Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/17/2016 01:00 PM Senate TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Integration of Driverless Cars in Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2016
1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Shelley Hughes, Co-Chair
Representative Benjamin Nageak
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Dan Ortiz
SENATE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Peter Micciche, Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice Chair
Senator Dennis Egan
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Charisse Millett
SENATE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Bert Stedman
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Harriet Drummond
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): INTEGRATION OF DRIVERLESS CARS IN ALASKA
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
Ron Barnes, Head of State Legislative Affairs
Google, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a presentation on the integration
of driverless cars in Alaska.
Eric Taylor
Statewide Plan & Transit
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony related to the
integration of driverless cars in Alaska.
Jomo Stewart, Project Manager
Energy, Military, and Mining
Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony related to the
integration of driverless cars in Alaska.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:08:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SHELLEY HUGHES called the joint meeting of the House
and Senate Transportation Standing Committees to order at 1:08
p.m. Representatives Nageak, Ortiz, Claman, and Hughes, and
Senators Egan and Bishop were present at the call to order.
Representative Stutes and Senator Micciche arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): Integration of Driverless Cars in Alaska
PRESENTATION(S): Integration of Driverless Cars in Alaska
1:09:25 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES announced that the only order of business would
be a presentation from Ron Barnes, Head of State Legislative
Affairs, Google, Inc., on the integration of driverless cars in
Alaska.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES mentioned that the integration of driverless
cars may or may not be a good fit for Alaska. She said there
are some states that have embraced new technologies and some
that have been resistant. She stated her belief that Alaskans
should be innovative, out-of-the-box thinkers with regard to
economic development. She noted that there are unique features
in Alaska, such as snow, ice, cold, fog, and mountainous
terrain, which could be considered barriers or opportunities.
She related that there is testing going on in other states, and
it is apparent that the technology has not yet mastered snowy,
icy conditions, which could provide an opportunity for Alaska.
She noted that although the presentation is specific to Google,
there are a number of other manufacturers working on similar
technology, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has
been invited to participate in the meeting.
1:12:18 PM
MR. BARNES, Head of State Legislative Affairs, Google, Inc.,
("Google"), stated that about half of the states in the union
have introduced over 50 pieces of legislation pertaining to
autonomous vehicle technology. He explained that with only a
small number of exceptions, the pieces of legislation have been
unique approaches and don't represent a cohesive approach to
interstate transportation. He said in the Lower 48 people live
closer to state borders, and pointed out that there is not a
different set of requirements for driving from Pennsylvania to
Maryland than there is for driving from West Virginia into
Maryland. He explained that, with 53 pieces of legislation from
half of the states, if every state were to have its own way, the
vehicles would be required to stop at every border to meet a
different set of legislative requirements. He suggested that a
lack of cohesive policy is not a good recipe for fostering a
technology and developing something that has a great potential
to save lives, provide increased mobility, and afford an
opportunity for convenience, as autonomous vehicles did when
introduced. He stated that Google views autonomous vehicles as
a nascent technology, and emphasized that it's a very exciting
technology. Attention from lawmakers will eventually flatten
the peaks and valleys of the approaches taken, because it will
help the states develop regulations to exert whatever authority
is needed to cover the vehicles. He further explained that the
autonomous vehicles are road worthy and adhere to existing
federal safety standards, while allowing software/mechanics to
guide it rather than a human. He suggested an important policy
question would be what, if anything, needs to be applied
specifically "to the new operator of the vehicle." He stated
that at this point Google would say, "Nothing."
1:16:28 PM
MR. BARNES said that Google has not identified any impediments
against the operations of autonomous vehicles, with the
exception of a few states that created legislation and
regulations prematurely. He recommended that for the time being
states let the technology develop to see where it will land
prior to making policy assumptions about what it may or may not
do. He related that the "wishfulness" for autonomous vehicles
has existed since 1939 and the practicality has existed since
the mid-2000s. In the last ten years the technology has
progressed from functionless, to having a prototype vehicle
which can drive passengers where they want to go safely and
efficiently. He noted that it has been a quick ramp-up and
there is still a long way to go in order to understand how the
technology will be deployed, the best means for deployment, and
the necessary guidelines for regulation purposes.
1:18:14 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE asked how mechanical issues or break-downs were
addressed with driverless vehicles.
MR. BARNES responded that the person in the vehicle could use
their cell phone to call for a tow truck. He related that
Google monitors its vehicles and is aware every action, every
second, they are on the road. He stated that operation of
driverless cars involves a very controlled set of circumstances,
and offered that in addition to redundancies built into the car
for safety purposes, there are also mechanisms by which the car
can issue emergency alerts similar to existing systems that
intercede on behalf of the driver such as sudden braking and
airbag deployment.
1:20:47 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE asked, assuming Google knows everything about a
driverless vehicles movements on a given highway, and
considering that under current statutes liability is attached to
the driver, who is liable for damages or injuries incurred in a
collision.
MR. BARNES replied that the vehicle does not exist on its own,
and ultimately someone would be the responsible party for the
vehicle. Liability is a complicated issue; even in low-speed
crashes in city intersections it could be difficult to sort out
fault. The vehicles may be owned by one entity and operated by
another; therefore, they would be under someone's legal control.
He mentioned that this line of inquiry is one that has piqued
the interest of the insurance companies, which have had more
than 100 years of experience with human mismanagement of
vehicles. He acknowledged that generally humans are pretty good
behind the wheel, but there are times when that is not the case.
The legal system is paying attention for how this will be
applied to laws governing torts; an area of interest for
everyone who is involved in the technological development, as
it's very transformative to take the human element out of the
front, left seat. He said this is something that his team
considers on a daily basis.
1:23:28 PM
SENATOR BISHOP noted that the vehicle requires the use of
sensors and lasers, and asked what's been done for cold weather
testing and where has it occurred.
1:23:59 PM
MR. BARNES replied that cold weather and certain weather
formations present a challenge for sensing technology. He said
there are millions of raindrops falling from the sky during a
rainstorm, but not each of those raindrops is something that
requires a vehicle to come to a stop for, and the same is true
of snowflakes. The issue of sensing the environment in
challenging weather situations is a known, and the technology
has been developed in southern California where it is typically
sunny and 75 degrees. Google is working to graduate the
technology to function in conditions which more approximate the
rest of the country and the world.
SENATOR BISHOP suggested that Google entertain the possibility
of cold weather testing in Alaska.
1:25:18 PM
SENATOR EGAN noted that the technology for the vehicles is
dependent on interfacing with the Google Earth application and
the global positioning system (GPS). He asked what happens when
a vehicle loses its GPS connection.
MR. BARNES replied that although the vehicles mapping is based
on Google Maps, the driverless technology doesn't work exactly
like a smart phone or tablet that interfaces with GPS
coordinates to obtain directions from one location to another.
He reported that the vehicle could not, in its current form, be
taken to "Anytown, U.S.A." and be directed to drive to the pizza
shop or the library; requiring specific Google mapping for the
area. He explained that prior to operating the driverless
vehicle in an area, the Google car team first maps the locale in
great detail. The driverless vehicle relies solely on its
operating computer to provide a comparison to the detailed map,
in order to determine where it is and to be able to maneuver
autonomously.
SENATOR EGAN opined that Google Maps worked great and asked what
happens when the vehicle loses connectivity.
MR. BARNES stated that as of now, the autonomous car does not
rely on connectivity to Google Maps, but on the downloaded,
detailed map of the area...
SENATOR EGAN confirmed that losing satellite connectivity would
not create a problem.
1:28:30 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked about liability requirements and offered
her understanding that some states are requiring that steering
wheels and brakes be retained in the vehicles.
MR. BARNES stated that Google is currently responsible for the
actions of the car and wants to ensure a safe product. The car
is a result of research, but fostering the technology shouldn't
be construed as "providing the recipe for the technology." He
noted that the secretary of the U.S. Department of
Transportation has announced a driverless vehicle working group
through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA). He emphasized the need for cohesiveness and continuity
across the states relating to the regulatory scheme for
driverless vehicles.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES reiterated her understanding that some states
are requiring brakes and steering wheels be retained in all
autonomous vehicles. She said Google is not a manufacturer and
that requiring breaks and steering wheels could make state to
state travel difficult; considerations for the committee to
ponder.
MR. BARNES commented on the federal state interplay issue,
explaining that there are federal motor vehicle standards that
are applied nationally. Google would like to see autonomous
vehicle regulations solidified on a national level. The role
for state legislation may become evident as the technology is
deployed. He explained that his role within Google is to offer
advice to legislators regarding how to view self-driving cars
and provide insights into what Google is doing.
1:33:36 PM
MR. BARNES began a PowerPoint presentation, available in the
committee packet, directing attention to slide 2, which provided
a picture of an exhibit from the 1939 World's Fair, called
Futurama, where people are viewing a scale model of a city
populated by autonomous vehicles. He pointed out that 1939 was
not far away from the initial days of the Ford Model T, and
already people were thinking of ways to remove the driver from
the equation.
1:34:56 PM
MR. BARNES said slide 3 [showing a family of four playing a
board game in a self-driving vehicle on a freeway] depicts the
1950s version of autonomy, and was used in an advertisement for
a power company. The idea for the technology depicted was a
result of the electric company imagining an opportunity to use
electric magnets to guide the vehicle on the road; depicted as
hash marks in the image.
1:35:36 PM
MR. BARNES turned to slide 4, titled "Leading Causes of Death in
the United States," and pointed out that the causes listed have
provided the impetus to take the driver out of the equation. He
directed attention to the peaked red line, indicating the
percentage of motor vehicle accident deaths, to state that
32,000 people in the U.S., and 1.2 million worldwide, die
annually as result of motor vehicle accidents. Google considers
this to be an unacceptably high number, especially for an action
that could be corrected by removing the human variable. He
added, "Also by removing some of the human variable you get
humans back into the equation."
1:36:49 PM
MR. BARNES moved to slide 5, and explained that Steve Mahan, a
blind man, was one of the first people to ride in a Google self-
driving car. Google asked where Mr. Mahan wanted to go or what
he wanted to do, and the answer was to go to the cleaners and
Taco Bell. Although Mr. Mahan's work is only 30 minutes from
his home in a personal vehicle, reliance on other travel means
requires two hours. Certainly, he assured, Google is not trying
to replace mass transit with individual cars; however, self-
driving cars could be a transformative technology for the
elderly or disabled to regain a level of lost independence. He
explained that self-driving cars may also appeal to people who
prefer to start work as they leave their driveway instead of
upon arrival at their desk.
1:38:56 PM
MR. BARNES turned to slide 6 to address the topic of traffic,
and said heavy traffic is a global problem. Google executives
think that autonomous vehicles could be one way to alleviate
traffic congestion by providing efficient options, such as a
share vehicle which could transport 10 individuals throughout
the course of the day. A multitude of potential uses for a
vehicle left to its own devices exists. A vehicle that doesn't
require a human to guide it from point "A" to point "B", could
even result in societal benefits.
1:39:58 PM
MR. BARNES said the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) held a series of contests to encourage engineering
schools and researchers to develop practical, autonomous vehicle
solutions. The first contest was a race over a 132 mile course.
The furthest any car got was 7 miles; however, by the third
event, every car finished the course. He said that over the
course of three years, autonomous vehicles have evolved from
non-independent function to being able to navigate a situation
over long distances. The founder of Google, hired the winning
teams head engineer, whose team assembled the self-driving car
depicted on slide 1.
1:42:25 PM
MR. BARNES explained that slide 8 shows maps from some of the
driving that Google has conducted using its first self-driving
vehicles. One of the maps was created by driving down the
famous "serpentine like" Lombard Street in San Francisco,
California. This famed street is good for testing the vehicle,
due to the multitude of externalities, which include: a
downhill grade, left and right switchback turns, and the
presence of numerous pedestrians.
MR. BARNES moved to slides 9 and 10, and said that a Toyota
Prius was among the initial lineup of Google's test cars but the
Lexus hybrid sport-utility vehicle (SUV) has emerged as the
long-standing model. Mr. Barnes pointed out the laser located
top of the car and the camera underneath the rear view mirror.
He explained that it's through these sensors that the car views
the world and orients to everything happening around it. He
said it's not enough for the vehicle to sense its orientation,
it must also recognize potential obstacles. One lesson Google
learned from the earlier prototypes is that when a driverless
vehicle tries to re-engage a human driver, for safety reasons,
there is a lag time for the human to gain situational awareness
in order to assume command. Thus far, there is always someone
in the driver's seat and another person in the passenger's seat.
1:45:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK asked what happens when a human driver is
under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
MR. BARNES replied that Google would not allow an impaired human
driver to take over command.
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK clarified that he meant the driver of
another car, not the self-driving vehicle; Google has no control
over other drivers.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES restated the question, to ask how an autonomous
car would handle a situation where another car in the vicinity
was out of control.
MR. BARNES responded that the human driver, in the autonomous
car, could override the system and take control to guide it out
of the way. The autonomous vehicle default priority is to
maintain a safe situation. He admitted that one of the major
challenges in driving any vehicle is the ability to comprehend
and respond to other vehicles/drivers.
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK offered a scenario where the human riding
in the driver's seat of an autonomous car is reading a book and
not aware of others on the road. He asked how Google's self-
driving car reacts to situations that occurs out of the blue.
MR. BARNES answered that driving 1.4 million miles, which is
what Google has undertaken, is the key. He explained that much
like human drivers, the Google autonomous programs rely on real
life experiences to learn and build a profile for the self-
driving vehicles. In Washington, D.C., there are many bikers
and bike lanes, but not all bikers are in the bike lanes. He
explained that when bikers are present in bike lanes, a driver
anticipates the biker's action. Google is doing something
similar with the autonomous car by situation programing that
directs the car to a position of safety.
1:50:22 PM
SENATOR EGAN offered his assumption that collision avoidance
technology is built into the Google vehicles.
MR. BARNES concurred, and explained that the mainstream cars
being produced, now have collision avoidance technology to
essentially override a human's instinctive response in a known
circumstance. He informed the committee that the view that a
Google car has of the world is superior to that of human
drivers. For example, the radar can detect a bike rider through
a hedge before he/she enters the human driver's visibility. The
instinct, when programming these cars, is to default to safety,
he said, noting that there are random variables over which
Google has no control.
1:52:36 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES considered how, during the time of the Wright
brothers, no one imagined the jets of today and their capacity
to fly several hundred people at once and possibly crash. The
self-driving vehicles are still in the test phase, she
acknowledged and asked how many miles have been driven and what
types of accidents have occurred that are attributable to Google
technology.
MR. BARNES answered that Google has only experienced one
incident, with an excess of 1.4 million miles being driven since
2010. The accident was at a very low speed, between two and
five miles per hour (MPH). He reported that, in one week,
Google drives its test vehicles in excess of what the average
American drives per year. A substantial number of driverless
cars are on the road in Mountain View, California. He relayed
that there have been incidents of the Google cars being rear-
ended or a collision when a driver ran through a stop sign, but
none of these incidents were the fault of the self-driving cars.
The benefit of such incidences is that now the Google vehicles
know what happened, understood why it happened, and can account
for the factors in future situations. Additionally, instead of
one driver/person having a learning experience, all of the
Google cars have received information regarding the incidents
and the benefit is thus multiplied.
1:56:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Mr. Barnes if he has had an
opportunity to ride in a Google self-driving vehicle.
MR. BARNES answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Mr. Barnes to describe his firsthand
experience. Additionally, he asked for a description of the
Mountain View area, where most of Google's cars reside, whether
the locale is comprised of primarily city streets or
highway/interstate travel. He asked whether, when speaking
about the entire fleet of cars, how the learning advancement
occurs: via artificial intelligence (AI) software, or human
reprogramming by someone in an office entering in new data. He
offered his understanding that part of the effort with AI is to
have computers learn from things and build knowledge into the
database without someone having to rewrite the program to
accommodate for new information.
MR. BARNES replied that Google engineers reviewed the incident
and ran a few thousand scenarios based on what happened. The
generated data was then entered into the operating system of the
vehicles allowing the cars to anticipate similar incidences in
the future.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered his understanding that someone
actually programs in the new data.
MR. BARNES replied yes and no; Google is advancing machine
learning. He shared an anecdote of a Google self-driving car
which encountered a duck in the road that was being chased by a
lady in a wheel chair waving a broom. What the vehicle
accounted for was a sudden obstacle in its travel path followed
by a continuing obstacle. The Google software and technology is
able to account for experiences and build that into the profile
of what might happen and what might be done to manage the
situation, much like a human driver does. He shared his
experience of riding in one of the Lexus models and how exciting
it was to experience the car as it made driving decisions, such
as acceleration and steering.
2:00:13 PM
MR. BARNES explained that Google's initial work was on highways
because there were fewer variables on the open road. He
described the picture, slide 13, as being a complicated
intersection with train tracks, cars, and stop lights, and
explained that the tests are designed to graduate in complexity.
He said slide 13 is essentially what the car sees. He explained
that the purple boxes represent other cars, the red boxes are
pedestrians, and the yellow boxes represent bicycle traffic.
Although in the scenario the Google car has the right of way, a
red ladder in front of the car indicates that the Google car has
not yet determined what the pedestrians and the cyclists are
going to do. The interesting thing is that people in the
Mountain View area have reported that Google cars are the worst
cars to be around, because they obey every traffic law. The
Google self-driving cars are also learning to accommodate human
driver idioms, such as how they indicate their directional
intent. He explained that the programing isn't about just
converting motor vehicle code into ones and zeros and having the
vehicles follow preset commands.
2:03:58 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether Mr. Barnes could report on the
average accident rate for human drivers.
MR. BARNES replied no, and pointed out that it's important to
distinguish between reported accidents versus incidences. He
said that although he's never been in a major accident, that
doesn't mean there haven't been close encounters. He elaborated
that he's bumped into another vehicle at a traffic light and
he's been rear ended at an intersection. He explained that
those incidences did not get reported, because there was no
damage, which if reported would put a significant boost in the
accident rate. He questioned whether humans drive as safely as
statistics indicate. He stated that for the self-driving
vehicle to have one incident in 6 years, over 1.4 million miles,
was a good safety record.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES agreed and noted that Google cars are operating
at 25 MPH or less. She said human safety is a big concern when
deciding whether or not to implement the use of self-driving
vehicles.
2:08:04 PM
SENATOR EGAN posited that driving at 25 MPH under the posted
speed limit creates a hazard.
MR. BARNES replied that Google's highway vehicles traveled at
faster speeds, but the city cars drive at 25 MPH, or slower, on
the surface streets. He said that Google's self-driving
vehicles are the result of not just understanding the software
but also the hardware. Google has refined devices in such a way
as to seamlessly interface the software and the vehicle.
2:09:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether Google's cars require
wireless access.
MR. BARNES replied no. He explained that once the maps are
loaded into the car, it becomes familiar with that particular
area. He explained there were technologies that allowed
vehicles to interface. He stated that the goal for Google is to
use existing computing technology, brainpower, and resources to
make autonomous vehicles work. He said are many questions that
needed to be answered such as: deployment of self-driving
vehicles, will they be privately developed, licensing
requirements, and whether to implement the technology into low-
speed or high-speed cars.
2:12:38 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether an ethical program has been
developed to provide decisions such as choosing whether to hit a
cat versus hitting a child, or a pedestrian verses another
vehicle.
MR. BARNES replied that it poses an interesting philosophical
question with very concrete practical outcomes. The important
thing is being able to account for the type of situation being
encountered. He said that in terms of ethical decisions, much
like the duck in the road, the cars can't be programed with
every possible scenario. He explained that self-driving car
decisions evolve from gathering information from situations,
based on the available set of circumstances, to bring the
situation back into safety. He said that in some way it's not
too different from human decision making. Humans are
programming the vehicles, thus the values of humanity are
inherent to the cars. He said that Google's safety program
director worked for the federal government for 30 years advising
federal safety standards for motor vehicles, and assured members
that the safety standards are not being determined by
unqualified, technicians or engineers.
2:15:29 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES offered her assumption that the programming
would contain a type of ranking system to direct the car to hit
another vehicle instead of a person.
MR. BARNES offered that there could be a myriad of variables
versus two choices. Google executives understand that there are
situations where a moral choice may need to be made to arrive at
the "least worst" result. The human element may be a detraction
as much as a boon, if a driver is distracted or not aware of an
approaching situation. An autonomous vehicle may provide an
improved response time as well as quickly analyze the various
options.
2:18:07 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES pondered whether driverless cars would be in
general use road use in three to five years or longer. She
asked how industry/manufacturers are handling states that are
not considering autonomous technology and a means for
incorporating it into their long term transportation planning.
Additionally she queried how the road ways and traffic signals
might look different in the future with the implementation of
autonomous vehicles.
2:19:32 PM
MR. BARNES replied that roads will continue to host a mix of
people who prefer to drive themselves, as well as autonomous
vehicles. The full-speed vehicles will take longer to refine
than the high-speed, and low-speed cars will be best suited for
an urban environment. He envisioned that parking may change to
be more peripherally located from a downtown area since the
autonomous cars will be able to drop drivers/passengers off and
then park independently. Requirements for parking space may be
lessened with smaller autonomous cars taking the place of larger
cars and trucks. Regarding long-term planning, he advised that
states review existing codes now, to eradicate hindrances when
the autonomous vehicle technology is deployed. He noted that
there are some key questions for states to consider in the
future scenario, and offered: "How would we like to see all of
this play out; what do we need to do to get there; and do we
think the technology is going to develop in a way that will get
us there?" He mentioned one use for autonomous vehicles would
be to shuttle individuals to medical appointments.
2:21:29 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES inquired about the state's autonomous vehicle
involvement, and where Alaska stands in tracking autonomous
vehicle technology.
2:22:00 PM
ERIC TAYLOR, Statewide Plan & Transit, Division of Program
Development, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOTPF), said the statewide long-range transportation plan is
undergoing an update and the draft is due later in the spring.
It represents a policy level plan, with considerations being
reviewed to provide a 20 year forecast. He reported having
recently attended a national conference which highlighted the
issue of autonomous vehicles being on the horizon. He said that
DOTPF is considering not only vehicles for the type of uses
being discussed here today, but also for freight shipping. The
department is reviewing preliminary technology that would allow
freight trucks to travel in platoons for fuel efficiency. He
said that the draft transportation plan contains a statement,
which he read as follows:
[DOTPF] will follow national developments and
intelligent infrastructure and connected autonomous
vehicles and seek opportunities to cost effectively
and sustainably apply changing technology in Alaska.
He said, although this is a blanket statement, it indicates that
the department has autonomous vehicle technology on its radar
screen and is incorporating it in the agency's long range plans.
2:24:33 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether his attendance at the conference
would allow him to speak more about individual manufactures the
different things the companies have planned.
MR. TAYLOR replied no, not specifically.
2:25:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered his comments about the moral
dilemma Co-Chair Hughes raised earlier. He offered his
recollection of the San Francisco earthquake of 1989, and the
only person who was injured, when the Oakland Bridge cracked,
was a driver who tried to jump his car over the crack. He
concluded that human drivers don't always make the right
choices. He asked whether a computer is able to distinguish a
duck from a police officer. The statistical advantage of a
self-driving car is that it will obey all traffic laws, and
conjectured that insurance companies could experience a lower
frequency of incidences, if everyone were in a Google driven
vehicle. The moral dilemma remains, he finished.
2:27:26 PM
MR. BARNES offered his understanding that the moral dilemma is
demonstrated in crash statistics and that obviously humans don't
do well when faced with a dilemma. He reiterated that it's
humans who are doing the programing, and they are aware of the
results of their actions. It's one thing if a technician miss
programs the location of a restaurant, as such a mistake doesn't
represent "an end of the world situation." One engineer has
confided in him that his participation in developing autonomous
vehicle technology stems from his not wanting his own son to
face the dangers of driving a vehicle. Mr. Barnes pointed out
that a father would be loath to invent technology that would
harm his children, and he asked for committee member's trust in
the humanity of the people who work for Google. Ultimately
choices will be carefully made decisions programmed to bring an
autonomous vehicle to a "least worst" outcome.
2:29:49 PM
SENATOR EGAN asked whether Google cars are the only ones using
Google [street view].
MR. BARNES answered yea, as far as he is aware; however, there
are undoubtedly other manufacturers developing similar software.
He explained that Google Maps is an open source program, which
allows it to be overlaid to create other platforms.
SENATOR EGAN opined that even for a community the size of
Juneau, under 35,000, it must take an immense amount of data to
cover the city.
MR. BARNES reiterated that self-driving car technology is new,
and it would be very difficult to map the entire country in the
next two weeks. The maps were not updated on a daily basis;
however, there is an additional overlay of information added to
the maps.
SENATOR EGAN asked Mr. Barnes about a possible scenario of
traveling between cities in Southeast on the Alaska Marine
Highway System (AMHS). When traveling to Ketchikan from Juneau,
would the self-driving car know to download the data for
Ketchikan upon arrival.
2:32:01 PM
MR. BARNES answered that the technology does not yet allow for
that type of adjustment. Google technicians are still working
out how to make the data operate in real time and everywhere
under every circumstance. He opined on the exiting advancements
that Google has accomplished, primarily in the area of "machine
learning," where the vehicles computer assimilates new
information to understand a situation and develop an appropriate
action. He said that Google's AI system, "AlphaGo," recently
defeated the reigning "Go" game champion in Seoul, South Korea.
[The game of Go is considered to be extremely complex with more
variables than chess and requires an intense anticipation of the
opponent's probable moves and options.] The computer analyzed
the situation and interpreted the game, including the human
variable of playing against a person. Thus, the computer
attained the ultimate goal of understanding and learning and was
not simply processing information.
SENATOR EGAN offered his assumption that Google dealt directly
with municipalities and DOTPF to keep up-to-date information on
road construction projects.
MR. BARNES explained that making government data publicly
available allows others to take that information and turn it
into something useful. To the point, he said Google Maps was
initially a static map until someone, from outside the company,
decided to plot the locations of rental housing units, which
they were able to do because it was open data. He said that
Google thrives off of open data to determine when a bridge or a
road might be closed, as well as if a warning or alert has been
issued. He said that those factors will become increasingly
more important as autonomous technology continues to be
developed.
2:37:26 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES noted that autonomous cars might not have a
person riding along, and asked how law enforcement would handle
a collision involving two cars, one with a driver and one
without a human presence.
MR. BARNES answered that is a real scenario. Emergency vehicles
required certain treatment depending on their approach, and the
recognition of whether or not it's in pursuit. It's also
important for an officer to be able to have someone to contact
when an accident occurs. He said that currently Google self-
driving cars operate in a closed universe, and are not operating
unattended.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether Google has actual human-driven
cars keeping the autonomous cars in a line of sight during
tests.
MR. BARNES offered that the autonomous vehicles are never
unmonitored, but he said he is not familiar with whether there
is a line of sight protocol.
2:40:06 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES conjectured that, if the computers in the
vehicles are self-contained, there must be a person nearby. She
reported that Legislative Legal and Research Services have
reviewed state policy for requirements that would inhibit the
use of autonomous vehicles and there appear to be no conflicts.
She asked for comment on the conflicting requirements held by
some states, such as: a licensed driver must be present;
vehicles will have a steering wheel; and vehicles will have
brakes.
MR. BARNES said that the premise of a driver's license is to
demonstrate a qualification to handle a vehicle and an
understanding of the rules of the road. He explained that
requiring a licensed driver in the vehicle is inhibitive and
prevents elderly or people with impairments from gaining the
mobility and independence that Google has intended its
autonomous vehicles to serve. He declared that he does not
understood the premise of the requirement for a licensed driver.
Google has argued against special requirements from states, such
as a licensed driver and a designated license plate. He
explained that the use of a designated plate announces to the
world that it's an autonomous vehicle. He suggested that
incidences of "hot dogging" might increase, and explained the
term to mean a driver who swerves or demonstrates other adverse
activity to see how the autonomous car will react. He opined
that requiring that type of announcement to the world undercuts
the benefits of the technology on the whole.
2:44:23 PM
JOMO STEWART, Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation, said
that a major project in Fairbanks is cold weather testing. He
said that the city has marketed itself as the premier location
to do cold weather testing due to its affordability,
accessibility, and reliability. He explained that extensive
infrastructure has been built to attract researchers and that
that the military has done a good job of boosting interest and
facilities in Fairbanks.
2:46:34 PM
MR. STEWART opined that legislation is usually passed for the
safety and harmony of the residents, but from time to time
legislation it is adopted for reasons aligning with the pursuit
of opportunity. He offered his observation that the today's
conversation has focused on the mitigation of back-end
eventualities that will occur far in the future when autonomous
cars are fully operational. He said that, as an economic
development professional, he is interested in the opportunity to
be on the front end of autonomous vehicle technology testing.
Google needs to test its autonomous cars in cold weather and
Fairbanks would like to extend an invitation to the company for
that purpose. The regulatory and legal structure can be worked
out once the technology is fully operational. He noted that the
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Research has successfully
worked with industry on Unmanned Air Vehicles. He expressed a
desire for Google to visit Anchorage, Fairbanks, as well as
Juneau.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES thanked the day's participants.
2:50:54 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:51
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Google Self Driving Car Presentation.pdf |
STRA 3/17/2016 1:00:00 PM |