 I'm glad to see at least a few interested people coming back to the room. We will continue after this coffee break with a short presentation on UNEC activities on intelligent transport systems, and this will be done by Mr. Jan Janald, the chair in his capacity as chair of the informal working group on intelligent transport systems. Jan, the floor is yours. Okay, well, thanks very much, Elvolta. So just by way of introduction, as you may have heard earlier when I asked a question, my name is Ian Janald. I head up in the UK, the vehicle engineering team in the Department for Transport. So I look after safety, environment, noise, fuel quality and all those kind of things. And it's kind of slightly scary when you look back and think, correct, how long have I been doing this? And the very first time I attended a UNEC meeting was in February 1991 when I was a kind of a junior engineer worrying about noise standards. And the reason I tell you that right at the start is because I think it kind of gives a bit of background to how important the work of the UNEC has been in establishing regulations for new road vehicles for many, many years. And from a UK point of view, we've tried to be a constructive and sort of helpful participant in bringing research and evidence and such like to this group, because we see this as a really valuable way of engaging not just within Europe, but actually with a broader community across the globe. And so I was grateful for the opportunity to be invited to come and speak. And that's why the slide is on a white background, because it's not a UNECE slide because I'm not UNEC and it's not a UK government slide because I'm here for the somewhere in between the two. So it hasn't got an affiliation, but hopefully the message is the right message. So we can get this right. So I should sound grateful to the secretary out for preparing the slides and forgive me if I look around a couple of times just to see exactly what's on screen because otherwise I have to do this and take it down and it gets very confusing. But basically, I'm going to tell you a little bit about the history of WP 29. Some of its groups, especially the group around automation and intelligent transport systems and connectivity. And then maybe just kind of explain a bit more about its outreach and such like. So we're going to kick off with a presentation on what WP 29 is. I think I'm going to have to go for the glasses. So it says on the screen and there's a slight mishap here on the screen. It says WP 29 is the World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Harmonization. It should say regulation. So it's the World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulation. And I think it's really important that we just recognize the World Forum. That was a change that was organized, I think actually by David Ward, who's going to see a little bit later his part of his work in the FI Foundation. And it became the first time that a UNEC body had got that mantle of a World Forum and Outreach Organization. And of course, more recently, the Road Traffic Safety Group has now got the same mandate. It has three principal agreements. So in effect, international law. There's the 1958 agreement, 1997 agreement and the 1998 agreement. And they're kind of fundamentally different. The 58 agreement deals with type approval. And that's this issue of mutual recognition is very similar to what other governments use and what other regional authorities. So in the EU, for example, their system of new regulation is also a type approval regime. Now, the 97 agreement deals with the roadworthiness of vehicles or periodic technical inspection and the technical requirements for that. And the new agreement, as we call it, even though it's 21 years old is the global agreement. And that's where we bring in the broader community around the world. For example, China, India and North America, who are participants in that agreement. And that establishes a technical regulation. It doesn't have any obligations about mutual recognition, but it is a way of trying to establish a common harmonized set of technical rules. And as you can see, all countries involved are members of the United Nations. But I wouldn't want you to think that it's an inclusive or exclusive body in that way. It has a broad approach. It welcomes stakeholders, it welcomes NGOs and other standardization bodies such as the IETU. Because at the end of the day, what we're trying to achieve is the right outcome. We don't want to get a half outcome. We want to get the right outcome and the best outcome. So it's important that we involve as many organizations and data and input to establish that we get the right solutions to whatever problem we have. Now, I've kind of given you a feel for the fact that we deal with vehicles and we deal with regulations. It's probably easiest to look at this slide and there are six groups, each deals with pretty much a separate section of vehicle technology, whether it's emissions and you'll be familiar with these kind of pictures of rolling roads in laboratories. There's been a lot on the TV for the last couple of years about emissions testing and such. You probably may not know that a coach, a large bus or passenger car and vehicle has what we call a tilt test. So it has to be tilted to a certain amount of, I think, 28 degrees from memory. So it has some stability when it's laden. I'm not going to go through each of those in that way. But it just when I saw that picture, I thought it's interesting because I'm not sure many people know that. But it's a really quite important test with a stability of large passenger carrying vehicles. I'm going to talk a bit more about the centre one in the lower group, because that's really where we're moving to in terms of automation and connectivity, but also not to forget lighting and light signaling because there's some very clever systems now about bend headlamps and such like where the vehicle headlamps turn as a ratio of the steering wheel turn. So it's really quite clever technology to try and improve the way in which vehicles are used and to help drivers use those vehicles. So I said earlier about the global outreach. It'll be fair to say that the UNEC and I did notice, actually, I think it's the same picture was on over here on this stand up pop up, gives you an idea of how broad the work that goes on in Geneva as in terms of its global outreach. I think in most continents, other than Antarctica, I think there's a country that takes UNEC regulations or subscribes to them. So it's really quite an important body. The other thing I just point out and it took me a moment to to work out the subtlety of the diagram at the bottom. And if you look, it says WP 29 regulates the performance of wheeled vehicles. And if you look on the left hand side of those images, you'll see a jet ski and a boat, you know, by any stretch of the imagination, that's not a wheeled vehicle. But WP 29 has responsibility for engines for what we call non-road mobile machinery. And they happen to be fitted in some maritime vehicles, some rail vehicles, some chainsaws and such like. So when we talk about wheeled vehicles, it is in kind of speech marks because it does have a slightly broader outreach than just wheeled vehicles. I mentioned a moment ago, the way WP 29 involves and engages with standards development organizations. And and it's not shy in terms of who it will involve. I think it's fair to say that over the years, most of the global standards bodies have been involved in some shape or form in helping WP 29 come up with the regulations that it needs to deliver. So, for example, we don't create separate standards for crash test dummies. We incorporate a standard that already exists on a crash test dummy. We don't establish a separate requirement for the surface on which you do a noise test. We take an ISO standard for that and such like because it's important that we don't do things just because we can we do it because we need to. And where we can take other organizations, technical expertise and input, we kind of absorb that willingly because it's important that we do that. Now, you can read this. I don't anticipate explaining every one of those. I think it's all fairly straightforward. Some of these organizations are regular attendees at WP 29 and the technical groups. Some come very specifically for a particular meeting or whatever it might be. And I think that's probably evidenced by the work that's going on on cyber security. I know when that was created, there was a concern that would we have enough expertise on cyber security? But there's that phrase about, you know, if you build it, they will come. And so WP 29 created the cyber security group and the over the air group. And then at the first meeting in London, the room this size was full with people, experts trying to help find the right solution. I think that just goes to show how influential WP 29 is in the work that it delivers. Now, here's a really good slide. I'm not going to ask you to read it, and I'm certainly not going to read it. The point is that WP 29, not only is it recognized at kind of operational level within the governments, is actually recognized at a strategic level where you've got the G7 transport ministers, for example, in some of their conclusions on automation saying WP 29 and the UNEC is the place to do this development work on standards because it's recognized with those bodies and those G7s and the most important economic economies in the world, rather, that we need to come together so that we establish harmonized rules. And then there was something else which I don't know what that is, the International Conference on Data Protection. And of course, Global NCAP, which many of you would have heard of when we hear a bit more from and other consumer organizations, value the work that goes on. And I think that's really, really important, not forgetting that at the end of the day, the vehicles which manufacturers make and that we regulate for are purchased by all of us and many other people as well. So at the end of the day, someone's going to buy this product and you've got to make sure that it works for them as well as all of society. Now, one of the challenges is that things have changed very, very quickly. And you don't need me to tell you that, but from a regulator's point of view, the challenge is, well, how do you deal with that? Because we've been very familiar with dealing with brakes in this way, steering in that way, crash lights, whatever it is. But the world is moving on. And so we need to think about this notion of ITX, intelligent transport systems, and not just think about it in terms of the vehicle, but think about the way the vehicles are used and UNECA has a broader range of groups, some dealing with hazardous materials or dangerous goods, explosives, fuels and such like, some dealing with intermodal and autonomous ships and such like. And for those of you know a lot more about maritime than I do, I've seen pictures on television of ships docking using ITS and GPS. Systems and so we need to think about this and the ITC, the Inland Transport Committee, which is the overbody of WP 29 is very keen that we embrace these kind of issues constructively and and collegiate Lee, so that we find the right solutions and not just in silos, but think about it across the piece. So I mentioned I'd come on to WP 29 and automation. And now I said that the ITC, the Inland Transport Committee, basically gave WP 29 the task of we're going to have to do something on this really quickly and we need to reshape ourselves to deliver that. And so last year, some of us in WP 29 led a program of development work to change and to move ourselves from where we were set up in two groups, ITS Automated Driving Group and what was GRRF, so a group on brakes and running gear and to think about that in the context of the road traffic safety group WP 1, because they are very, very concerned about this notion of an automated driver in a vehicle. And that's the real challenge is some of this. You know, I'm a vehicle engineer. I worry about how the vehicle works, but they're worried about it from so will the vehicle actually work like a driver? Will it stop when it's meant to? Will it recognise a policeman putting his hand up and such like to stop you? And of course, when we think about the broader piece, the policeman in the UK probably looks quite different to a policeman in Switzerland, or they may have slightly different hand signals and such like. And so the vehicle has to be able to cope with those issues. And it doesn't matter whether it's designed for this market in Switzerland or designed for the UK market, you can guarantee someone will drive a British car to Switzerland and sometimes for its life. And therefore that vehicle has got to be able to deal with that in a seamless way because that's what the driver will expect. And so we started that development work to think about it, which leads me neatly on to where we are now. And so in the middle of last year, we basically stopped the two groups I had on the previous life, which was the group on brakes and running gear and the automated driving group and brought those two together in a new group called the Group of Experts on Vehicle Automation and I'm not going to try and do it in French because my French isn't that good and it just makes me look silly. So Group of Experts on Vehicle Automation is what you need to remember. So as it says on the slide, created in June, first meeting in September and the challenge in that first meeting was actually trying to understand the scale of the problem and it is a really broad ranging set of issues to deal with in terms of regulation. But you can't forget the fact that foundation brakes or basic steering systems are still going to be required. We're not moving overnight from existing vehicles to these wonderfully automated vehicles. There's still going to be a lot of ordinary vehicles, as I'm calling them, for the purposes of this, carrying on being produced. And just to kind of illustrate that over the last 10 days in London, I've spent pretty much the whole time worrying about tyres. Now, you might think what you're worrying about tyres, but there's been an issue in the UK. So as much as we want to move to the automation, we can't ignore the fact that these maybe I'm going to use the wrong word, ordinary straightforward systems such as tyres, brakes, lighting continue to be a challenge for us in the regulatory context. And so we've got to accept that we're going to live in this kind of messy world for a number of years about we've got the traditional regulations, traditional systems, and at the same time, we're going to get these really clever systems and somehow we've got to try and build that together as we go forward. And that's really the challenge of this group. It also absolved this new group on vehicle automation and absolved the other groups that had hitherto been under the group I chaired, which was the auto bay group, which was about how do we test automated vehicles and then the work that I think you heard a bit about this morning from Darren, which is about cybersecurity and over the air updates or software updates. So they're now all within this new group. But then coming back to what's it doing? It's also thinking about these ordinary systems or automated basic systems. So autonomous emergency braking, for example. But that doesn't mean that we've given up thinking about ITS in the broader context. And so whilst we've merged what was the ITS AD group, we've also reconstituted ourselves to have an ITS group to just think about those broader strategic issues that are going to continue coming up. How do we think about the emerging technologies on connectivity? Just to take a view, for example, on do we need to worry about 5G or not? Is it an issue for regulation? How can we just leave the industry to deal with it? And I don't know the answer to that. Other people in the room are probably much more qualified than I am. But I can imagine a minister in the UK or one of my colleagues asking me, do we really need to worry about this or not? And so WP 29 needs to think about that. Because if it's an issue, we might need to start regulating it in the way that we think about cybersecurity three years ago or two years ago so that we're in a much stronger position now. So these are the kinds of issues the ITS group will be taking forward. And what I've called outreach. So it's this kind of thing as well. We're actually presenting WP 29 to ensure that everyone understands what it's what it's there for, what it's doing, and that most people are welcome to come along either to the main group or to the subgroups. And I think that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Um, and I think I think you cover it, but I'm not rules of the road. The regulations of rules of the road are defined to get a response out of humans. Whatever that response is supposed to be, stop it, stop. How are we dealing with those regulations such that we get the same response? Out of automated vehicles? In other words, what should the rules of the road be for automated vehicles? Such it harmonizes the response of automated vehicles such that they're the same is what we do. And of course, the biggest question has to do with what's the definition of a stop sign and what's the definition of a speed limit? So to what extent are you dealing with this in the regulatory framework to try to get that harmonization? Great question. Can you hear me a great question? I wish I had a good answer. Um, I think that's a real challenge. Actually, how do how do we assess vehicles where the vehicle is going to be doing the driving function? And that was one of the slides I put up as I think auto vape. And that's really the work of that group is to try and develop the test methods of how we might go about that. Now, I'm not going to suggest for one moment that we've got all the answers. I think we understand exactly the questions that you highlighted. And that's clearly the the view of the WP one on road traffic safety. I mentioned the other group. And so WP 29 works very closely with WP one. So trying to reassure them that we are thinking about those issues. But it'd be fair to say there isn't an easy answer to it. And maybe we'll pick up on that in the discussion that's going to come shortly, because I think it's a really, really topical important question that you raise. Forgive me if I didn't give you a very good answer. OK, so I'm in this. Oh, is there any more questions? Sorry on that. OK, we can pick them up as we go through. Now, this is a rather slightly strange thing, because I'm now going to move slightly to the right and now start moderating the session. So I've got my notes. OK, so. We're now moving on to the second part of my my starring role. And that is to moderate the session on the Department of Automated Mobility Services, and I'm joined, fortunately, by a group of European and global experts. And I think it's probably worth just going going through everyone. We've got Frank Schluber on the far end, Frank. I think we'll be speaking first. He's from Claipa. Many of you would know Claipa. He's the director of marketing and such like, is an expert in the aftermarket and such things to do with vehicles. So he's going to tell us all about Claipa's interest in technology and aftermarket sales and such like and how that might fit into the future of mobility and connectivity. We then got Hustavendur. He's a similar expert from ACA this time. So he's from the European Association of Car Makers. He's the director of mobility services. So he's going to tell us all about the ACA position and the car makers position. We then got our global expert, David Ward. So David is well known to many of you, I'm sure. He's been around looking at. Almost as long as we are. Yeah, yeah. So David's David's interest is specifically from a consumer point of view. He is the champion of the consumer and champion of global end cap from the start and for the safe, safer vehicles foundation or road safety foundation. David will correct me when I get that if I got that slightly wrong. And I'm missing a matter who in effect is my opposite number from Tokyo. He's the ministry of transport director of international affairs. He's a regular attendee and WP 29 and knows all things that go on in Japan on road vehicle safety and the environment. So we're going to work, I think, in reverse or we're going to start with Frank and then come this way. We're run through some presentations. I think a couple of colleagues have got PowerPoint with a bit of kind of speaking notes and such like them. What I want to do is open it up to everyone on the floor and then hopefully even though we're the last session, we're going to be one of the most lively question and answer sessions of the day. So Frank, thank you. Ian, thanks a lot for having me here and thanks for the invitation and the opportunity to share with you some views from supplier perspective. Klaipa stands for the suppliers, automotive suppliers. We usually we employ five million people in Europe and we have about 120 member spending about 20 billion euro in every year. For R and D and we are definitely deep in all these new development. We have heard a lot about AI. We have heard a lot about cyber, but I want to bring you a little bit back to where everything is at the moment coming from and where it's also funded. With WGX, you make a one time business when you sell it, but over the lifetime you make another business. And this is called aftermarket. We might find a new word for the future, but the old fashioned thing is aftermarket. It's a global business with about 400 billion euro of value. Only parts, ex suppliers in Europe. We talk about one hundred and twenty three billion. We see with an increasing number of electric wagels or battery electric wagels. We see definitely a stagnating market here in wear and tear parts, depending on the ratio of electric wagels. This will even be a declining market. But there is another market emerging. This is the market we talk about mobility services. And imagine simply that by twenty twenty five, about seventy percent of the wagel fleet in Europe is connected. That we have the possibility to interact with the driver and that you can make additional business or provide additional services to a driver. If it's only a value of 12 months, this is what we pay for Spotify or other nice things we enjoy. I think only 12 euro per month per wagel adds up to an amount of 34 billion. This is what fuels at the moment the fantasy and creates all this hype about using connectivity and creating new services. We see also in the future that less people are taking decisions on the entire fleet, intermediates like insurance and fleets. Are definitely gaining ground. We have six percent fleet cars at the moment. This goes up to 13 15 percent, no limits. And definitely at the moment, our wagels get more and more complex. Softwareization, complexity increases and also the connectivity is gaining ground. This means at the moment, technology definitely favors the OEMs. They are in first hand sitting on that technology. And that is what they make use of at the moment. Access to data equals access to market. This is where we are and this is what we see at the moment really to happen. And I promise the new word for aftermarket, I call it this is mobility services over the lifetime of a wagel. If we look to the timeline, we talked a lot about automatic wagels, but I think this is something what will hit the market really late. Electric wagels gained with a new legislation now on CO2. Definitely, I would say a kind of new ignition and the show shows it here. I think this will ramp up a little bit faster than expected before. But there are other things which change the market at the moment. And this is connectivity. Connectivity, I think, is the key for many new services. Also for fantasies and ideas coming from outside into our automotive world. And where we see a lot of or will see a lot of changes in the future and which will make the entire mobility possible in a different way. From that side, timeline is very clear. Connectivity will be at the moment, the key word. There are a lot of studies out there. Deloitte definitely predicted already a year ago or two years ago that OEMs definitely have one big pocket here. And about 20 percent of the revenues will come from mobility services in the future. This is also confirmed by McKinsey and Quartz and Stuart doing the same studies here, not from the OEM perspective, but from the aftermarket perspective. They see connectivity as the major driver for change. And there are studies funded by the EU commission out there, which definitely describe already a little bit the new world and who has access to that new market. When it comes to services, what am I talking about? And we had within our GLEPA members, we had a hot discussion about why are we going for services? We are component manufacturers. No, that's not true. Many of our members are thinking about what's my role in the new mobility world. And they also invest in mobility services and want to get into that market in the future. And we see a couple of things you see here on the slide, predictive maintenance. Some of our members operate on service networks. Think about fleet business and so on. Software updates is also a topic for a few members or also the follow up of the product behavior in the market. If you know what is the real load on a component, you can make a better design. Therefore, we are highly interested in getting these data back from the market to be able to design our products closer to the market needs. From that side, there is a high demand and all these services are only possible if you get at the end access to data. And there are a couple of ideas out there how to achieve that. We started all with the added devices, either connected to the OBD or only two plus and minus of the battery. We have further systems extended wiggle as proposed by the OEMs, what we are testing at the moment extensively. And there are ideas about complete other solutions, direct access or even routing data via trusted servers. I think this world is not yet decided, especially not the technology was what's really in favor and there will be a discussion in the next month and years about what is the right approach here. But fact is, for in the sake of all stakeholders, we need to get a common understanding how we make this data economy work and how to make mobility services work and to utilize the full innovation power of our European business landscape. And that's I think the big challenge here to make sure that out of the data at the end, we make new services beneficial for consumers and our society. That's it from my side. Thanks a lot. Thanks so much, Frank. I think we just go straight on with the next presentation if that's possible. And then we come back for questions afterwards. Thanks. Good afternoon, everybody. And thanks, Frank, for kicking this off with Ion. It's an honor from ASEA to be here with the ITU and UNEC, VP29, also VP1. We usually worked on braking systems, steering functions, having the best car, the less polluted car, the best combustion engine, et cetera. My time is full time on connectivity and automation and new mobility services as well. And it's fascinating because we saw the multi-manufacturers, we enter into new areas, new ecosystems, as the buzzword says, which means you have to obey new rules because you're not used to these rules. So thanks for inviting us, giving us the floor. I'm also talking on behalf of UNEC here in this forum. I think the title that was given to me was this one, but Ion's Trust and Emphasis should be also about the role of the regulators, Plurio. So let me focus a bit on a number of issues. First, the momentum we have. The momentum is tremendous. We have automation and connected, gives us safety, and that's a key feature. What will you be allowed to do in a fully automated car or in a level four car where the machine takes over? Will we be able to do other things than just sitting in front of the traffic? Article 8.1 and 8.5 to the Vienna Convention. Secondly, traffic efficiency. A lot of governments, actually local cities are very interested to know how connected vehicles will be V2V2I and V2Cities. To get the loads of vehicles that come to cities, we have the geofencing project in Stockholm. We have other things going on with the data task force with the member states in Europe, European Union. So that kind of potential linked with automation is another ballgame that we're not used to do that. New mobility, as we mentioned before, and access also for elderly people. I know from my friends in Japan, we have regular dialers with JAMA and Jaya. On the SIP others project, one of the things is elderly people and also automation. How can we move that forward, literally move that forward? And resources, that's a big thing we have in Europe, decarbonization, but also sustainability, productivity in automation, automated vehicles and automated mobility. But when having these two pictures together, it's two different worlds, but it's the same car. Suppose you have a lever four car, poor truck. You put that in the desert, or you put it in an urban mobility environment. How the hell difference? Because it's different, probably the same rules, but totally different interactions you have. You have no interaction in the first one, because there's nobody, more or less. So fully autonomous in a city, the prediction of what can happen is tremendously difficult. To replace the driver, the human being, who is still responsible for 90 plus percent of the accidents, to have that replaced by HMI, by a machine-taking decision on self-learning systems, we're not yet there. We're starting now with this, but this will be a hell of a job in terms of also big computing. So complexity is rising. And for us, I heard that before, we have no right to fail on this one. The consumer who is visiting the motor show here, he will not buy, ride, or drive any higher level of automated vehicle or connected vehicle. If connectivity fails, and if you're reliable on truck platooning, for example, where we have milliseconds of communication, it's called latency, low latency. If the system would fall out, there is no truck platooning, and there is no braking, and then you just go in front of the other truck. If there would be a failure in the automated systems, and there is not a resilience, not a backup system, I think you can forget to sell your automated vehicle in the future. And we're going back to the analog world. So that's why safety is key for us before commercializing and promoting a fully autonomous vehicle next to the shuttles or high levels of autonomy, we think twice as OEMs. And that has been said before in terms of marketing language. We should be very careful in promoting autopilot systems and these kind of things. It has a legal, quite some legal implications as well. So safety is key. We're very happy with the new European package on general safety regulation, which is a new package of active and passive safety systems in the finalization process. I would also very happy that there is the two draft resolutions on cybersecurity. I'm cluster four. Very happy with the draft regulation on cyber vehicle, not about connected, but the vehicle itself as a product. And secondly, on software updates over the air. I'll be trying to convince my European colleagues, European Commission colleagues and Inesia, that we don't need an additional layer in the European Union on this and an additional regulatory mindset for cybersecurity for vehicles. We have that and have to congratulate the UNEC people and all the cluster four people because they did a great job and Darren and the team there congratulates. We have to take this as granted and let's take it more. And we promote that with the European Commission. So thanks for that. This is a timeline. We didn't make it. European Union made it with the whole group to follow up with a gear 2030 process where we discussed the competitiveness of our industry. And that's more or less our timeline to have going to more and more connected and automated. Are we there? No, we're not yet there. I think we need all this research developments. Manufacturers, we invest 51 billion euro per year in R&D, 51 billion per year under 15 OEMs. It's key and it's not enough because we need also some projects going on and there is a two interesting projects now running with funding of the EU. It's called, the one is called lever three pilot L3, which is about lever three with four use cases, 1,000 cars, eight countries, eight member states and cross border. Second is ensemble. Ensemble, it's a French word for together. It's traplatuning, six OEMs, HDV, going for high density traplatuning, multi brand. Deadline 2023 maximum. And this is key for learning. We also have interactions with drivers, with consumers and so on. We need to talk with new people. Need to talk with the infrastructure. It's more about, it's not more about asphalt and about, it's about, yeah, how do you equip the infrastructure? How do you make it more intelligent? Should you have bacon? Should they have these in DSRC? Should we have mobile cellular connectivity? Should we have a combination? That's the discussion we have with the traffic authorities and the road authorities. What kind of data do they want from us? What kind of data do we get from them? If we have slippery roads, I think that a road authority is very interested to have that information even quicker than he can see it or he can feel it. So the loss of traction information, the road data, we will be able to send that to the traffic authorities. So that's just an example. We probably also need to refit and review a lot of current regulatory regimes. And of course, having education of the public because we usually forget to talk about the real driver who's not here. It's the public societal challenges and not only about skills, jobs, but about how will a consumer look to the automated and connected driver? Will it be a gadget or will it be really necessity? And how will he also react to when there is a mixed traffic situation? So the framework we need because I've been asked to talk about the regulatory things for the last session. I think we need to have all this and the good news it's all being taken into account. VP1, VP29, GRVA, good progress on this one. Horizontal approach as well for for example, consistent application and interpretation of the Vienna Convention that at least we have some guidance from the member countries to contracting parties how to interpret these rules because these rules stem from 1968. I was just born then. And they talked about cars or vehicles and horses. Today we talk about systems and about solutions with machines. So that's the kind of homework we are doing in ASEA with my members and to see who is doing what in this jungle of legislation and who should do what. And we now into a kind of we call it a roadmap that I'm finalizing with my teams and my 15 OEMs and we're gonna present that very soon. How to get to high levels of automation. That's not again, the SAE levels to redo the work. It's not to redo the work of Ertrak which is the global community of research and development but that's what do we need per level of automation? Level four, what does that mean in terms of regulatory? What do we have to change in this jungle of legislations? Or what are the safety and security requirements? And what are the requirements for the infrastructure? The physical infrastructure per level of automation? So we have a number of challenges that are new because our business is going into business of other people. Connectivity, connectivity has been mentioned. What kind of connectivity? Is it machine to machine, CITS? Which is sending messages from a vehicle to another vehicle into the road infrastructure for safety related purposes mostly. Or is it machine to or car to X which means to an insurance company to the members of Frank, his team to do parking management, to do tolling management, to do all kinds of personal services, personalized services. All this will become possible is also already partially possible. Satellite communication, when we talk to Galileo, the people of DGGRO in the commission, Galileo is the European satellite, free of use, free of charge with geo positioning in 2020 of 20 centimeters. It's a must to have this geo positioning for a very critical geo position for automation for high level of automation. The data economy has been mentioned already. It's about we are entering into new markets, vehicles, OEMs used to build vehicles. Today, tomorrow we will still build vehicles but we will enter new markets. So it can be markets of enabling insurance services, enabling all kinds of other services for the consumer, for the driver and for the community. That means, should we regulate this? No, no, should we have rules on that? It's innovation. Let us innovate and then see where the market fails or where we fail and then let's have another discussion prospectively. Data protection privacy has not been mentioned a lot today. Key issue for all of us GDPR is the standard in Europe. Even recognized by Zuckerberg that there was actually a very good standard. But when you apply it in detail to all kinds of things, well, you see the limits also of that legislation. How to have the consumer consent and the CRTS framework. We cannot ask the driver to say yes or no to every message that will be sent to the road authority. Liability rules, artificial intelligence, spectrum, coming back to that later on. And if we have shared autonomous vehicles in X number of years from now or we becoming public transport or we becoming member of a public engine and do we have to follow these rules? How to have access to timetables of public transport companies to provide mass services, mobility as a service services. This is an ITU forum though, I've checked with my members as well. Do we have some key issues on spectrum? We're looking forward to the end of year work radio conference of course for, because we see some mixed, we know that some countries like Japan is using the 700 megahertz for CRTS. We have the 5.1 gigahertz gives a kind of an issue of harmonization needs. Secondly, frequency allocation. We are definitely part now of this group within Etsy and also within, we tried also to be advocating to CPT. So the European geographically spoken, European states, for us it's efficient use of spectrum. It's not about blend splits, it's about efficient use. And we have some issues there in terms of interoperability of two three technologies but also downwards compatibility or backwards compatibility. So we want to avoid any harmful interference. The tolling systems worked on the 5.8 gigahertz. ITS is working on the 5.9. We definitely do not want to hinder each other. Can you imagine that we have a truck platooning or a high level automated car that needs to make a break for a time critical safety reason and that he would be hindered by the next, by the neighbor doing other things in the same frequency. I'm not sure we would like that. So there's a draft report going on will be finalized very soon and we definitely need additional spectrum. It's not enough. We only have 30 megahertz for the CITS today, ITS safety, we definitely need to go to 50. There is urban rail also entering into the game with an exclusive 10 megahertz on the upper side, which is technologically non-neutral and non-efficient use probably of the whole spectrum range. So we have a number of issues to sort out with that specific range of spectrum. And 5G has not been mentioned a lot today, but there's definitely the 700 megahertz there could be a good candidate for that. So conclusions. Very happy to have a global framework in the UNEC that is the unique forum, the exclusive forum for all this. We have European variants, as we say, European approximation of international law and European focus. But my OEMs are very clear. If things are not happening as quickly as needed what commercialization needs, given the lead times, we need to call on the door of European Union to go faster, okay? And that was also an outcome of the year 2030 report. So that's why we very much welcome the GRVA with China also as a vice chair and a very new future. And so we definitely need some changes and that's taken into account in the work plan of these bodies. But this is for the ITU would say, let's continue the cooperation and especially with automotive frequency in mind. And for that, thank you very much. Okay, thank you very much. So David, could you? Yeah, go. Yeah, that's all right. Well, thanks very much for inviting me. 50 years ago, actually in January, the Beatles recorded a very big hit of theirs which called the Long and Winding Road. And I think it'd be very good if that became one of the theme tunes of the AVE community. Because I do think, and I'm pleased about this, I think there is finally signs that a lot of the hype around AVEs is getting into a slightly more realistic, if you might call it evidence-based sort of environment. And I think that's a very important starting point for regulators for everybody. Essentially, if you look at a credible market share for a penetration of AVEs, IHS market did something actually about a year ago and they forecast AVE penetration in global regions up to 2040. And if you look at the graph, it shows that the bulk of that anyway is in the US and actually China, interestingly, coming forward, but the numbers are quite, by 2030, it's 5 million new vehicle sales in the context of 100 million each year. So we're talking very small, by 2040, they're saying 33 million. So let's take the next decade when we might have another between 15 and 20 million road traffic deaths about the same size as a medium-sized country, AVEs will be absolutely irrelevant to the profile of reducing road deaths. I'm not saying it's not important or the rest of it, but it's important to put all this in a sort of realistic perspective. And so I'm kind of quite pleased to see the hype coming off. There are one or two things that have always sort of bugged me about what I call AVE hype. One of them, and it may not seem very important, but to me it is, is you cannot go anywhere without politicians and others coming out with this incredible cliche that 90% of road traffic deaths are caused by human error. And from that, they then jump into a huge sort of absurd reductionism that AVEs are gonna deliver a 90% reduction. It's all wrong. And the actual original studies, some of them were NHTSA studies, never said 90% is human error. What they said was in a causal chain, human error is the last identifiable cause, very often there's a bias in there because the data comes from police data and the police very often, insofar as they have time to look at this at all, are looking to a portion blame in a sort of, in that kind of context, not actually trying to work out what really happened. And the problem with this 90% figure is it systematically underestimates design induced error, which could be roads, incorrect traffic management, or I think actually anyone in the car industry who repeats the thing of 90%, which they do quite frequently, you're actually creating your own problem because you're drawing the problem onto yourself. This is a shared problem. As you rightly said, involving infrastructure everybody else. So anytime anyone says, oh, they start their speech with 90%, basically they actually don't have a clue about what they're talking about. So let's abolish that from the lexicon of this whole debate. The other thing is, I think, looking at it from a global perspective is what we do. It's very important to understand what's happening in the vehicle market. There is huge disruption, but by far the biggest disruption is not about technology, it's about geography. In the last 10, 15 years, half of global production of the auto industry has moved to emerging markets. That's where half the sales are. It's also the weakest regulated part of the world. The growth in the auto industry is all in those markets, also where they're most profitable. That is actually the real disruption we're all facing. And we're living in a world where there are still major markets that aren't properly regulated. 20 year old crash test standards still not applied in some of these markets. Some very good news. India this year is going to be applying crash test standards, pedestrian protection standards. They've committed to ESC and so on. They actually will now have better crash protection standards than the US. So the world is changing, but that's the real world we're facing. Technology, the first, if you like, real crash avoidance technology with real impressive results is electronic stability control. Today about 70% of new production vehicles have it. There's still a big low hanging fruit there to get ESC much more widely adopted. We're doing a bit of research with TRL at the moment, which forecasts that if every country has a major emerging markets regulated right now for ESC, which we hope they will, by 2030 that would mean that 80% of the global fleet has ESC. And that tells you something about how long it takes for technologies to penetrate through vehicle fleets. So really when you look at it from all that perspective, the lesson I take from this is that we actually do have quite a bit of time to get this right. There's no real hurry. You can get a lot of things wrong. I actually, I hear a lot this talk about first movers. I think often first movers go wrong, and it's the old tortoise and the hare story. Sometimes the slow movers avoid other people's mistakes. So, you know, there is time to get this right. And also, we haven't maxed out the early gains in crash avoidance technologies at all, and we have some interesting challenges. I was very pleased to hear that Asaya is happy with the general safety regulation. Very important mandatory standards coming for A, B, and other systems, including intelligent speed assistance. And I think they are going to be extremely important in shaping the consumer uptake, because ESC, for example, was a kind of secret system. You really didn't know you had it. There was very little as a driver that would teach you anything other than, you just think, wow, I didn't skid off. Skid off the road. A, B is very different. You really notice something has happened. A car has done something for you. And even more so with intelligent speed assistance, which will try and encourage the driver to remain within posted speed limits. It's a very profound change that the driving experience will go through. And one can debate that. I mean, I don't actually agree that A, B doesn't work at all. There's quite good evidence that it works. Global Encampment, Asaya had a slight difference opinion over ICER. It's readiness for being made mandatory. I think it is ready to be made mandatory. But if there are some problems with false readings and so on, well, these things need to be ironed out for sure. And it's going to be all of that experience that builds customer trust and so on. And so it's going to be very interesting over the next few years to see how all that really beds in. Because they are the things that I think will ultimately give confidence to the consumer that progress towards automation is really viable. And that leads me to my final point. I'm quite worried at the moment. The EuroEncamp did some interesting tests. The first of any of the Encaps would have testing automated systems last October. And they also did some public opinion research and came out with a horrific statistic that 70% of motorists asked, thought already that there are autonomous vehicles available for them to buy. And we've seen the problem. Just this week, Jim Holder from Wattcar posted a picture during this Geneva show of some guy in a Tesla. I'm sure it's always a Tesla. But fast asleep on the US interstate, traveling at 75 miles an hour, sort of completely out. And then, of course, we've seen the horrible results of the crashes in the US and very badly named technologies like autopilot. And I think one of the tricky things where we've got to learn the lessons is that with a relatively straightforward simple safety technology like ESC, when ESC first developed, there were about 15 or 20 different names used for it. There was no standardization around that technology, which is very confusing to consumers. And the big challenge we're going to have is how do you build a market and confidence amongst consumers? They understand what all this is about. And again, I don't want to say this in a critical way, but it is just a reality. We know that car retail outlets aren't terribly good at selling a lot of this stuff. There's a challenge in terms of the quality of people selling vehicles, being able to explain all of this to customers. And when we think of moving towards a full AV world, where, for instance, the ability of vehicles to be updated constantly and to make sure that consumers are doing what they should do, and we all know how bad we are sometimes at updating things like this or getting furious when you switch on your PC and then it tells you, we're just going to update. And just please, please sit there for the next 20 minutes. I mean, these are going to be big challenges. So I really do think we need to think very hard about where are we going to build real market acceptance and trust. And my plea would be, as I say, dial back the hype. Don't have these exaggerated claims that the AVs are going to eliminate all road crashes. Build it much more ground upwards based on real experience of the advanced driver assistance systems. And in certain niches, I'm sure, AV vehicles will come in environments where you can test, improve, and validate, and gain confidence. And I think that more sort of gradualistic step-by-step approach is what I think will actually lead us towards an autonomous future. Thank you very much. Thank you, Doug. Thank you. Frank, you've got to go again or what? Oh, sorry. OK. You've got to go right now or? There are. Can we give Mr. Sorry. Can we give Mr. Inamata say in just a couple of minutes just to give a sort of reflection from a completely different part of the world? Thank you. Yes, thank you, Inamata. And good afternoon, everybody. So I'd like to a little bit go back to the main theme. Main theme is how great are working on ensuring that automated vehicle will provide better mobility for all. And the second one is what potential automated mobility service improve our life. So I'd like to, sorry, I'd like to back to regarding this issue. So from a regulatory point of view, so I will emphasize again the importance of the activities of WP29 and the United Nations. And effort to translate the automated driving into practical applications have been underway in major automobile market countries simultaneously. And actually, so discussion on the automated driving are also underway at the Japanese national diet currently. And I heard that there are many similar opinions regarding how to warrant its safety and the social acceptance. That's related to any comments. On the other hand, so vehicles are international commodity. So therefore, harmonization of international standard is essential. So WP29 is a specialized government body to discuss about the international regulatory framework and standard. So I think it provides a vital platform. In addition, the member state of the United Nations and also NGO and many other international organizations like ITU, Global NCAP, and those of OICA CREPA and participate in WP29 now. They honestly discuss matters related to the international regulatory framework on automated vehicle in a technically neutral manner. This is a very important point, I think. And I summarize what I said. So how regulators are working on ensuring that the automated vehicle could be penetrated in the market without confusion. Priority points should be how to warrant its safety. And therefore, it is necessary the vital platform to discuss about the international regulatory framework on automated vehicle with many stakeholders, not only regulators, but also the other international organizations. And that discussion and studies should be technically neutral. This is a key point to get the social acceptance about this totally brand new technology, I think. And if we could get the social acceptance successfully, the potential that the automated mobility service improve our quality of life could be very large. But otherwise, if we fail, that potential should be decreasing more than our perspective. Depending on our cooperated international activity, our future picture of the automated mobility service would be changed. So we have to proceed carefully to take into account the many aspects. That is our duty, I think. And but not easy and hard work for all of us. Thank you very much. Thank you. Great, thanks very much. Now, I'm very conscious of Frank's on an airplane to catch. So I just want to kick off one question. And I'm going to go straight to Frank for it. And I'm going to come back to the Longland winding road because David has said, actually, what's the rush? He just said, we're innovating. It's all happening. We're going to get it right. We've got no right to fail and such like, which is a great soundbites, et cetera. But what happens if you do fail? And therefore, should we take the Longland winding road? And is there an urgency that maybe we're not seeing for some of these things? So Frank, oh, sorry. Yeah, of course, it's a Longland winding road. And I think everyone knows that the automotive industry, suppliers, as well as the OEMs in the past never really thought about service business. They produced cars and sold them. And now we want to enter into an interaction with consumers. There are other industries which have much more experience in human machine interface, in interaction with consumers, or with big data management. But this is a challenge for us. And we know that the new technologies really provide a disruptive component. Either we manage this challenge or we have a complete different automotive world in the future and automotive will have new players in taking the lead in mobility. And there are scenarios out there which define complete new roles to suppliers as well as to OEMs if our industry doesn't take the necessary preparation and makes that big step into the future. And I don't think this is all about regulations. It's about mindset, the willingness to change, the willingness to collaborate. This is a new way of making business in the future. And this is where our industry at the moment is really thinking about. And I have the discussions with my membership. It's really interesting to see how members prepare. We measure that, meanwhile, internally. And I see more and more companies really making that move into a new service thinking. And this is, I think, the element we need. If we need something to regulate later on, after making the first experiences now, I think this is a question where I have no answer at the moment. This is something where we all make experience and come to conclusions by doing it. OK, thanks very much. Is there anyone from the floor who has a question for Frank? Because I know he's going to depart very, very quickly. So I'll come back to Euston in a moment on this question about Long Winding Road. But I just want to open the floor up for anyone with a question. One very quick question. If we say that's a new challenge, I'm wondering how long we would like to say that's a new challenge. This is a challenge which is existing since, I would say, more than 10 years. So the question is, how long do we need in the industry to understand that the situation is completely changing from selling a product business to a service-oriented business? I think you will see the next two years more changes than you saw in the last decade, definitely. And I think this is now really gaining ground. And you see the connectivity now being available in each and every new car sold. E-Call is mandatory. This was the ignition point. But meanwhile, we have E-Call really as a business instrument developed. And from that side, I would say this ramps really up. And if you see here on the show what OEMs provide at the moment, they are here in the forefront. But there is also a complete supplier industry as well as smaller, medium-sized companies out there which really create the pressure to make that. I think that really accelerated in the last 12 months, massively. Yeah, that would be my sort of take on that question, actually, that I think there is. I'm not sure it's been there for 10 years. I think there's been orders of magnitude changing connectivity in vehicles that's now starting to accelerate that opportunity. But, ladies and gentlemen, can we just give Frank a round of applause because he's going to go. Thank you very much, Frank. We're very grateful. OK, yes. So back to the Longham Winding Road, or...? It's a long road to Teperere, I can't know. So there are two questions. One is about Longham Winding Road. What's the rush? Trust me, I'm a vehicle manufacturer. That's kind of the gist of it. I know. Well, we've been living in a time in the past where we need regulatory rules from UNEC, from Europe, to be sure that if we're producing something that it's roadworthy and that it's fully compliant. Today we are venturing with totally new business models. If we don't get our act together as OEMs, others will. Others will buy and also will build cars that's already going on and not in Europe and they put services on it, so that we are not even part in that ecosystem. That's why you saw, for example, the joint venture in the car sharing business with Daimler and BMW. Others will come and these are new businesses for us. You use a vehicle as an instrument to go from point A to point B, but that instrument allows you to do liberalization of slots, to go to more and more automated as well and to have a new dialogue with cities, for example. What we do now, we talk with cities to see what would be the pattern of the city in the future. You don't change a city like that. We talk with the road authorities because they're maintaining the roads and they can be told roads or non-told roads and they ask us how should we build the road of the future because changing roads or maintaining roads, it's a public investment, a lot of money, a lot of time. We have our lead times as well. So basically when I visit my members, Germany, France, a bit everywhere, I see quite a number of new teams, totally new guys coming from the Gaffas, these kind of companies and not busy with vehicles, steering functions and so on or ADUST, dealing with connectivity and automation and especially connectivity. If we have to wait until 5G is developed and rolled out and financed by XYZ to be seen, we don't have time for that. So that's why we're stepping out of the discussion. I'll give you an example. We've got a long discussion in Europe, European Union on CITS, should we mandate it? No, we don't. Should we regulate this? If yes, what kind of technology do we use? If we have to wait until there is a full solution on interoperability and backwards compatibility of CV to X with ITSG-5, well, we can still wait another year and then no car will be equipped. So at least some manufacturers say, okay, we're gonna make a choice. Volkswagen is one of them. Another one will be soon announced. At least they will set the scene to some extent that, well, they've taken the choice. And that's a dialogue we have with the telecommunications industry, through 5GA, through ARTA and these kind of cycles where we understand now better their ecosystems, their lead times, their financing models and they understand much more hours as well. And this is new. We didn't talk to these guys. Now we do in a structured way. And I have to thank the Commission for that actually, European Commission, because they were font runner to make us talk to each other, these two silo businesses in the past. So that's one of the answers I could give to your question. I think just kind of challenging your answer. It's still in the kind of everything's great. We're gonna do it. It's still gonna be fine. Why is this technology pushed rather than market pull? So are the consumers asking for this or are you just gonna give it to them? And then if you build it, they will come, i.e. if you give it to them, then suddenly all these other things. And I've seen similar presentations or similar arguments about, I didn't know I needed a smartphone until I was given one. And now I can't live without it. And so is that the kind of vision that we think we have for the auto sector? And I don't know. Yeah, maybe. I guess I'd like to ask, why are we connecting them? But if you want to connect them, then are you going to pay for it? Is the person who wants to connect them going to pay for them? Or are you going to go ask the public who probably doesn't want them connected? Because I already have my phone. Why does my car need to be connected? Is the auto industry going to pay for the connectivity that it claims that it wants? I wonder, what do you think, David? Your thing about it is for the consumer point of view. I don't want to keep beating up you. That's exactly, that's a good question. We have exactly that discussion on 5G. Who will pay the bill for the deployment of 5G, the pay stations, the pickle cells, et cetera, and the frequency and the auctioning of the frequencies and then the money goes to the public budget instead of ring fencing it for what it should be. We definitely will not fund every model there of 5G. That's not our call. What we want to do is have indeed low latency and a good mesh network is needed for some use cases. We do not bet on everything that we need would need 5G in the future, not at all. 4G is fine, it's a question of frequency managers as well for short range, but 5G is promising, but we need it, if we would have it, we need it in a very global setting and probably everywhere and that will not be invested everywhere. That's also obviously with 4G today. Russell's got a question. Before you go, Russell, I'd like to just broaden our thinking slightly and this is for a further question after Russell's, but I wonder if we could just think for a moment about mobility as a service because my colleagues in the UK see mobility as a service using connectivity as one of the ways in which we're going to improve the transport network in the UK. This kind of just in time or a vehicle when I need it, I only need it for one hour, so I hire it for one hour and it comes to my door, takes me where I need to go. So how to think about that while we think about Russell's question. Yeah, so more comment. You asked about technology push versus consumer. Unfortunately, I had a large experience in this discussion in navigation systems and for years after the technology was ready, people did studies, all of the car company, senior marketing people said no market, nobody will pay more than 1,000 marks for an option. Finally, because it was working and ready, leaders in BMW and Mercedes got together and said screw it, we'll put it in the market at 5,000 marks and lo and behold, people bought it and by the time, within less than 10 years, more than 10% of the profits from Mercedes and BMW and the 2003, four, five timeframe came from navigation systems because people were paying these high prices. So we don't know as industry people, our technology people, what people are gonna buy when it's new. It's just they don't understand it. They hear things, they get wild ideas. Every study that I saw in the early days said people would pay much more money for traffic information than navigation systems. When you ask people what they want, they knew, oh, computer, all knowing things, traffic, it can tell me what to do, I'll buy that. They never could believe that a car could know where it was and tell them where to go. So I think we gotta be very careful on making conclusions on what people really want and will really buy. Okay, yeah, really, really good point actually, thanks. So, yeah, of course. Yeah, Lee, I'm struck by an interview. He, yeah, by the late, much with Sergio Marchone. Okay, I'll take this one. The late Sergio Marchone, who gave a long interview about a euro seven before he sadly died. And I was always very impressed with his sort of clarity and thought about one thing that slightly alarmed me in this interview is he was talking about the worry in the auto industry about young people and the lack of interest and how uncool buying a vehicle is. And one of the things he was saying, we've got to be able to offer all the things that young people expect. And so I actually think that the problem may be huge demand for all sorts of things, but which are extremely potentially risky from a safety perspective and driver distraction. We may be on a whole new realm of driver distraction where we haven't yet got autonomous vehicles at all. And I think there's gonna be a very potentially risky and uncomfortable sort of period there that needs to be handled sort of well. And one of the things that worries me is that the, I think the whole discussion about human machine interface is stuck in a sort of, in a bit of an old fashioned way. I still can't understand these days. I used to race cars. I'm an old petrolhead, not properly reformed, my wife would say. But why do we have rev counters in cars anymore? What the hell was that about? Speedometers, very interesting what Volvo just announced, but why do we have speedometers that tell us we can go way, way above speed limits? That crucial area in front of our eyes really needs to be looked at carefully. And just like Dirk, I was mentioning earlier a few years back, I didn't get to fly it because I couldn't have done but I got to sit in an Apache helicopter, which is the one where the helmet, you look and then the machine gun points. This is a really aggressive weapon system. And when I sat in the thing, I expected to see a whole bank of instruments. In fact, there was a tiny little box about this size. And I asked the guy who was the pilot, what's that all about? And he said, oh, it just tells me what I need to know when I need to know it. And it was just mostly a black screen because he's got to be concentrating on what he's doing up in the sky or even a sheet. So I think we need to think totally differently about all of that human machine interface thing, but it gets into very, very tricky areas. So, okay, so do we then see as a proposition connectivity and automation as in the autonomous functions in a vehicle, moving together, moving forward on the same timeline, or do we see them moving at different times? So will we have connectivity and services into a vehicle much quicker than we will have automation level four, level five automation? Okay, so there's a general feeling at this end that we'll have connectivity before we'll have full automation. Now that kind of jars with your observation, David, if you have connectivity, then you've got this HMI risk. So I just wonder, what's the, how's the vehicle manufacturer dealing with those kinds of issues? Is there any, you know, any work going on? Definitely on HMI, sure. And give you an example, how to interpret signals we get from the outside. Should we standardize that? So for example, if we in the future, even autonomous or an automated vehicle, level four would receive a, would capture a signal from a road traffic sign. How will that machine interpret that signal? Will it be interpreted in the same way by the colleagues or the other vehicles? So it appears. If not, if there is no, I would say synchronization or interpretation, we all have a problem, yeah? Because human beings, they can auto correct quite quickly. They, if something is wrong, right? Machines, they need a high capacity on AI to do that. So that's one example. I'll be definitely studying this now, also with the safety components and also link to what you're doing, the global and European end cap, yeah. Okay, thank you very much. So in a message then, so what are you doing in Tokyo to deal with this? Yes, thank you very much. Regarding for the issue by the HMI issue, so yeah, just so coincidentally, so in Japanese discussion, it's a Japanese discussion, so external HMI is a very critical point. So we have to discuss about the external HMI, because so at the first stage, maybe it's a mixture of the level two vehicle and level three vehicle, but the level three vehicle is totally different from the responsible for the driver and machine. So it is very careful discussion about how to deal with external HMI. Yes, not only the internal HMI, but also the external HMI. So during the next week, WP 29, I also raised this issue as a meeting. Great, okay, that seems like a great invitation for everyone to come to WP 29 to engage in that discussion. So the secretary is there, he will give you a pass, I'm sure. But you know, coming back to the question then, I've got to raise this issue about mobility as a service. Are there any observations from the floor on that question? I read recently that transport for London decided that it was so crowded in London now as a result of having more Lyft and Uber cars that they would remove buses from service and put them out into the outer reaches of London so there would be more room for the buses that were left. So we're increasing mobility as a service in some instances by putting people, individuals into cars and removing what I felt when I lived for my year in London was one of the best mobility as a service, services, which was the bus and the tube. So I'll turn the question back to you. Why isn't public transport good enough as a mobility as a service? And why are we trying to push more mobility into individual passenger cars? I think we're getting into the politics, you know. I'll just be clear, I'm from the UK government, I'm not from London, it's a unitary authority. I think the challenge is that your experience of living in London is exactly what I have the benefit of every day, because I work in London and it is, you know, a really great place. Jen Jen is a really great place. But why am I as if you live in a place where you don't have regular public transport? You know, where I live, there's one bus in the morning and there's one bus back in the evening. There's nothing else. Now, if you could have a facility where you could organize some kind of joint mobility, whether it's a small bus or whatever it is to the community, that would be so, so valuable. And, you know, we haven't really touched on the kind of community where they don't have easy access so the mobility impaired people where having that ability to call a vehicle to your door and, you know, you might not be able to fold your own vehicle. That's where mobility I think as a service has a great social benefit. And, you know, I think it's a real challenge to break out from the kind of a really great public transport service in a city versus, you know, the broader community. But I don't know, David, you're the kind of consumer champion. Well, I really wouldn't be surprised if that is what the current mayor of London is trying to do. I don't think so. But anyway, I have quite good contacts with all the team there. I mean, they certainly don't have an anti-public transport bias, quite the opposite. And they're doing some very innovative things. For example, fitting ISA in buses, intelligence services in buses. They've pioneered direct vision, which is improving the visibility on trucks. They're doing some really good stuff. And they're a vision zero city, you know, anyway. But I just completely agree with what you're saying about mobility services in more remote communities. I think this will be our penultimate. So I think we'll take one more question after that. And then I think it's time to wrap up. The problem with mobility as a service as it's talked about by the OEMs is the making of cars available to individuals to ride around by themselves as if they own one. It's not focused on trying to find two people who are unrelated, who would be casual ride sharers. In other words, it's not me and my, I'm dragging my wife along. It's me riding with Michael that I don't want to ride with or something. I mean, it really is trying to increase the vehicle occupancy from what it is, except we're in the biggest cities, you know, one person per vehicle. And how do we get it to two people per vehicle? And I don't think the automobile industry is at all focused on that. It has to be a fleet operator who really is focused on making money on the number of rides that they offer in the fewest vehicle miles in places where it's not dense enough to have a 50 passenger bus where you live. Yeah, good question. I'm not sure the gentleman is right because a lot of OEMs are actually adventuring and trialing this new concept of cars, physical also building new types of cars which can be eubrized. But what we see is mobility as a service, the concept that we have in Europe is, first is multimodal. It's having access to each other's timetables or free slots through an app or multiple apps is not standardized today. But at least allowing the consumer when he goes from point A to point B, he can do that to multiple things. It can be a first-mark car, can be a last-mark car and in the middle you have a bus and then a tram in the metro with one stop shopping literally. And that's not yet the case for all kinds of regulatory hurdles and protectionist hurdles, mostly by the public parts of the site. Through the mobility as a service alliance in Europe, which we have, we try to promote this and we see some good examples. We had recently meetings at Milton Keynes in the UK with Catapult and they do really good things there also with universities to promote that. Sweden, Norway, the Nordic countries in general have a much more about the Finnish minister, for example as well. It's very good plea for mobility as a service. And the consumer will push it or the system will push it, push us to that kind of things. Yeah, I mean, I understand your question exactly, but I just, I mean, I think there's a learning process, isn't there, in the consumer base as well, that they have to become more comfortable with this notion of sharing. And the thing that we always get hit with in times of government is the security, the personal security angle of this notion of getting in a car with someone you've got no idea who it is. And you can't ignore that. And so I think there's a learning process. But there's nothing as easy answer. No, no, no, I get it. I know I'm not suggesting it's easy. Right, I'm conscious of time. I'm being signaled to, but I'm going to ignore that just for a moment. So I'm prepared to take one more question. If not, we're going to wrap up. So there's any more questions from the floor? No, you all want to get to the show, don't you? I can tell that all through the airport. Right, okay. Ladies and gentlemen, thanks so much. It's been a great afternoon. Thank you. I'll start you close. Okay. Yeah. Thank you very much for all of you staying so long because it was a really long day full of interesting discussions and full of exchange of knowledge. We had four main elements today on first starting with the question on the technology for connectivity. Should we look on wifi equivalent things or is 5G the future? And when will we have coverage of 5G that is dense enough for the driving environment? Of course, cybersecurity and over the air software updates are still element that keeps us busy. And I learned interestingly that artificial intelligence is not yet arrived in the autonomous vehicles. And finally, in the last panel, the deployment of automated mobilities and mobility as a service closed more or less the day. So I would like from my side and also from the EC side, thank all the panelists, all the participants and of course all the staff making this event happening. And I hand over to... Yeah, thank you Walter. Today is a great day for me as well. I hope all of you enjoyed over your time. All of the day I learned so many things. Even our knowledge is getting more practical. Most of these panelists are talking about based on some of the experience. But listening to this last session, I wish to make some comment, but I saved my words. I'm thinking about, this is not a question, but it's my personal thinking or question myself. Could be next year, we will challenge again. We are talking about autonomous and intelligence. Might be I'm wondering about, we may think after produce of this vehicle with these autonomous intelligent vehicles, every vehicle is a whole of the world after produce, after buy-buy customer is the same as it is. Being totally the same. Let me make some example of this smartphone or tablet. You have after you buy smartphone one week later, two weeks later, I'm pretty much sure. All smartphone is different. Smartphone is the same. Hardware stuff should be same. But all operation is different. I'm wondering about, we might be some of the contradict ourselves. I'm wondering about this for the future, autonomous intelligent vehicle would be same after selling out. I wish to see some of a better answer. I do myself, so I start on this subject because I do as one of the home for discussing about this ICT, how this ICT impact of this support of this mobile as a service. Mobile as a service means to meet of this each individual customer or public in any communities. So having said that, I'm really joined with you. This is a great sense, especially all these program committees and the panelists, definitely our sponsors. Still we have a good opportunity after disclosing outside. We have some receptions waiting for you to refresh out and wish to you can continue your dialogue to finalize all these exciting days. And also I'm expecting to see you again next year. Last year was good, but this year much better. I think next year more excited, more tangible experience having said that. Also my sense to the backside, our colleagues, you have a working lot to make all these operations. Some of them might be still online to listening or a webcast, my sense to that. We did. Let's close and see you next year. Thank you very much. We have to continue next.