Articles, Blog

Autonomous Vehicles – Safety, Law & Economics (2019)

December 14, 2019

The next speakers are Marc Hoag and Dr. Martin Adler. So I’m gonna talk a little bit about them. Pretty Impresive profile. Marc is two times tech startup, Tech founder,Tech Start Founder california-based attorney he is the
founder and the host of the autonomous car with Marc Hoag podcast I highly
recommend you to watch that or listen to it he’s the founder and the principal
partner of Hoag + Co which is a global autonomous vehicle mobility consulting
company serving from California Amsterdam and Paris he is a UCLA
graduate and where he did his BA with heavy concentration in engineering and
what I really like what I started with today is he what he says he’s very very
passionate about technology autonomous vehicle law policy and all those and
what he says is the greatest step change in humanity since the Industrial
Revolution is autonomous vehicle so that’s Marc and together with Marc we
have dr. Martin Adler who is Marc partner in pork + Co and he is an economists he
advises European Commission OACD national and municipal public bodies and
private enterprises like like Nissan and Dropbox
he holds a research position at the vu University of Amsterdam he has earned a
number of prizes for his scientific achievements including international
transport and economics Association and German form of regional sciences so he’s
also an advisory body in international advisory board of La Marina de Valencia
he works as well as a leader in the place place making Europe Network pretty
recive profile besides their amazing profile besides their amazing people I
really really admire these two gentlemen because of their passion toward
autonomous vehicle I’m really excited because we often when you talk about
specially safety we often stumble when it comes to the legal and you’re very
careful we don’t want to make a legal statement but today we have these two
gentlemen who’s gonna entertain us about this please be hand for mark and Marty
right so here we are safety law and econ fun stuff so we’ll pick it off a kind of
a really high level set of topics and what kind of drive to you know dive in
and kind of unpack things a little bit a little but we thought it’d be kind of a
neat idea right to kick things off with sort of an overview of where things are
headed because it’s not really fun to study a thing unless you know why you’re
doing that thing right so the end result is what you know what’s the end game for
autonomous cars where are we going now obviously we started with the proxy
using electric vehicles obviously Elon was kind enough to crunch the numbers
for us and if you extrapolate out you consider the total number of global
vehicles in the world the replacement rate or rather the production rate I
should say of vehicles and as a lower mathematical bound than perhaps in 25
years we could replace all vehicles with electric and again we’re using that as a
proxy for autonomous since virtually all electric cars tend to be autonomous and
vice-versa that’s obviously just a mathematical impractical lower bound but
it kind of sets the framework for at least once theoretically possible
obviously not what’s going to happen what you do end up with though is a
conservative hopeful estimate which is driven both by the further development
but indeed hopefully the helpful legal mandates throughout the world to
fast-track autonomous vehicle development and deployment so that
hopefully by the 26:20 80s now it’s kind of a pretty big Delta but hopefully by
around that time we should see the majority of human driven vehicles off
the road so that’s kind of a neat thing to look forward to it’s pretty tangible
but here the various things we want to discuss so Martin you’re going to tackle
most of the safety issues I’ll give you a background on
legal framework of things because one of the recurring questions is always what
happens if such-and-such happens you know what if somebody jumps in front of
a navy what if this happens this is not the other the trolly paradox which we’ll
discuss very briefly and that’s all and you know I just want to give you a bit
of framework to show how the existing legal structure can be applied quite
neatly to autonomous vehicles because we’re not talking about an entire new
field of law we’re basically just kind of remix a first-year law school so this
then of course is the timeline for autonomous vehicles again we’re kind of
extrapolating from everything we’ve heard here and there and nobody really
agrees with anybody on anything so kind of use their imagination and take what
you like toss that which you don’t agree with but roughly speaking this is what
we’re looking at we’re level for deployment starts to occur sometime in
the 2020s we’ll see some level 5 occurring maybe in the 2030s widespread
say by the 25th is ish Intel and others have anticipated something like a 7
trillion dollar industry for all autonomous vehicles stuff however
broadly let’s divide define and then it’s my genuine hope that indeed by the
2060s we’re gonna start to see legal mandate
which will really kind of enable autonomous vehicles to really push human
driven cars off the road once and for all yeah all right so in my capacity is
rising on traffic safety I usually rather want to you know understand the
grander scheme of things and so like we just can we avoid and I guess a lot of
you are gonna be familiar with the figures like about 1.2 million deaths
annually in the world and then you have a higher number of serious injuries 20
to 50 million and then like minor injuries are going to go into hundreds
of millions and then like property damage are going to be even higher than
that right so that’s like a ranking of practically ratios of like something
occurring and 94% of them are caused by human error it like depends on which
country you’re talking about it could be 93 to 97 I think but it doesn’t really
matter what is actually interesting pointed I don’t know most of you gonna
have seen this already right it’s practically the
of dying by a certain thing happening to you and you’re not going to be able to
read it because it’s probably very very small that I put those little arrows on
there first one it’s like heart disease cardiovascular diseases prickly kills
the majority of people eventually but actually the first unnatural cause of
death is road accidents that’s our like little error here so you can see that
practically of tying of an unnatural circumstance breaking your body not
failing the first chance of that is being removed by act by traffic so
that’s like I mean your guyses are like practically going to remove one of their
biggest causes of death there is and then I made another one which is the
second little thing and that’s the second unnatural cause of death you so
you see how far you have to go down to practically get to the second most like
the unnatural call of death so you see that traffic is not the most safest
thing to be involved in at the current state and actually if you break this
down to number then one and seventy seven people are gonna be a road
fatality when that seventy seven people right now but we’re kind of closing in
on that number so if we would reach seventy-seven people we would have one
in the exit like in the room who is going to practically eventually die it’s
statistically speaking if you talk about injuries then you’re already the 1 in 20
chance to suffer a severe life-changing injury during the traffic we’re
definitely more than 20 here so practically one of us is going to be
severely affected statistically speaking by such an occurrence right and that
kind of demonstrates very very clearly why we should consider this invite also
even remote improvements on this issue I mean like we’re always talking about
like you know removing everybody but like it just like 5% from a statistic
that I could not make is like would be beautiful I mean imagine how much five
percent of World War two for five million is you know that brings me to
another point of statistics so while back I was working together with the
OECD for the South Korean ministry or the Korean Ministry on reducing the
number of pedestrian fatalities in Korea there are one of the unsafest countries
in the OECD member countries to be walking so don’t go there and like try
to walk around that much next to the road something to do
the industrialized and empirically build roads I think this is really relevant
from the AV perspective because we’re always saying that 94% of accidents are
all caused by human error that’s very very true but not all of those people
are sitting inside a motorized vehicle and if you’re looking at statistics
nowadays you will see that up to half of the people are not sitting inside a
motorized vehicle last year was the first year where more people died on a
bicycle accident in the Netherlands then actually being in a motorized vehicle
and we’re going to see this also happening in other countries
successively right like in Germany the number of cyclists is a bit lower so
it’s not to that extreme but when you’re looking at who gets actually injured
from cars then it’s a lot of people who are practically you know secondary and
then it’s the question okay like if the car is not actually driving the bicycle
or walking you then how can you plan in for somebody to stepping out into the
car lane at school you know gone so I think that if we’re talking about and
we’re hearing this in the last five years we have hurt this incredibly often
that this ninety four percent number I don’t think that should be the target
the target should be somewhere I don’t know something realistic and we should
correctly tell ourselves that even five percent is like already an incredible
game and even so we can get closer maybe to the ninety four percent there will be
still an interaction with people which are not inside an autonomous vehicle and
from my perspective also we should always ask ourselves because there will
be regulation trying to there is already regulation trying to separate the
vehicle from from the interaction with the pedestrian but we should really
worry about ourselves if we want that and I would strongly advise against this
because this has in the past not really reduced or not really increased the
well-being of citizens and I’m saying about this because this is exactly what
the code the direction the Koreans went right so the Koreans come higher pace of
the building roads their art is going to be fine we’re just going to make a
highway and we’re gonna have this overpass and everybody’s obviously going
to use that overpass turns out that all the old people couldn’t walk the stairs
so what they’re trying they’re trying to cross a three lane highway and obviously
this gonna go really well right another point
maybe which this analysis talks about like in terms of safety regulation is
that often when the interaction takes place it has something to do with the
with the foreshadowing the consequences right so like let’s say you’re on an
intersection and one hi or like one direction of the intersection has an 80
kilometer speed limit and the other one has a 60 kilometre speed limit your
brain will see one side of the cars go and you will think that the speed limit
of the other side should be roughly the same
you will practically walk into this thinking that you can make it across
like this is actually quite the frequent occurrence actually this is one of the
main determinants or south-korean pedestrian fatalities is practically not
being able to foresee what the next likely event is if you reduce the number
of traffic accidents and therefore the the fatalities then what goes down is –
actually the cost of the accident and what that means is that it goes down the
cost of being in a car and this will be not not everybody perceives this like oh
yeah and so it like so much cheaper nowadays to go because I’m not going to
get killed but it’s practically everybody is saying like yeah now that
we have a V so now that we have a better safety feature it’s become so much safer
and that then I can send it so like it’s maybe nothing the thought of the actual
percentage or practically I don’t know the Euro amount lost but it is a higher
feeling of safety and once you feel more safe you’re gonna use that car more
that’s brings respect to an economic proposition which is called the rebound
effect which says that practically once you have a lower price you’re gonna have
an increase in demand and that increase in demand is going to put you almost
back into the original position so we’re going to reduce traffic fatalities
that’s going to make everybody sing the art is so much cheaper let’s use it
right and then practically because you use it more if you have higher risk
exposure practically bringing us driving the accident numbers up this is a study
from in France Swiss organization which were looking at
a cost of traffic in Germany okay in this per kilometer basis and then it’s
like practically motorized vehicles airplanes and then it’s like according
to the categories I know you can’t read it but this is
murder is traffic and like let’s say like that the red one is the cost which
comes through accidents so you can see that given all cost inside a kilometer
you can see that a very high sheriff that is Preta did the possibility to
being involved in an accident right so that the kilometer the average
cost-per-click of traveling kilometer would go substantially down if you could
reduce the chances of having an accident and that is also why the whu-oh in the I
want to say 2015 but maybe it’s 2016 had a report where they were calculating on
how much money is aggregate lost each year of frankly having people suffer
through accidents is about two percent so it’s it’s a huge share if you think
about it economic prickly grove is roughly around the two percent where you
see to what extent practically this influences our productivity but enough
excursion I’ll hand back to you all of what I’m talking about is from the
American point of view we are not inventing a whole new body of law we’ve
got a really great framework at least built on common law and everything else
which allows us to just adapt but we’ve got two existing scenarios and what I
mean by this is everybody says what happens if an autonomous car you’re a
person jumps in front of an autonomous car what happens in this trolley paradox
scenario what happens if somebody uses an autonomous vehicle to drive through a
crowd of pedestrians or to deliver a bomb somewhere I mean these aren’t new
questions we’ve been asking these questions since the beginning of time
the minute we had a wheel that could turn and carry something from A to B so
these aren’t new questions what is interesting and I’ll get to those
specific examples in a moment just to prove my point but to begin with what
what is really interesting though is we are gonna have some new definitions
right so liability generally and just sort of thinking out loud so one can
imagine that we’re gonna need at least four different types of well definitions
right so you’re gonna hear me throughout the course leave and they were referring
a lot to the aviation world I’m a hopeless aviation fanatic as well you
know we no longer use the terms pilot and co-pilot or even captain the first
officer rather we use the terminology the PF and the PMF so the pilot flying
and the pilot not flying and so it seems pretty logical then that when we have
as vehicles we’re gonna end up with something rather like this an owner
driver an owner non driver a non owner driver and the non owner non driver
which is of course the perfect passenger and the reason why this matters is
because well it’s it sounds silly somebody’s laughing you’re I don’t know
why but it but but but here’s why it matters right because everyone talks
about this liability question like well what happens if an autonomous car hits
somebody or something I don’t know if they’re not driving and they don’t know
in the car how can they be liable for anything I mean you’re not liable as a
passenger sitting in an airplane right so ultimately what’s gonna happen is
we’re just gonna do it we do in aviation we’re gonna go down through the entire
chain of potential liability until we find the source a great example of this
that I love and by the way as an aside this and why aviation is so incredibly
safe I’ve often said that an aircraft at cruising altitude is the safest place a
human can be in the globe on the globe above the globe whatever and this is
amazing because one of the cool metrics you’ve all heard I’m sure is even the
mean time till failure for some thing well the mean time to failure for a
twin-engine aircraft both engines failing is so vanishingly small you
can’t even get a meaningful number out of it I mean these things are
essentially for lack of a better word over engineered bits of perfection it’s
incredible nevertheless there was a British Airways crash several years ago
at Heathrow some of you might remember this the issue was that there was frozen
fuel delivery system and the question of course was well what went wrong
obviously as they should have done they first looked to the pilots there was
nothing wrong there so they went through all the various systems they even were
able to trace the fuel back not just to the airport where they filled up the
plane all the way back to the oil refinery itself that produced the fuel I
mean that’s just cool well as it turns out that wasn’t the issue there was a
mechanical failure in the plane that’s not the point what is the point is that
we can learn a lot from aviation and that’s why these definitions matter a
lot so let’s touch really briefly I’m not gonna give you a crash course in
first-year law school but look these are really basic things in everyday life
negligence intentional torts criminal acts just running through them very
quickly I’m sure there’s very familiar similar things here in Germany and
elsewhere this so for negligence you just have to show
that there was some duty that a reasonable person breached and then it
actually caused the harm there’s a cool tangential thing called the emergency
doctrine if somebody did something out of an emergency situation we say that
that was probably okay the textbook case of the passenger in a taxi pulled a gun
on the driver the driver drove the car up onto the sidewalk into a brick wall I
think may have injured a pedestrian that’s not the point the point was what
a reasonable person have done that sort of a thing would they have driven into a
wall if a gun was pointed at their head well yeah the court said that’s pretty
reasonable it’s called a panic reaction so you look at that you look at
intentional torts that somebody use an autonomous vehicle to injured somebody
or you trespassed on property that’s a fun one because it turns out at least in
American law the intentional tort of trespass doesn’t even require the
knowledge that you were entering onto somebody else’s property merely the
intent to enter unto some property generally and then that it happened to
belong to somebody else oh well too bad for you and so this raises the really
interesting question you know so you’ve got an autonomous vehicle it’s level
five what happens if it turns around on somebody else’s property well who’s
liable is if the manufacturer the vehicle isn’t the passenger who doesn’t
even know the car programed it is that the software company the camera the
light our company these are the questions to be asking not whether we
can do it but rather how to do it okay there’s the trolley can we just get this
out of the way very very quickly please this doesn’t need to keep getting
brought up we don’t need to discuss this over and over again there’s three does
anybody not know the trolley paradox okay this is annoying
but here we go okay so very very quickly the trolley paradox is something like
this you’ve got a thing a trolley get a ton of this car whatever it’s driving
along and suddenly there’s a little kid crossing the road and there’s a grandma
and a grandpa crossing the road so the car has well three options it can either
hit the little kid you can hit Grandma and Grandpa or it can drive off the
cliff to avoid killing either grandpa a little kid and kill the occupants well
so that’s the paradox right because how is it supposed to decide and here’s what
this is a completely useless discussion although an admittedly awesome one
inside of a philosophy classroom which it is keep it in the classroom because
look three things first of all has anybody ever here actually been driving
along and thought to yourself hmm should I hit the grandma or the little
kid like literally have any of you ever actually been faced with this dilemma
ever okay good number two look if any person or vehicle
artificial natural or otherwise is ever in this scenario it’s already screwed up
there is something already fundamentally broken earlier on in the development of
this system or half the person I guess um this should never even occur I get it
everyone’s thinking yeah mark but these are corner cases blah blah blah yeah but
there’s a difference between like an academic corner chance that this corner
case could exist my point is if this can’t even exist it’s just not it’s even
if it’s possible it’s so highly improbable that it distracts from more
important questions third and finally is MIT demonstrated recently with a great
study we cannot and as Martin so eloquently said on a podcast we did
together gosh almost a year ago we cannot where at least we must not
program AI into a vehicle the MIT study basically found that in the US for
example people tend to prioritize little children over grandparents I then this didn’t you have quickly
Crested yeah and that’s actually really good point that it is basically murder
so again at least in the u.s. it is not a defense it’s not you can argue that
you killed somebody because somebody pointed a gun at your head and said hey
you must kill this person or we will kill you that’s you you can’t make that
argument so in this case yeah that would literally be how many of you are in
general in favor of a V’s completely replacing human drivers one day thirty
percent I would say yeah forty-four the awesomes guessing those are in favor of
babies being mandated how many of you think that AV should will be or must be
one day mandated okay I mean this is essentially this is good fun leads to
the next question is connectivity right so again it’s a whole nother discussion
to get into over the air updates you’re all familiar with Tesla and how they do
software updates the only car company in the world that does this so and this is
a big question right because let me let’s throw out the other question that
RIT which is how many of you are in fear of over-the-air updates generally
wireless connectivity generally that’s it not much more that’s better that’s
good that’s good hmm well that’s an 80% yeah interesting is my overarching high
level of you and this is strictly opinion admittedly but I really like to
share it for those of you who have heard the podcast you frankly probably heard
this before at least speaking from the US point of view and again borrowing
from what we’ve learned from aviation we do eventually need an F a V a literally
a federal autonomous vehicle administration so internationally to
compliment the FAA the aviation administration you’ve got the ia CO and
the IATA and we need a similar thing for for babies right so so then here’s why
right so today we don’t even have such basic guidelines and standardization for
things like how to define anything the design the technology weather lidar
computer vision or what-have-you safety issues privacy issues with
respect to over-the-air updates security generally padded
boy these things that attest them traffic issues taxes issues and this
this really matters a lot because okay here’s another aviation example so when
Airbus first deployed and indeed when they were first testing their first
aircraft commercial aircraft the the Airbus a300 it was the first civil
aircraft YZ fly-by-wire which was a military technology and well nobody knew
whether it was sufficiently safe there were no guidelines it’s early today know
is where the computer vision is good enough like say lidar there’s no set
standards I mean we have standards even for things like how far your headlights
go well in the absence of standards finally the powers that be said well
look let’s just see if your airbus is at least as safe as boeing okay well that’s
certainly not a bad way to go I suppose you’ve got some status quo which is
Boeing let’s go with that but the point is we don’t have any of those and I’m
just sort of randomly tossing a bunch around for now because a lot of issues
here you can ask questions later if you like hate traffic and taxes tana miss
feature presupposes that you have three components right you’ve got autonomous
vehicles that are electric and that are shared you cannot have just two of those
three components everything will break down it’ll just fail and so then you
start asking yourself the question well how do you make this work well okay
one way is taxes I suppose have an occupancy tax don’t let autonomous cars
drive around empty right and there is precedent for this London has congestion
charges in the u.s. we have carpool lanes which require that you have at
least one or two passengers per car so there’s a lot of great precedent for all
this stuff we’re not reinventing the wheel here terrible pun but you get my
point okay Martin you should explain this
beautiful slide you chose if we go forward into this AV future or say since
we’re going forward into this a view future there’s maybe five points which
you want to discuss with you but we don’t actually have personally the
answers so those are open questions in a sense the first one is maybe the one of
the understandable ones but really really out there it’s a the use of AI in
autonomous vehicles right like I’m sure in learning whatever
and what are the implications then for that car because all of a sudden prickly
it’s not something you fully program then separately it can do anything if
you essentially if the coding is not correct and then dead in combination so
that practically introduces a one risk pool which is the question do we
actually want that or we don’t do we not want that and the second one is
associated but not fully is to what extent do we want to be since eighty
percent of you agree with over-the-air updates to what extent are we afraid
that practically cars are used at verse ly against certain people who are using
them I have a nation state or a smaller region or whatever I mean especially
since we are already in a time frame where people are using technology to
hurt other people and I put a picture of a fade of the Furious I think it’s the
only movie I know where where cars are recognized and I yes I don’t know who
ever seen the movie for me that beckons the question if it is really true that
you can actually have a steer an entire fleet then from a regulators perspective
it becomes a question if the car like right now streets a critical
infrastructure and therefore remains in the main of the state right as do water
appliances and therefore and energy and then you have special regulation once
you have a car fleet which you control as a single entity let’s say the car
manufacturer or the fleet provider or the service provider and let’s say the
transportation is one of the most crucial aspects of everybody’s life then
clearly as a government who you know that this can be influenced it becomes
critical infrastructure and then clearly there is regulation which is going to
follow it to that it’s my personal opinion I don’t know if you share this
with me once you also bundle those little cars up into a fleet which you
control then what you do is practically you pull risks right because before
everybody could do what they wanted and they had all their little risk
themselves and if you pull the risk then it becomes a question of insurance or
who’s going to pay in the end if you really mess this one up and that was a
KPMG’s study in the 2015 or something like that among insurers and which as
insurance providers to what extent they feel felt prepare for abs and 68
70% responded that they had no budget for such a such a discussion if they
were not ready and 84% but on the other hand 84% of them saw them which we have
a significant impact on their up in history yeah it’s just like we don’t
have money here okay we should ask that question as well who thinks that AVS are
gonna destroy the insurance industry or destroy at least altered substantially
nobody no no nobody thinks a these will have any impact on the insurance
industry okay who do you think and how many think it’ll harm the insurance
industry I mean Harman yeah
so yeah cause we’ve talked about this a lot obviously and it sounds like many of
you have thought about it so the at least the general idea that I have
certainly is that it’s actually going to if insurance companies do it right it’s
gonna be great because you’re basically shifting the burden to much deeper
pockets if you don’t have to deal with pesky humans just a bunch of big rich
companies this is really great for the insurance industries an analogy for this
is of course same thing with certain businesses right so a lot of people ask
what’s going to happen to sort of freeway side motels or hotels so in the
u.s. we have a chain called Motel 6 they’re really awful but they are cheap
they work they have a bed ish and so the idea is that look these these Motel 6’s
could eventually just sort of white-label their own AV pod cars and
kind of evolved with the times instead of staying at a stationary box on the
side of the road you get to say well box with wheels and continue on through
destination Lufthansa does this with their shuttle buses I know because my
wife and I took it here to Munich from the airport so this is not really this
doesn’t require a huge leap of imagination you were sleeping with a bus so profitability goes up if like chance
of like failure goes down from the insurance perspective so that for we
know so we know that actually the probability go show go up but obviously
they are forced to prickly negotiate with much larger partners right and also
from the car manufacturing side I mean which some of you are most of you are in
it becomes the question of why don’t I provide the insurance if I have already
dismissed achill data on how my quickly or how likely my car is failing I mean
that’s the relevant information you need to make it your business if you are
guaranteeing anyway that this car is gonna arrive safely which I mean Tesla
is doing by paying out everybody which gets injured by one then why wouldn’t
you just like practically say like it’s one service when you can’t just come and
say like you get into my car you’re fully insured during the entire trip of
the travel if you take such a huge risk as a provider then you’re kind of moving
into the area of I guess which the airline industry is in right then you
coming into the area of Boeing and then like unforeseen events might practically
be have implications which might actually you know threaten the survival
survivability of your firm right especially if you can be in the past
from the past the suit now into the future of a lot of cases which you have
been trying to hide usually that’s how it goes and then another example which
comes from the car industry and I guess most of you remember the tatata tatata
incident right I mean so you have a number of people who are providing you
in the media versus showing this beautiful year earlier you have so many
like people who are involved into the same kind of architecture delivering
parts to each other and arguably one could say that an AV car is a more
complex card in a regular car right and if you have this then I mean who is
ultimately taking the responsibility to themself and saying okay that just was a
component which failed very that’s the result right and then I mean you
remember what happened to Takata they practically went bankrupt and then
it’s obviously they’re the next in line who is going to take this responsibility
so moving forward Preta do you assume a lot more responsibility as a as a car
manufacturer and there comes the question then do you go the way which
you usually would do you go reach yourself pretty do you
take out big insurances go to reinsure and try to practically pool that risk as
an economist I would think probably now it does three are all together there are
three more correctly did you want us to save the paradox that would we discussed
earlier already somewhat but it’s not the same safety paradox it’s a secondary
one right earlier we had the idea that there would be a rebound in demand which
would increase the number of people getting hurt again because there’s just
more a wheeze driving around there’s more use this safety paradox says seize
it more from the other side of the person that we’re interacting with the
car and it is practically let’s say you are cyclists and you know that 60% or
70% of the cars or at least and you know that they’re programmed to stop right
then you’re gonna start doing stuff you’re gonna just pull in front of it
because you know it’s going to stop right so you prickly we as humans we’re
going to start adopting our behavior towards the much more safer car actually
I should add to that so in California we have a law that I think is pretty flawed
where pedestrians have universal right of way no matter what happens the
pedestrian is not at fault and so what this ends up the secondary effect of
this and I’m not I’m not making this stuff up is how many times you’ll see
like a parent pushing their baby stroller on their head fire pods looking
down not looking at the car as we’re in mind I’m not joking this happens every
day and nobody looks and I mean I don’t know I was raised you know like make eye
contact with the driver and don’t cross until you actually see the whites of
their eyes and nobody does this anymore so to your point though yeah that’s
that’s we can kind of imagine that sort of the future it’s a weird question this
has been like it’s almost a like a universal law it always is true right we
have continuously as a species throughout time adopted our behavior
towards the risk we were facing if you think about it like skiing for example
better the technology became the the crazier event on them so this is why the
safest car in the world would have no seatbelts no airbag just a metal spike
in the middle that was one of my first what’s the spike for it I was moving
because if you hit the brakes in the crash it’ll go right here
very very safe no no professor UCLA that was one of his first lessons to us I
don’t member what the lesson wife yeah the story stuck well okay so so here’s
the point though is that having tried it many times late at night an hour’s drive
it’s midnight you get sleepy and it’s pretty alarming because you realize you
could very easily fall asleep just because it’s that good until it isn’t
but it is really good and and it’s weird right
because in a regular car you’re probably going to be more I don’t know it that’s
like yeah I guess like it or not you are less attentive are you in a tent of no
but you’re certainly less attentive but in a regular car yeah you’re much more
attentive and you’re therefore less likely to sleep the ironic thing is in a
regular car though if you do fall asleep you’re dead
game over but that’s just how it is but in the Tesla you may actually survive
and indeed people around you may survive as well so it’s a very weird kind of I
don’t know word to use it in determines date maybe that yes
try to go scared but like exhibit that yeah and then I guess brace is also Tory
to the fourth point that since we just our behavior and since you don’t as a
car provider or as the regulator want people to go completely nuts in their
behavior you kind of have to have some sort of supervision of what the person
does right you want to practice a it was the pedestrians fault who stepped right
in front of the highway in front of that a being got hit eventually and the only
way of proving that is going to be prickly with recording data and
perfectly recording a lot of data and this might not be as much of a problem
in California but you know that it is a huge problem in Germany right so it
rectally violates a lot of the laws which we have passed in there like so
frankly there’s a strong you know divergence about what you would want to
have for safe operation and what you can potentially do i and then we come back
to the same point which you made earlier bones cars are that safe how long is a
like let’s say that cars eventually in 2040 2050 26 IVs or that safe how long
can you will fall making them actually mandatory right
because like I mean freedom only goes so far but once you start afflicting pain
on other people then as a government usually that’s exactly the step where
you go in and you practically make it illegal to practically do something so
unsafe and so you can also clearly also see why this would be very very
attractive as a government to to make a mandatory at a certain point also cars
are a bit different to anything else in the world right there’s a very
deep-rooted cultural thing that we have of cars different countries in different
ways but there is that link now never mind the fact that once you’ve an
autonomous car purely autonomous I think that emotional bond will be somewhat
severed even if it’s probably not a synapse but
but I think the question becomes how do we compel people to make that change and
when you think about it what has been the biggest driver the biggest motivator
of cultural change through history film movies pop culture right so it goes from
smoking is cool to smoking is not cool James Bond no longer gets drunk through
his movies I mean movies have a really profound change on society it sounds
silly to say it but it’s really quite sure actually and more broadly speaking
well social media generally mmm-hmm so when you think of it that way I think
you know I used to joke that James Bond will eventually have an electric car and
of course that’s happening and how much you want to bet that electric car will
be autonomous right and so I think unfortunately or fortunately depending
on your point of view I think a lot of this phase shift which will also help
mmm I guess motivate regulatory change and to mandate Ivy’s will actually come
with a big social component people are gonna need to push for this and the rest
will follow these are some questions that we just thought at a high level are
worth kind of opening up to the audience you know at a high level we can kind of
kick things off like this if we have some time for discussion which we have
some time right how much every five minutes ish okay but alternatively if
anybody has any direct questions you want to ask just throw them our way yeah
I guess the point of this slide is also to say that while we were discussing
safety and security then going back to Marx famous statement we should
underestimated tremendous changes that autonomous vehicles are going to hold
for for the way we live right so like transportation is always an under under
thought component but if you think about it like another driver of like changing
human society with pretty mobility right like the speed of which you can
transport people and goods is practically probably one of the
determinants of economic growth and also of societal development and practically
our capacity to connect and then exchange idea is threat to the
underlying crucial determinants of how quickly we can develop as a species yeah
and speaking of which we didn’t even touch on the really big topics of
economics things like for instance two in particular right so one of them is
what happens to commercial truck drivers and taxi drivers I mean this is so
commonly discussed it’s almost become a throwaway thing like Oh what about these
people but like everyone says it but nobody comes up with a solution
similarly I had a really great guest podcast he has a real estate firm in San
Diego and I asked him this big question which is what’s going to happen to the
price of housing in the suburbs and it seems that the default reaction seems to
be what you suggested earlier today when we were talking which it’s how did you
put it that the suburbs will actually go down in price right because that really
depends on their regulation oh I’m sorry that was you were talking earlier right
and the idea was that down in price and and my belief is actually rather the
opposite they’re gonna up in price because now there’s no downside to
living in the suburbs because the very concept of commuting won’t even be a
thing anymore it’s not going to be a hassle it won’t be a problem
so suddenly if suburbs go up in price where are people gonna where will be the
more affordable place how far is to suburb out I think that’s the question
well yeah but but the interesting thing is that depending on how you define
either an autonomous car or even a room to your home which depending on your
definition that autonomous car basically would be you’re basically blurring the
line between your bedroom in them right so so it just raises a cheating question
of what’s it gonna do all these these economic issues that we’re good alright
thank you so much and we’ll have our thanks
in this podcast show we bring in the industry leaders and experts in the
automotive domain to share their experiences along their journey the
mission of our podcast is to start a dialogue that will allow us to
understand the development of automotive industry and where the automotive
industry is going you can ask questions to our guests directly just send us an
email to podcast at matrix dot de we’ll schedule a call with you during the
recording and you’ll be part of our show make sure you subscribe so that you’ll
miss any new episodes please share this video to help others get enlightened as
well and that would mean a great deal to us see you in the next episode

No Comments

Leave a Reply