 gear presenter, Diff Nidell. Well, good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our future network car debate. For the first 100 years or so of our motorized transport, things seemed to be so simple. It was a car, it had a petrol engine, it was a lorry, it had a diesel engine, and if it was a Tokyo taxi, it ran on LPG gas. But of course, the last 20 or 30 years, we've seen this revolution begin that's now gripping our industry. And it began with a move to a lot more diesel cars for fuel efficiency. Then the hybrid started arriving with diesel hybrids and petrol hybrids. And now, of course, the big in thing is electric cars. But there was a time when you got into a car and put the key in the lock and turned ignition and started it up, and that was virtually all it did for you, just drove the car. And now the whole world has changed so much because we climb aboard our luxurious cabins and as soon as we sit in the seat, our mobile phones are hooked up. We've got the internet on, we've got all our apps working. We've got a satellite navigation system that fires up with an interactive map. We've got our television sets, music, radio, every song that we love is tuned in for our fingertips. And the seat moves into your perfect position that climate control puts exactly the temperature you want. And this luxurious, stylish, new Infinity Q50 is a classic example of the breed. It's got everything that I've just talked about, but also it's moving the game on a couple of more steps. It's got the very latest predictive forward collision warning system, and that's now looking not just at the car in front of you, but the car in front of the car in front of you. It's another step forward. And also for the first time anywhere in the world, this is the very first car to have fly-by-wire steering. So now you can actually adapt it on the touchscreen to have the same feel for parking or the same as you want for high speeds and low speeds. It's another step forward. But the question you have to say, what happens next? How far do we really want to go? Because I'm a racing driver. I still love being involved as the driver. I still actually enjoy changing my gears. So I don't want to lose my enjoyment and allow them to put on cruise control, lane control, and then just start checking their latest Facebooks out. Do we want to go that far? And we already have cars that can park themselves. Can we have in the future fully automated cars? And if we can, do we really want them? That's the whole debate that is coming almost closer and closer. When we have vehicles communicating to devices embedded in the road, all these things are possible. We read about them. But now we have this wonderful panel of specialists and lots of questions to hope from the audience to actually start debating these issues. So just to introduce my panel I have in front of me, we have Dr. Hamadun Toure, who is the Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union, Jean-Todd, president of the FIA, Johann Denison, president of the Infinity Motor Company, Russ Shields, mission for Europe, Eva Molner. Now, before I turn to the floor for some questions, I thought to get everyone going, I got a question for each of the panelists so they can set out their stall and we can see where they're coming from. I think maybe we should start with you, Johann, because I might have badly undersold your new Q50, so perhaps you could talk a little bit more about what this car offers and perhaps how you see the future developing. Well, actually, I think you've given such a comprehensive overview, I would have to claim that the car can fly to top that, but we want to have it rooted in reality. I think the most impressive element of the car is the very advanced level of electronics technology that is now available commercially at a $45,000 price point. I think that is the most astonishing for me as a carmaker. You've described the steer-by-wire technology, we call it direct adaptive steering. This is an important building block to take vehicle safety, passive safety, to the next level. And I say this because it's a prerequisite to take us to what many of us, and I'm one of those, would consider to be the equivalent of automotive hell, which is where we remove the driver from the equation. And that is not what we want to do. What we want to do is to create a safety envelope that I think also expresses our commitment as automakers to let our consumers use our products safely. Computers can see and react much faster than the human being can. And I know that we have a section on autonomous driving later, I don't want to elaborate that too much, but when you link it all into the area of interconnected cars, where the vehicles begin to respond to each other, they slow down events in real time, and they can process the data and make the right decisions. Now, if we say that that is all terrible for those of us who enjoy driving, I enjoy driving. I believe that you almost never have too much performance. And that's the kind of car company we want to be as well, but we recognize also that with increasing urbanization, there's a lot of chore that comes with the daily commute. And I could well imagine that if I'm stuck in a three hour traffic jam commuting in Los Angeles, I might be very happy to have my car help me in that part of the driving experience. And that allows me to use all of the other connectivity features of the car because it turns into a mobile workspace. It remained totally connected. My office can talk to me. Gosh, the kids can work on Facebook. And the big trick to do this now is to do it in such a way that you minimize driver distraction. Now, I've had discussion quite recently with the former Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood who said to me, you know, I really think that we should legislate against this and be careful what you wish for. Because if you do that, the answer is the mobile phone. And that is not designed to be used while you're in the car. So we have to find a way to meet this reality of our consumers of the future, of the present, to remain connected to their world at all times. And that's part of the challenge for us as automakers. Sure, you're overseeing a revolution in Formula One regulations at the moment designed to encourage more manufacturers to invest in Formula One technology to use that as their testbeds. But you're a bit worried after recent testing you might have gone a step too far in Formula One? I think the tendency now is to overreact. So I will not overreact before the first Grand Prix has occurred. So I think we have to wait now another 10 days. And I'm sure that the right vision for a new powertrain, six cylinders, 1.6 engine, energy recovery, direct injection, 35% less fuel consumption. But of course, all new regulations need a time for adaptation. So it just, for me, the problem. But it will be very interesting because you have some new manufacturers coming. It allows them to use motor racing as it is due to be at the laboratory. You're going to book a holiday in Hawaii when the first Grand Prix is on. Are you going to be there? I mean, are you intending to be to Hawaii? Maybe we can watch the Grand Prix together. But Dr. Turi, as Secretary-General of the ITU, where do you see we're heading with all the new developments in technology? Well, a new revolution is underway. The automotive industry and the ICT sector are meeting together. And that's going to be great because today, there will be, we know that by 2020, there will be 50 billion devices connected. And how we interact with our cars, with the surroundings, how we impact the environment will be very key in that. And the cooperation between the automotive industry and the ICT sector will be key into that, making sure that you have driver comfort, driver safety, and taking care of the surrounding of the driving vehicles, as well as making sure that you are at the same time enjoying the experience of driving or traveling simply. Therefore, the ICT sector and the automotive industry are working together. Standardization is key. And that's what my organization is working on. The International Telecommunication Union Standardization Center has a focus group on driver destruction, on safety, on creating new spectrum for communication between the vehicles and its surroundings, between the vehicle and the safety administrations, ambulances and police and firefighters. All of those are things that will revolutionize the way we live, the way we drive today. And I believe that the same revolution that happened when computing and communication came together will happen in this new revolution. And we don't know what's going to come out of that, actually. There will be so many new features that we cannot even think of now. Many new things to come. Well, Jeff, I mean, you're a components manufacturer for the industry. How do you see the future of the networked car? Well, we certainly have an opportunity to make significant gains, I think, in the area of safety, the area of green, and the area of connectivity. An average car today in Europe or the United States has about 50 computers on the car that's growing. Some have as many as 100 already. So we're in the automotive world, but we supply more computers than the computer companies do. I mean, there's one way of looking at it. And there's no stopping that trend. I mean, you're able to take the mechanical function into an electromechanical or electronically controlled. That opens up a lot of possibilities. So if we do it right, we should be able to have vehicles of the future that have significantly fewer emissions, significantly better fuel economy, incredibly safer, reduce the accident and fatality rate, and allow the consumer to bring that digital lifestyle that they have every place else in their life into the car, but do it with less distraction. Less distraction, I think it's the key word, isn't it? And Russ, your company, YGOMI, supplied the vehicle communication system for the Q50. So do you actually believe that one day we could have a fully automated car? I think we will have, in not very far from now, automated driving in a significant part of our time, particularly expressways. And to me, I value my time. I grew up, we started mobile phones in 1979. The mobile phone completely changed how doing it. Email replaced all the faxes, but as much as I like driving, I'm not in the front seat of the car. Now, I'm in the back seat of the car because I wanna use my time right. Now, once we can move to having the automated driving, which certainly on expressway, motorway type things, we'll be here. I think Nissan's statement aiming for 2020 is a very good statement for that. That will come back to allow me to actually be driving the car, but doing the things that make me productive. That will change, again, substantially how I use my time and make the whole driving experience much more valuable to me and I think for many other people, and I really would like to get out of the back seat of the car and back into driving, but I need that technology so that I'm making use of my time effectively while I'm in the car. But while I can see the sort of idea of, as you say, a free way of the automated. Well, as Ilhan said, the sensors in the cars will do a better job of finding that guy and trying to work in support than I will as a driver. Even if I'm really completely paying attention, I'm not talking on the phone, I'm not doing anything that's distracting at all, am I really looking all the time back here for some idiot while I'm watching the cars in front of me, I'd much rather have the cameras, the radar, the computers to go look at all those things and figure out what they can do. So I feel much more comfortable with the car, the kind of equipment that Jeff and his people do, being able to make that drive much, much safer for me and, like I say, move it so that I can really effectively make use of my time completely again. Now, Eva, a lot of talk about automated cars, but I understand this is something that you be responsible trying to regulate, and this is going to be a massive job, surely. Well, regulators are not responsible for innovation, they are responsible for creating the conducive environment for innovations that answer some of the challenges of mobility. Economic growth depends on trade, trade depends on transport. At least the doubling of surface transport is predicted in the next 30 years. Now, how are we going to handle that? Population growth, particularly in urban areas, a lot of individuals, if you look at the middle class today, there are one billion people in extreme poverty. If the UN millennium development goes achieved, then these people in extreme poverty will be in the middle class, middle income people. Middle class, normally, usually, I shouldn't use the word normally, but usually want to have a car of their own. They want individual mobility. Now, with congestion, with all the other externalities, safety, climate change, CO2, greenhouse gas emissions, et cetera, how to manage all this demand for mobility in a safe, sustainable way? That's the question. And for that, innovations are more than welcome. So the regulator is not to slow down or to accelerate what is not ready, but to create the conducive environment for these innovations. We've had a little tip, then, of where our panelists stand. So now we're going to go over to the audience. I do have, I know three people out there already got questions they're busting to ask. As Peter Burns there for Transport for Canada, you have a question for our panelists. The microphone's always the other end of the room. Something that concerns me is that the deployment of connected vehicles and automated vehicles is going to be gradual. It's not going to happen overnight. So we're going to have a mix of vehicles in the fleet, old and new, interacting. How can we assure that this transition is going to go smoothly and safely? Jeff, maybe that's your... Yeah, well, that is going to be the challenge of any kind of deployment. If it's consumer led, then consumers will pick the technologies that they think best helps them, best assist them in their driving mission. However, they're looking at it. The sensors and the computer capability on the vehicle will be able, as discussed, to sense the environment around, even a vehicle that's not similarly equipped. Clearly, if the cars were similarly equipped, that helps. If they can talk to each other, that helps even more. If there's an ecosystem that they can all operate in, that's wonderful, right? But that's kind of an in-state to get to. So as we walk into it, I believe the cars have to have an individual capability to be able to live in that world and provide the safe drive that the consumer's looking for. Will that mean a fully autonomous vehicle? Probably not, right? Without that ecosystem to go around it. But will you be able to automate certain portions of your drive to make it safer to never get distracted, even if you are, as the weak element in the driving equation? Absolutely, absolutely we'll be able to do that and be able to sense the dangers or the threats that could come from any number of angles in the driving mission. I perhaps just had full concurrence with what I said. We need to differentiate between a scenario where you literally sit in the back seat in the cars doing the driving. The other one where the vehicle is assisting you in the driving task. But the car is actually always under human driver control. Because those are two very distinctly different scenarios. And while I would not insult the future by saying that the notion of you returning to the back seat is never new as the Q50 does, enhancing the displays to provide the ability. So if I'm doing my email, I'm gonna be doing my email not on my computer, not on my smartphone, but through the car. And the car will be there if something comes up, unknown, a problem, flash red, beep at me, put your hands on the wheel, take control. That's where I see things going over this 2020-25 period. After that I can't see. Dr. Turra, this is a very good question. And the fact is that we need to also shorten the transition time. How do we do that by way of standardization? Standardization will be key. That's what helped the mobile industry to go from virtually zero mobile phone to seven billion phones in 10 years. Standardization will enable mass production, will enable interoperability of systems in different countries, different places. And therefore it will increase the number of cars manufactured and then it will reduce the prices and then affordability will be key to it. And therefore standardization will be key. And of course it will be supported by a good regulatory environment that will be, it just has to be an enabler, not an inhibitor of the- And how to build the steps that will get the regulatory side, the technology side, and the communication side all working together because they all have to go into his car. Eva's been keen to jump in on this one, I think. Yes, and I think it's an extremely complex question and we need to unbuntle it. One question, do we need dedicated infrastructure for a higher level automated car or not? In the 60s, in traffic safety, the key principle was to separate the horse driven cars from the motorized vehicles. Now, do we have to raise the same question with the highly automated and less automated cars? This is an open question for the time being, we haven't fully sorted over. Another question about the levels, am I sitting in the back or not? Actually, why do we think only in terms of cars, individual cars with four seats or six seats? So look at some of the metros. So this needs to be expanded. Then the third question, what actually you are touching on is the intermodality. Today, thinking only about road mobility is, I'm sorry, wrong. We have to connect road mobility with public transport mobility, with railway mobility, et cetera, et cetera. And in the future, we might even see that some of the cars would take off. And if they take off, and if they, well, yeah. Well, there was this night fly by wire in the 30s. When in aviation, we moved to the new generation. Definitely it's a new generation, but that creates far more issues. Traffic management. Traffic management will have to be resold, and new institutions and new regulations will have to be brought into the play. And we already touched upon responsibility. How long it is the driver or the passenger on the bus who is responsible? And how long it is the traffic manager, the infrastructure construction company, or the vehicle manufacturer? Who would have the insurance coverage? This is, of course, literally the million dollar question. I think as you're used to imposing regulations, maybe this is your job to put these rules together. I must say it's, I mean, a fantastic situation we are facing because the world is changing. And to make everything working together is a challenge. And I mean, remaining pragmatic because we had earlier a session to speak about how to create less road accidents. And I think we should not lose that, which is a major issue. So clearly all those new technologies, and I mean, without going far as it can be at the moment, because a lot, I'm sorry to say that in front of this gentleman, but a lot of the technologies, I mean, is marketing also. And so little people have access to all those new generation of cars. So remaining down to us, I think what is very important with new technologies is first to inform people how to use new technologies. And I mean, you take a simple example, ESC, electronic stability control, which is a fascinating tool which really avoid a car to skid. I mean, people don't know they have that on board. So I think information to the customer is something, et cetera. It's very cheap, you know, ESC is very cheap. And I mean, you will agree with me. And so in European countries, it's compulsory device. And so we must make sure that as much as possible manufacturers will put that in all the cars. Then crash, I mean, to have us, you know, above technology to make sure that the body of the car is strong because in case of accidents, I mean, it will definitely help. Saying that, I really feel that things are moving in the right direction. We must take the time to apply them. A lot is also linked to the roads because you know, we are talking about road infrastructure. I mean, not in many countries, you have proper road infrastructures. And very often those new technologies are working together. And it's something which was mentioned in the cities, in the, not motorway, but in the secondary roads. I mean, what you have on your car can only work if you have the roads which are ready to accept that. So, I mean, things are moving. I mean, we might not forget that a few decades ago, not so far ago, and still some countries are not using it. Safety belt was something new. It has been a revolution in the motor industry, but again, public transportation. How many people put the safety belt in a bus? Close to none, you know. So, if we want to address the problem of diminishing the number of fatalities and on injured people on the roads, we must put a very strong united effort with the manufacturers, with the governments, and make priorities. Because otherwise, what I would hate to end up with amazing cars for a selected amount of people who very often don't know how to use it and see the tendency of this horrible scourge which is road accidents going up. So, what we need to identify is how with modern cars, with modern infrastructure, we can drop the number of fatalities and injured on the road. And that is a combined work with communication, with manufacturers, and with governments. I mean, Dr. Tura, you talk about standardization, and Russ, you're talking about sitting on your freeway, but understanding the states, America, you're allowed to text and talk on your hands. No, I thought. Texting is banned in almost every state. You hold your phone, though, and talk on your mobile or not. Most of the holding the phone, yes. And there's actually a lot of the science says that the problem of the distraction is not holding the phone, it's the mental use of the phone. And that there's been lots of evidence that says we should be looking at all kinds of the cognitive. Concentrate on driving. When I have a classic case, I'd tell you, I've worked in Birmingham in England for 25 years, driving home to the South of England. The same motorway turn-off for 25 years, four times I've gone straight past on hands-free, completely legal, but four times I've just driven straight past where I should be leaving the motorway. And there's parts of it, but I'd like to go back to one of the comments there. They talk about a key thing of transition, electronic stability control, and we all agree that that's a great technology. However, people like me learn to drive that when we start skidding, sliding on a road, we turn into the skid to get control of the car. Well, if we have an electronic stability control, that's not what we wanna do. But two of my good friends, a lawyer and a doctor, had significant accidents of not understanding they had a car with stability control going around in a circle because they were turning into the skid and the electronics. So the point of the transition and the edge of getting enough emphasis, we are changing how people are supposed to drive. We're making it better for them, but we have to educate them in an effective way to understand this change in technology and how it works to help them, but they've gotta understand how it helps them. You mentioned texting and driving, and that was a very good issue because last year on May 17th, ITU was celebrating our International Telecommunication Day, and the theme was don't text and drive. And we came up with some statistics, very interesting statistics in the U.S. for the first time. The number of people dying from... Behavior that it can be done in a least destructive manner. Yeah, how do we avoid the use of technology to be on the negative side? How do we avoid destruction, users' destruction on board of a vehicle? And those are key issues. That's why last year we awarded the World Information Society Award to Jean Toad and Chairman of Bosch and President of Switzerland, Switzerland having been one of the countries with the best regulation in the world in terms of safety and driving. But the point is I would like to see a car where in case, first of all, the car should be able to avoid accidents. If an accident has not been avoidable, the car should be able to send a message, a text immediately to the nearest police or firefighters or ambulance. And the car should be able to send a message in the vicinity of the accident zone so that other drivers don't get distracted and don't be involving additional accident as well. Those are things that technology can do. And once we standardize them, we'll be able then to really have a mass production. Well, certainly, collision avoidance is amazing now. If you test that and you go right up to a car that stopped and the brakes come off. Yeah, we're talking about distraction. Just wanted to come back to you as a manufacturer. There's a lot of talk now advancing touch screens, but not so much talk about voice control. Because I feel we should move away from touching screens because it's something you have to look at to touch when you're driving, whereas some of the other controls, you know, an iDrive, you don't. And there's not so much talk about voice control being more advanced. Well, engineers, for example, took one, listened to my accent and gave up on it. No, actually, I beg to differ. There is a lot of work being done on voice control. And all the instructions that are relevant to that car can be done through voice activation. And there are today, I think, really fabulous systems available to train the car to recognize the driver's voice commands. But it's also a matter of training the driver, how to issue them correctly. I want to touch on one thing before we get too far away from the conversation, though, if you'll permit me. It's the point you raised about liability. Because while clearly there are still pretty substantial technical hurdles to overcome, the engineers will conquer. But in your opening comments, you said that part of the role of legislature was to create the boundary conditions, if you like, where innovation can grow and prosper and take place. And nowhere do I see a more substantial hurdle to the ability for autonomous driving to contribute to overall vehicle safety than this very question of liability. Because imagine that it is indeed possible for the vehicle to complement the driver's driving ability. And despite the most fantastic senses and advanced technologies, that 1,000s of a percentage probability happens. And there's a collision in which somebody's killed. Who is liable? And that is a big question that we wrestle with. And I'd like to tell a quick story to illustrate how liability sometimes forces common sense to leave the room. It is technically possible for us, with all the senses that we have. You mentioned that we will have cameras monitoring the driver's eye movements. We can monitor his radar. We can determine if a driver is having a heart attack. Now if you have a car that has the ability to drive itself, the common sense thing would be for the computer to figure out ways to near his hospital and take him there. What happens? The guy gets there and he dies because of malpractice of the surgeon, whatever you don't know. Who is liable? So what is the engineering solution? The engineering solution is, oh, based on advice from our legal people, the car parks itself and it calls 911. That's, from a liability point of view, the sensible thing to do, but common sense is left to room. These are the things that I would say as a manufacturer. We need to ask our legislators to help create those boundary conditions. We actually, we achieve the desired consequence, which is greater safety for all. It's exactly the hottest topic we are facing in these days, liability. Do we have today a boundary? Or is it a man-made artificial boundary because of lack of courage to accept that what is available today gives enough freedom? So I don't give you the answer, but I tell you that we are dealing with this very carefully. This afternoon, you will hear more about it through my colleague, Misha Peshut. But surely there are a couple of issues here. One is that according to the current legislation, the driver must be in control of the vehicle. But what does it mean to be in control of the vehicle? Some people say that the whole thing is blown out of proportion, which shouldn't have happened. Maybe, and maybe if you are in control with the stage automation, you don't have a problem. You may have a big liability issue when you reach the highest level automation, not before. But then, taking the pragmatic approach in road safety and in road crash investigation, most likely the principles will have to be followed but are followed in aviation. In aviation, you have an investigation which investigates everybody, not only the captain of the aircraft, but everybody. So maybe that's the future, but let's not run ahead. Definitely this is the biggest you and it is not yet solved. If I could add, we get, just because you can do something with technology doesn't mean you should, sometimes. But we do have an opportunity here to make a significant difference in accident statistics without any doubt. And using the ESC example, take a time to do that. In the meantime, I think consumer awareness, the more you bring consumer awareness up on what the benefits can be, consumers will select. We saw that happen with airbag transition in the United States. They got in actually ahead of the regulation because consumers became aware that to get a five star rating car, if you want five stars, you've got to have a certain complement of airbags. We're starting to do that now in the Euro NCAP here and in the NCAP in the United States for active safety technology. If we continue down that road, then consumers may select this before any of us get it figured out, right? And particularly when you've got nice machines like this that demonstrate it and consumers become aware of the benefit. Once you experience ESC, you want it forever. Once you experience active safety and you stop that car on an accident that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to, you want it forever. You want your spouse in it, you want your parents in it, you want your kids in it. In fact, going back to standardization, can we make all these manufacturers the same letters for the same things instead of PASM and ESC and every manufacturer's got to, we're not ignoring you out there in the panel, so they're going so well here. Well, I know that Mia Drag, PESWET from UN ECE. You have a question for us. Do we have the microphone please? Thank you. Well, I had a question, but you half answered it already and it was about liability issues. The pressure from the road safety side could be overwhelming to vehicles to improve the features and technological aspects of car which will prevent accidents. But this new technology opens up many issues related to liability and you already mentioned some. What in the case of the accident where the system should have prevented but failed to do? Who will be liable? Vehicle manufacturer, vehicle owner or system provider, software provider? Okay, but you half answered that million dollar question so it now reduced to half a million dollar question. But my question actually is this, could these liability issues in some way affect and slow down development of autonomous vehicles? You're just gonna get in your way. Jeff? No, no question. No question it's gonna slow it down. Without a legal framework, without a government regulatory environment that is friendly to this, you're not gonna, I don't wanna speak for the OEs, but you're not gonna find very many automobile manufacturers that's gonna plow hard into it. If I may follow up on this. Recently, couple of months ago, RAND Corporation issued a brief on autonomous vehicles. One of the conclusions was don't regulate too fast. They're open to their opinion. Yeah, I would only comment that the costs that have to be incurred and committed upfront in terms of R&D to develop technologies are only justifiable if they bring to you some kind of commercial advantage. And unless you have a fair degree of certainty that the technology that you are busy developing can be executed, you would be reluctant to start. And that is how it could potentially delay it, right? Now many of the building blocks we're working on anyway, right? Like the active safety, the sensory environment there, we're working on that anyway, making them more affordable. So the building blocks will continue, but the systems integration and the eco interaction, the ecosystem, the infrastructure, I mean that's, we're gonna be hard-pressed to put a lot of development dollars into there if we don't know what we're designing for. What I would say on this data, the key issue is that regulation always comes after technology anyway. Regulation always has to catch up with technological advances because you don't know what technology is bringing. Same thing applies to standardization. One will ask yourself whether standardization will stop innovation. It doesn't and we have a very good experience in that. In ITU bringing together competing companies and with the research and development and deciding at one point in time which direction is more advanced. So they all go back to the drawing board and continue researching that at one point in time that you cut off time saying, okay, we'll keep this as a standard now and we'll continue innovation. And that works very well. And I think it's the same thing applies in the automotive industry. Yes, you can say your name and your company who you'd like to address your question to. By all means, thank you. Roger Lonto with Strategy Analytics. So I was coming in on the train this morning and saw the CEO of Cobra. Cobra makes UBI modules for cars and stolen vehicle recovery technologies. And he was talking about how a decision does not exist for use of the data in the car for liability purposes. In the event of an accident. So the question is, and I know at least one, maybe two people on this panel have an opinion, but maybe all of you do, who owns the data? Is there a societal obligation for the owner of the car to surrender control of his data in the event of an accident so that proper forensics may be done to better understand what caused the accident and how to prevent it in the future as well as potentially legal implications and just to add further to that when I bought my BMW, basically the lack of privacy statement I like to call it says, we may use the data from your car for any purpose, including sharing it with our marketing partners and law enforcement. So I think many people have already actually surrendered their control of that data, but I'm not sure that there is a broad regulatory environment there in the event of an accident to extract all the data necessary for all legal and liability purposes. Is there a framework that I'm not aware of or should there be and what should that look like? Yoann, do you tell the police about your infinity drivers activities? No, I don't think that we have a direct channel of communication, but you know, to answer that, I would go to one of the previous questions which asked about what happens if one of the vehicle safety systems has failed to operate. It's one of the reasons why we have the black boxes in now because automakers have to protect themselves as well. I mean, I don't, you are aware of many famous books of fiction and TV programs of fiction that the world has seen on this subject. Don't get me going on that. But right now we have, the consumer has control of that data. Right, but if we take, for example, sometimes airbags don't trigger. There are certain design parameters which the forces have to be at a certain level, the speed of deceleration, the angle, all of that, and the airbag doesn't trigger. The customer thinks that the system is defective. We need the capability to monitor and measure and record what all the conditions were. So you can extract it. It's there in black and white. The issue of unintended acceleration, obviously similar. So manufacturers, I think, certainly have the right to have systems on the vehicles that can monitor what the operating conditions were. I don't know that I have a particular opinion about who owns it and if law enforcement demands it, perhaps if there's resistance, one can imagine soon legislation will come to open it up. So it might be a moot point. I will tell you, if I may just add one point. As far as the marketing aspect is concerned, you know that with the way the technology and the connectivity is developing now, in theory, it is entirely plausible for big fleet operators to create systems whereby they monitor usage of their cars for normal considerations like speeding, yes, because you might wanna know whether your people are driving safely, but fuel consumption, which is the most economic route, and you can create a safe concealed access but data for the people who want to use it, all coming from the car. No, whether that's in England. So even with your, would you like to see a black box in every car for legislation purposes? Not for legislation purposes, but I think it would help. I think it would be useful. And actually, this emotional attachment to the data is becoming less and less relevant. If you look at, for example, commercial drivers, their activities are monitored through the digital tachograph already. We know exactly how many hours and minutes they were arrested, they drove, and they had a day off. And if they don't meet the social conditions that are for the regulator to consider what they are, then they will be fined and their company will be fined. So it is totally accepted already. I don't think we have such a big issue today as we had 10 years ago. Any more questions to the audience? Before you go to another question, let me, I'd like to really add from the communication side on this. We just had in the US big stories about a General Motors recall of a problem with the ignition switch causing airbags not to go off. That has gone on for a number of years. As you mentioned, we have black boxes. Almost every car in the US has black box. Most of Europe has as well. We're building the communication systems into the cars. I think there would be a tremendous advantage in finding these problems earlier by having that data transmitted so that it's available to the automotive manufacturers, engineers to look to see if they got a problem and said, well, some accident happened, it got reported somewhere, it sort of floated around and a year later, maybe we see four or five of these things. We have the communications capability. Again, it's the kind of thing where we need to look at, again, the regulatory environment, the issues of how can we get that data and make use of it to find the problems quickly, not five years later or things like that that have happened. Massively important point, because it allows predictability instead of waiting to see what happened. And it's good as a feedback for the driver as well. Because if you get regular feedback, okay, this week I drove like that, here are the ways how you could improve that would help to refresh your own driving capacity. Because we discussed, but we didn't dig very much into the depth of it, that we need a different type of training for drivers. And it's not that you once trained, you get your driving license and then for the next 40, 50 years you drive. Nowadays with the technological changes, it would be needed to refresh your knowledge more often in different ways without perhaps going to a course. But somehow through a feedback or in whatever way. It's my son gets a monthly report for his insurance company showing where he's been speeding, cornering, breaking, accelerating. He's got four things. He gets a monthly checkup. And if he does well, his policy goes down for next month and he's doing badly with the money. It's a very good system just for, as you say, educating the driver and at the same time saving his money. Is the inverse of that that you can get paid to speed? I mean, you were mentioning earlier about racing. I mean, in racing it's something which does exist. I mean, all the drivers are linked with the engineers and they have in real time all the information. And in the path the driver could say, I've had this problem which has caused the incident. Now it cannot anymore because there is a control about each single movement he's doing. And it's something, I mean, which has started by racing and then which is applied on the normal use. The one thing we should say about motor racing though, I mean, I think in crash survival, we talk about crash avoidance, but I think we've moved on hugely in crash survival. When I'd raced a Formula One car, I was in an aluminium tin can with my feet in front of the front wheels and now they're in these carbon fiber survival cells and we've learned an awful lot from that and I think survivability now of accident is something we've improved massively. Any more from the audience? Do we have any more at the back of the front? I know Malcolm and the front's got one question. On the microphone down the front, Malcolm Johnson from ITU has something he wanted to ask the panel. Thanks very much. As you might expect, it's a question back on standards. As Hamidou mentioned, our standardization work in ITU is one of our major activities. We have a very long history in developing international standards. Of course originally they were telecommunication standards and today they're more information and communication technology standards which are produced by our industry members. So our industry members are basically ICT companies. And now that ICTs is in every walk of life, the challenge we're facing is to attract the vertical industries to come and work with us on developing these standards. So for ITS I'd be very interested in any suggestions that Jan-Anne or Jeff might have on how in ITU we can better attract car manufacturers, the automotive industry to work with us on these standards. Gosh, I wish I knew the answer. I think the irony is that everybody agrees that we should have standardization as long as it's their standard. And I'm only going to be slightly mischievous when I say that sometimes there is a deliberate strategy to try to force one particular agenda that gets in the way of standardization for competitive reasons. I'm not going to elaborate more other than to say that I have witnessed this personally and it's a shame. I think that if there is more willingness to cooperate and through just good common sense work in the direction of standardization, setting aside pure self-interest and trying to get competitive advantage in the long run, it will reduce costs for our industry in the billions. You're on one of the really important things with the ITU and I've been involved in standards for SAE, ISO, everything. We move the ITS communications to the ITU because as a UN agency, it does a good job of exactly preventing this effort by companies to go make their technology a standard and really provide the ability to pull it together. So it's not well understood by the car industry that ITU is a UN agency, but it does by a UN agency have the capabilities of really doing honest standards because it goes through a completely different process than some of the company-oriented standards efforts that I've been involved in. You know, I've been asked why car companies can't just agree on what seems like a relatively simple thing if we're moving to new EV technology. Why can't we agree on a common charging system? Just a socket for heaven's sake. Why can't we standardize that? Well, walk around the world. I mean, how much money could we all have saved if we just add our consumer electronics with a standardized socket? So... To guide you many years before we came with a standardized charger for mobile phone innovation, we stopped. No, on the contrary, because the moment you go on one common standard, there will be massive mass production and costs will go down, but also the manufacturers will continue to do some more research and development on the next. That's why we are now talking about 4G, 4G generation, but 5G is a key that will be helping our next fully network cars. And this is well underway in terms of research and development in ITU. Well, in our experience, standard setting must be technology neutral. It shouldn't favor one company or the other. In the world forum for harmonization of vehicle regulations, we don't set standards, but regulations. They are quasi standards. And actually, in our meetings, the private sector is represented through OECA, through CLEPA, through the different organizations themselves. They have a voice, of course, governments decide. And it's never one solution that is facilitated, but the framework for the solution. Okay, there are regulations, but recently we have had this experience that sometimes you cannot agree on a very strict regulation or standard for the packing of containers, which is a totally different topic, but there the common understanding was that we cannot have standards today, but we can have something else. So we agreed on code of conduct. It was a joint work with ILO, IMO, and UNECE. So now this joint code of conduct is the sort of obligatory, because the business representatives themselves accept it as their mandatory code of ethical code of conduct. So sometimes you don't have to go for standards. There are other solutions as well. But if we could just leave standards and legislation for a moment then, where could we actually be in the dream world if we didn't have any regulation? I mean, I've read about sort of, you can have delivery vans now going out to Los Angeles and delivering to address it. Is that really possible now with the technology we have? Yeah, it's possible. The technology is doable. It affordability is an issue. The legal framework, the regulatory environment, those are all big issues, the privacy data, but it's possible to do that. Is it affordable to do that? Is there a business case to do that? It's like many of the electric vehicle platforms. Solve some problems, creates a few others. At the end of the day, the consumer votes on what they'll pay for and what they won't pay for. They'll vote on what they save versus what they fill up at the pump, do the math, and they'll make the choice. So at the end of the day, they can't put anything on a car that the consumer won't buy. It has to help them sell more vehicles. It has to help them differentiate their brand, perhaps. So Collision would warn you, you could almost now, with that very car, switch off on the motorway. It's more than 80% there. And the last 20%, I think, will be done. But the reality is now, I can't safely do my email while I'm driving. But there's a moral obligation to tanging away. Self-preservation. But I can have somebody else drive and sit in the back seat and do it. And I really would like to get back in the front seat. And I do think in this timeframe, it will happen. And what Jeff said in the answer to your basic original question, the real thing is when? The technology will make many of these things happen. And we can argue a year here or a year there. But as I started on mobile phones in 1979, when we finally put out the first mobile phones that were portable, you had a big bag to carry. And then it became a brick from Motorola. But inevitably the technology made these things better. And the nature of the ICT technology, communications, we'll go to 5G, we'll be in another step over LTE, these costs are gonna continue to come down. We have not reached that plateau yet. And we have more processors. The processors are getting faster and faster. That car, Count Isaw had closer. That's already there. And a generation, two generations will be able to do much more. And it becomes the ability for us to do our software reliably. And there's a whole big issue about how do we actually make sure that the software there always does what it does. And that's why I think for Johan's company and others, the ability to get that information back. If something happened, I had a close miss on my car, much less I hit something. If the engineers can immediately get that and they can look at it and they can figure out, oh, I need to tweak my algorithm a little and I send it back to the car. That takes us out of these kind of things where we have the worst case in the US on the Ford Explorer and the tires where almost a hundred people were killed for a problem that could have been identified with the first one or two. And that's all part of this step by step inevitable parts of the technology that we have to work together to make it. We're about running out. I think we're running out of time now. I think what we've learned really is out that there is an amazing future for the network card. I think that we've opened up several areas to look at legislation standardization. And I think it's just one quick answer, I think one more from all of you now. And that is, are you looking forward to the time when the fully automated car is there? Dr. Turi. We're at the dawn of the new revolution and really looking forward to it. You're looking forward to it. Absolutely. Jean. I mean, not really. You know, I mean, for me, we have to remain sensible and I do look very much for driver head but I think we still need a driver. You got it? As long as I can continue to enjoy driving the car when I want to, then let the technology help me when it's a chore. When it's a chore. Russ, we already know you want it. I want my time back. You've got a couple of hairpin bends as well and Santa Monica, all the corners. You want it all done automatically, won't you? Jeff. I like to drive as well but 1.2 million fatalities every year. You could cut that in half with this technology. I like that. I like that future. Eva. Well, I'm looking forward to the results that are being promised. Looking forward. We're all looking forward to the amazing technology that come our way. Thank you very much for your time and thank you all for being here. Thank you to the panel. Thank you.