar of the innovation we are seeing today. You are building the operational infrastructure
we need. You are proving that public agencies can lead the tech revolution, like we work with
partners to build critical infrastructure. Thank you to Florida State College at Jacksonville.
And Dean Brower is here today. We salute your work. And as you develop your workforce capabilities
now and start thinking about curriculum and transportation science and undergraduate programs,
that's something we care about. We would like to support and it's newly an agenda on our
workforce environment. So Jacksonville is building the digital future right now.
Look at what your local government is achieving. And we have many and many other programs like
this, but in Boca Raton what we are seeing today is an incredible example of what the
innovation campus of the future looks like. You have it here today, everything from the origins
of the IBM PC laptop. And if you all haven't taken a chance, please go out and step on the
life size or actually larger than life size concrete keyboard. The autonomous innovation
center has a centralized operations hub, which is also very critical that we understand transportation
operations traffic management system. It manages autonomous fleet safely. It uses a human in the
loop model to ensure strict safety oversight. It should scale and will probably hopefully scale
with the help of our friends in D.C. to the entire United States.
So I think bringing jobs home because of our clear regulatory vision and infrastructure
investments, we are seeking manufacturers to Florida. This means buy America compliant vehicles.
This means reshoring, retooling of some of the software as well as hardware technology
that was built in this country years ago. We have to think about how we're going to
restore and reshape some of that. And this eventually leads to American jobs. You increase
the size of the pie. You don't necessarily work on how you're going to divide it up.
In order to launch the what I call A squared E, affordable autonomy economy, the Office of
Research and Technology at the U.S. Department of Transportation is funding a lot of the digital
transformation we're looking at. We are deploying smart grants to communities that prove they can
deliver. We are funding university transportation centers. We're investing heavily in digital
connected transportation. And we are building, rebuilding our research portals for accessibility
of that data, shareability of that data and platforms as we move towards more friendly
interfaces and shared content. Long-haul autonomous trucking are safely, trucks are safely now
operating across the Dallas Houston corridor. They're expanding into west to El Paso and they're
expanding east into Jacksonville. One of the problems we dealt with this year was what we
called cargo theft and cabotage. The secretary leaned in on this and we are announcing every
day more and more outcomes of how we're shutting down non-domicile commercial drivers, which single
handedly was on the road to reducing our spot freight prices and really hurting our trucking
industry. Throughout my career, I work to bring people together around a common mission. A big
part of leadership is finding a way to collaborate on something that's more important than you are
individually. A collective mission. And earlier this year, as I said, we launched the RFI for
Transportation Digital Infrastructure. And I'm very happy to announce that our digital corridors,
as we call them, which run across north, south, east, west, and the United States,
are coming to life as eight state DOTs under the leadership of Georgia DOT, Russ McMurray,
who's head of AASHTO, volunteered to become anchor tenants for the national interstates
in the United States. I call them my constitutional congress or my final four basketball teams.
We would like to think about embedding education, university transportation centers,
and to maybe adopt a highway. But right now, we are not looking to boil the ocean. Instead,
we are building competitive regional clusters across the interstates in the United States,
working to build up the back end, to bring up the back end of a common data exchange,
so that we can share interoperably as we go from state to state. So that will lead hopefully to
a safety envelope, which is proven, and enabling our regulatory environment really to do what they
need to do on the national framework for regulatory rulemaking. So we're working in
collaboration with our state DOT CEOs, with our industry partners, and with mobile network
operating providers to really try to approach standards. We don't want to write the standards,
we don't want to be the landlord of software in this country, but we do need to create that
kind of federated back end common exchange data governance for this effort. And this will eventually
to interoperability, and that will push forward on scaling the adoption across U.S. highways.
Our first use cases are construction zones, lane closures, truck parking, and emergency services.
But as we phase in other requirements and other modal activities such as rail freight, port,
this mission becomes the new network of modern digital activity and safety. So as we approach
the golden age of transportation, and I like to say this is our declaration of innovation,
the golden age shines in the eyes of our students. It vibrates when you ride in a publicly funded
AV shuttle in our nation's capital, and we are celebrating innovation this year at our 250th
year anniversary. It's also the 70th year anniversary for federal highways, and along those lines we
hope to share the podium with our federal highway administrator, Shaw McMaster on June 9th in
Detroit for some interesting announcements we hope will hit the mark and stride.
So earlier this year I visited Mount Vernon with Secretary Duffy and the leadership team,
and someone asked how would George Washington have handled decision making at this very important,
but a little bit unsettling moment in time. I thought for a while and I responded by thanking
leadership and my colleagues for never doubting that a small group of thoughtful and committed
citizens like you here today can change the world. It is actually the only thing that ever does.
Today I'm joined by my family, my friends, the Kazaminis who've spent their years in this country
developing technology, computer technology, so we can have a better life. I'm joined by my daughter
who graduated last week from Johns Hopkins in music and brain science. In the past we had silos,
we had silos of degrees, we had silos of thinking. Today's youth can intersect at two completely
different capabilities and bring those together and really improve something we don't even know about,
perhaps music's healing of the brain. So the same way that we need to break out of those silos
and academia, we need to break out of them right now as we speak in terms of innovation and technology.
So be bold, honor our legacy of independence, innovation, entrepreneurship. We have a monumental
mission ahead of us, but we will get it done. So God bless you all and thank you for the opportunity
to serve. Thank you.
Alan, you were there for this, so tell us how you received it and others did as well,
because she's talking about some of the things that we've been talking about for a long time here.
Well, the way I came out of it was with two things. One, powerful, and two is I think I said in the
beginning of my comments is I don't think I have heard from an official, high official,
at DOT ever a vision for the value propositions of this form of mobility that's been expressed
any more, any better than, than, than what she was. I was, I just thought it was powerful
for the reason. And the important thing is, is that I think she believes it. I think that this is,
this is Saval and Saval's mission as the Assistant Secretary of Research and Development and Chief
Scientist. I think this is fundamental because of the video that she presented with, with Mayhem.
And that video is something that she was the Executive Director for. She created that.
She was probably the motivation. I mean, certainly she was working with her Google and they decided
yes, I'm going to do and we're going to, you know, that's, but she picked that up and did it 15 years
ago. She believes that the mobility piece, having, having Steve be able to go get his laundry,
go get a, a hamburger or whatever he got, have the mobility, get your hair done, get to work on
time. The real value propositions associated with mobility of people for which the current systems,
the current array of technology is available as, has completely left those folks behind.
And as Michael and I, you know, pointed out, ad nauseam almost, the end of the sixth summit and,
and in the first book and continue here, that in fact, if you look at the
1.1 billion person trip demand that exists today and will exist tomorrow and existed yesterday and,
and you know, and at least whatever in the United States, there are about a 100000000 at
least a 100000000 of that demand of where mobility would have led to value increase
improvement of quality of life of individuals. There's at least a 100000000 of those things
that didn't take place yesterday, aren't taking place today, won't take place tomorrow, won't take
place the next day. Why? Because for them, their only way to achieve that is to walk
or whatever other modes might be available to them, doesn't do it for them. And here we have this
now new thing, this thing that all of a sudden might allow them to improve their
lives. Why? Because it's demand responsive, higher quality will, will do what they need to have done
for them, their need, not what me as an operator, hey, this is what I have to do and create it and
take it or leave it. That's the value proposition. That's, that's what's so powerful about what,
not only what Seval said, but the technology is its flexibility to be able to do, to give the
person who says, this, this is what I want to do to improve my life. And my goodness, if it is,
there should be an entity at least in Washington, if not in every state, but let's coalesce in
Washington that says, go for it, make it happen. This is all positive, plus it's safer. Cut it out.
And in your panel, you pointed out that as far as the riders are concerned,
the people who need to get from here to there, the technology isn't relevant. They don't,
they don't even care. They just need to care. They don't care, they care
whether it's being done with, you know, whatever, whatever, whatever, you know, no, it's, it's,
it's having, having an, in fact, if you're really worried, affordability is a key. And,
and one of the things that Seval, Seval pushed on the affordability piece, the affordability,
and it's not affordability after you have that sugar daddy or the government or somebody else
pick up the tab, it's that the fundamental asset, this thing costs a good sold ends up being
affordable. Why? Because whatever it's taken to put that on, and you divide it by the number of
users to do, so for me as an individual, it's easy. Ellen, Ellen. Yeah. The reason it's affordable.
Yeah. I've, I've, I've spent many little tests talking with people about this concept. And I
have a driverless car, and here you have a car with a driver. Why is this option better?
And the answer is always, oh, maybe it's because it's safer because you don't have people driving
drunk or whatever. But what's the effect of having a driverless car on the per, and most
people say, oh, well, somebody's going to lose their job. And then I say, if you take the, this,
these two cars, the difference between the car without a driver and the car with a driver,
the biggest difference between these two, assuming that both of them meet the requirements
of being on the road, is that the car without the driver doesn't have the cost of the driver.
Now you said productivity, but productivity is this car is out there 100% of the time
taking away the times that it has to be charged without the cost of the driver. In any drive that
you take in a taxi or a bus, 60% of the cost of that is the cost of the driver. If you take the
cost of the driver out of the equation, you have a much less expensive ride as long as you don't
have to put in the equivalent in the cost of technology, operations of this
driverless vehicle. If you assume that you've got the same car doing exactly the same kinds of things
at the same level of safety, the difference between the two is the cost of the driver and the
allowance of having that driver gives you the productivity of that vehicle. It's essential.
That's only part of the answer, Michael. The other part of the answer that we are finding,
and you're experiencing, and we are finding, and I really don't want to say it because it's not a
pretty thing to say, is that the ability to respond to changing demand, because things change.
Yeah, yeah. The thing where that's the machine that's responding versus the person
is so much easier with a machine than it is with the average person. I don't want to suggest that
the really good person can't outperform a machine. Absolutely. The question is,
most of the time, just some of the time, and it's tough. It is hard to outperform a machine.
Beautiful. In Boca Raton. Nobody appreciates that. In Boca Raton. Who was talking about that?
Nobody, me. I was the only one, I think. Nobody talked about mobility. the
people. Everybody in the audience, people working for needs up, people working for DOTs, state DOTs,
federal DOTs, everybody. They're all in another business. They're in the business of a transit
agency who should take very good care of their workers. They should be good to their workers.
And then make it so that their life is good, their life gets it done, and then see whether or not
anybody cares to take their service. And it's time to change the laws again.
Yeah. On that topic, Michael, why don't we bring it back to you to wrap things up
in terms of what you're suggesting in the mobility industry insights?
What I'm suggesting in the mobility industry insights is that we need to bring us back down
to 1965, 1966, when people with vision said we need a Department of Transportation.
Back in 1970, when people said we need an organization that's responsible for ensuring
that the cars and trucks and other vehicles that are on our roads are safe, which is when
the needs that was established, we need to have a look at providing the incentives from the federal
government to the states and to businesses for providing affordable mobility for everyone.
That doesn't exist today. The organizations that do exist are focused on safety. They're
focused on the technology, but they're not focusing on what that technology is supposed
to be doing. It's supposed to be helping people get to where they need to go safely and affordably.
Those two things go together. So it's time to take someone to stand up within the government
and say, we've done a lot so far for safety, and we have the number of deaths on the roads
compared to the vehicle miles driven is extremely low compared to countries in Africa and countries
in Latin America where the numbers of people that are dying proportionately to the number of cars
is incredibly higher than we have here in both Europe and in the United States.
So it's time for someone to stand up within the government and say, we need to establish
an organization not to promote driverless cars or what they call autonomous cars,
to promote mobility, to provide the means for putting these vehicles on the roads
to be able to achieve the goals that are rider related, not driver related or vehicle related.
Well, of course, we agree, Michael, and that was the crux of my comment
on Friday was that when our experience in giving people rides who really need a ride,
and yes, they don't care about what technology was, what they really care about it was the
mobility that they got, and they got it at a price that was acceptable to them.
And if you look at this really latent demand that exists there, it is big.
At some point there are people that can't afford anything, pay anything, so the price is not going
to be zero, we're still going to need some public spirited entities that provide subsidies to the
very poor, but to progress down the economic spectrum and to progress down the capability
spectrum, to the too young, old, to the folks who just don't want, who just can't
see well enough as Saval's video clearly shows, the amount of the value proposition, the opportunity
to, as our mission statement, to help create high quality, affordable communities and the
community spiritedness that one finds. And one of the things that happens with respect to this
kind of mobility opportunity is that the whole question about ridesharing disappears,
because in fact what you can do with the folks who really need a ride, because they tend to be
coming from the same community, they are compatible with each other, and in fact
ridesharing becomes actually a positive attribute rather than a negative attribute.
So you have all these things working together because this machine has been able to provide
the mobility to allow them to improve their lives. Sounds like the real case for driverless
mobility to me. This is I guess what Michael and I have been trying to push for all this time.
And we're not loose cannons on the ship, that in fact they're going to go mow down people and
whatever. It's a turning point. We are very close to making this happen.
Well I think that's going to be a wrap on this edition. Michael, thank you again for all of the
insights. The website for more is michaelelsenna.com. People can find the insights and lots more.
You can find more and the newsletter at smartdrivingcar.com. You can also find us these
days on the transportation channel. You want to encourage you to find us there.
They're on Fire TV, Roku, Apple TV as well. Find my tech reports at textination.com. Thanks again
for taking the time to watch or listen, and please stay safe. Thank you.
About this episode
Proposed U.S. laws for driverless mobility get a critical look: the hosts argue many bills chase technology outcomes instead of rider-focused mobility. They contrast safety-only approaches with a broader goal—demand-responsive, affordable service—while explaining why regulation is split between states and federal agencies. The discussion covers NHTSA and FMVSS, examples like New Jersey’s “somebody behind the wheel” rule, and why a national, interstate framework (with Europe-style type approval) could reduce fragmentation. They also outline DOT’s safety-first scaling plans and digital infrastructure efforts.
Driverless mobility needs the right laws for the rightreasons. That’s the focus of the latestMobility Industry Insights. Publisher,author and consultant Michael Sena joins Princeton’s Alain Kornhauser andco-host Fred Fishkin for episode 414 of Smart Driving Cars. Plus, Alain takes part in the fifth annualAutonomous Vehicle Conference in Boca Raton. And so does Assistant Transportation Secretary for Research and Technology Seval Oz. We bring you herremarks from the conference and some analysis. Tune in and subnscribe!
