You're listening to there auto be a law, the
center for auto safety podcast with executive
director, Michael Brooks, chief engineer, Fred
Perkins, and hosted by me, Anthony Cimino. For
over 50 years, the center for auto safety has
worked to make cars safer. Hey, listeners today
is wednesday april 29th this episode is brought
to you by sunshine and happiness and all good
things in the world not rain no flash flooding
no not flash flooding oh if you're it's flash
flooding let's hope you're not in a waymo uh
because you know let's start with that uh there's
a waymo that i in this from the san antonio express
news Waymo service in San Antonio is still paused
after floodwaters wash away robo -taxi. So the
all -seeing eye of the Waymo, the thing that
doesn't drive drunk, doesn't drive distracted,
is better than people. It smells great. Once
you do it, you get taller. Your diet improves.
Your cholesterol lowers. I couldn't see a giant
puddle. Quoting from this article, Waymo's ride
-hailing services remain paused in San Antonio
four days after one of its driverless cars was
washed away by floodwaters in the city Monday
night. Waymo hasn't disclosed where its car was
when it was swept away. And Waymo says, as a
result of flooding in San Antonio, we temporarily
paused our local operations and are continuing
to monitor road conditions. Now, keep in mind,
this is Waymo saying. We come on the road. Everything's
going to be great. I've got some amazing quotes
from a Waymo person later. Everything is incredible.
All this is so good. Our car couldn't handle
flooding. And, you know, but, you know, those
emergency service people, they'll get out there
and somehow safely remove a giant wet battery.
That was my takeaway. So they've they've suspended
service in San Antonio, which is, you know, more
than they've done, you know, in Austin, Atlanta,
when they continue to pass school buses and can't
fix that issue. But this flash flooding problem
is not it's not something new. It looks like,
you know, looking back, they've had problems.
I mean, they had they had in Phoenix, they had
a vehicle drive into a flash flood and reverse
out in L .A. They had one get stuck in it. They
had to shut down. operations in san francisco
on christmas day because of the flash flood warning
so they're keenly aware of the problems here
so it's interesting that you know this happens
in san antonio and all of a sudden they're shutting
down operations when they didn't do so in those
in those previous circumstances so it raises
a lot of questions about you know what's going
on here and i like the fact that they haven't
told anybody where exactly this vehicle was like
Mike, even just the San Antonio emergency responders
and tow truck drivers who had to fish this vehicle,
can't they tell us where it was? Because I think
they could add a little detail. I don't think
it would be too difficult to figure that out.
All right. But anyway, it doesn't matter really
where it was. I mean, if it was, you know, wherever
the flash flood is occurring and the vehicle's
not. being able to detect it is the problem.
And, you know, I haven't seen this yet. I was
waiting to see if someone was going to call this
an edge case so we can talk about that. But,
you know, this is a very well -known problem,
you know, in virtually anywhere in America that's
prone to flash flooding and a problem that might
be getting worse as the years go by. And autonomous
vehicles are going to have to account. for flooded
streets and their operations. And if they can't
do that yet, then, you know, they certainly shouldn't
be operating in conditions that are favorable
for flooding on streets. Well, now, Fred, I am
going to ask you some questions here. You ready
for it, Fred? Go for it. OK, great. So a flash
flooding event, short of a levee breaking unexpectedly,
is not. Something that just, as the name implies,
all of a sudden it's a nice sunny day. Then the
roads flooded. Is that correct? Well, that could,
that could happen depending on how far away the
rain is. And the, you know, you can have events
where it's sunny out and rain far away can cause
flooding. Nevermind. I withdraw all my questions.
All right. Thanks for playing. But with this,
I'm going to go into, I'm going to go right into
my gas light. So this morning, I had a gas light
all set up. And then this guy, Phil Kopman, posts
on LinkedIn a link to a video about Waymo in
Austin. And it's a pretty good news report. We
have a link to it from KXAN. And it has on it
this guy, David Margin, I'm going to pronounce
it. He is the Waymo Director of Product Management.
And he says, I'm quoting here. Every week, an
injury -causing collision is avoided because
a Waymo is on the road. Wow. The balls on this
man to say this with a straight face. He also
said that Waymo welcomes regulations. Pretended
they're not scared, but then, you know, was quick
to clarify that with basically a statement saying,
but they have to be the regulations that we want
in place, right? They keep referencing that bullshit
Waymo report. Made up numbers that say 92 % or
94 % or whatever. Fewer accidents. And that is
complete PR bullshit. Even the references on
the Waymo website refute that estimate. So everybody
just accepts this. It is amazing to see the creation
of an urban myth that everybody just accepts
without challenging it at all. Is that what reporters
do? They just seem to absorb nonsense and broadcast
it. Yeah, they go. I mean, I guess reporters
are going to the source and reporting what they're
saying. So. And it's up to us, I guess, at that
point to decide. Yeah. So further in this video,
it's great because they have like a local police
chief and he talks. He's asked, you know, if
they're committing all of these violations and
there's tons and tons of violations, how come
these way most as I've asked numerous times,
how come they're not getting tickets? And he
said that the police have to a police officer
can't just hand out a ticket like they would
to you or me. They have to write an affidavit
to cite the Waymo. They have to bring that in
to the office to someone. They have to look up
who the registered agent is. Basically, there's
tons of paperwork has to be sent to a judge and
sent back. And as opposed to just handing a person
a ticket, this requires a ridiculous Byzantine
level of work to actually cite them. That's why
so few have been cited. Except school buses,
somehow they managed to they have a carve out
for this. And so they've already school buses
in Austin have filed 25 civil violations because
there are tons of videos of these things driving
past stop school bus arms, which we know is a
problem. And, you know, this is great. What Waymo
says when they're confronted with this saying,
hey. You keep violating this stuff. They said,
well, even when we've stopped school buses, our
ability to detect and avoid vulnerable road users
was fully functional. This reminds me of a drunk
driver. So is a humans, right? So is a humans
when they pass a stopped school bus. They still
retain the ability to dodge children, right?
Hopefully. That doesn't really distinguish you
from human operators. Well, he's drunk for Kool
-Aid. And it's embarrassing to... Have somebody
say that, but I guess, you know, when you're,
what do they say? It's hard to convince people
something is true when their paycheck depends
on their believing the nonsense. Right. I mean,
this is literally the excuse of a drunk person.
Yeah, I blew through that stop sign, but I know
what I was doing. I wasn't going to cause a problem.
And then one last piece from this here, and this
is again from our friend David Margin, the Waymo
Director of Product Management. And highly paid
tool. Talking about, again, citations and why
they're not getting tickets. And he said, a $300
ticket to a person is a great motivator. But
we, Waymo, we already have this motivation. So
we don't need tickets because we want to earn
your trust. Next time you're pulled over, ladies
and gentlemen, say, look, I don't need this ticket.
I don't need points on my license. I already
motivated. To not get charged. Oh, shit. You
caught me doing 78 in a school bus zone. I think
that's a great strategy. I'm going to try that.
And I'll reference you. Thanks. This is my gaslight
of the week. It goes to Phil Copeland from last
minute making me change what my gaslight would
be. No, it's David Margin, Waymo director of
product management. God, I'm sure he makes a
lot of money. Who would like to go next, gentlemen?
Top that. I'll go next. I've got Zooks on tap.
So you remember a couple of weeks ago we talked
about terms of service? Yes. So I was wondering
what Zooks is on about terms of service. So I
went to their website. And before you can get
into it, you have to sign up to their, or you
have to register an account, I guess is what
it is. And the account setup requires only two
acknowledgments. One. is an acknowledgement that
you've accepted the terms of service. And the
other is that you're at least 18. There's no
warnings of any other stuff. So I was wondering
what is built into their terms of service that
probably should be warned before people click
a box that says, yeah, I've accepted all this.
And so the first thing it says inside the terms
of service is the Zoox Robotaxi is a demonstration
vehicle. Subject to an exemption from applicable
federal motor vehicle safety standards. Gee,
I would think people signing up for that service
might be interested in that. It says, it goes
on, you are responsible for safety exiting the
Zooks vehicle, you alone, including monitoring
traffic, road, and curb conditions, and determining
whether it's safe. So they absolve themselves
of responsibility for any safe egress. If you
fail to report any damage online, we may determine
in our sole discretion that you or your guests
caused the damage. So good luck with your credit
card, folks. They've got the right to charge
you whatever they want. You and Zooks agree that
any dispute between you and Zooks, editing here,
and the relationship between us shall be resolved
only by final and binding bilateral arbitration.
So, again, you're screwed, folks, and you should
probably think about this. You therefore understand
and agree that by entering into these terms,
you and Zooks are each waiving the right to a
trial by jury and the right to participate in
a class or representative action. You expressly
agree that you and your guests use the services
at your own risk. We make no warranties or guarantees.
To the fullest extent possible by law. The Zooks
party's maximum liability will not exceed the
greater or the actual amount you paid for the
service or $100. And then it says the maximum
aggregate liability of the Zooks parties, if
you have a guest under these terms and conditions,
uh, damages, losses, blah, blah, blah, shall
not exceed $2 ,500. So if you're escorting your
daughter to her violin lesson, and the car crashes
and you lose the life of your daughter, well,
congratulations, you may get $2 ,500. Michael,
there's no limitations on the extent of these
terms that's listed in the, let's see, what's
my statement here? Michael, if you accepted these
terms on Tuesday for a ride to the local Piggly
Wiggly, and on the next Sunday, you're run over
by a Zoox vehicle, are they still protected by
the agreement? Because I didn't see any expiration
date or I didn't see any limitations on them.
Yeah, I mean, as far as you know, they've already
changed the terms under you in the interim period
to make it even worse. So, I mean, look, the
contracts we have with these companies are completely
in their favor and can be modified at any time
to suit their preferences. They're not there
to protect you. Well, shouldn't a reasonable
person at least be warned that, you know, you're
giving up your... rights and your future before
you sign up for the rights of the piggly wiggly.
I mean, it seems to be really... The warning
is in that very long document that no one reads,
right? Yeah, except for us, of course. But shouldn't
the reasonable states that are licensing these
things require that people at least get some
warning of the terms in the policy that are...
by the company put in all the caps. So they shouted
at you when you read through the terms of service.
This just seems incredibly unreasonable to me.
And what their objective appears to be to take
the entire population of the country away from
the courts and the ability to get any reasonable
compensation as they dominate the public. Am
I missing something? That would be their vision.
Yes. I want to ask something of our legal expert
here. So, Michael, I I sign this agreement or
I click the checkbox that says, yes, I agree
to waive my rights to trial by jury. What what's
the one requirement to be a U .S. citizen? I
mean, these days it's up in the air. There's
only one requirement, according to the U .S.
Constitution. For citizenship. If you're born.
No, it's to serve on a jury. Oh, a requirement
for citizens to perform. I thought you were asking,
what is the requirement for being a citizen?
No, no. I apologize for misdirecting you, but
I was too focused on what I was going to get
at the Piggly Wiggly. All right. Fred, so that's
your gaslight. That's my gaslighter. That's a
good one. All right. Congratulations to Zoox.
Michael, gaslight us. All right. We're going
back to an issue that continues to come up because
Republicans continue to try to raise this in,
you know, appropriations fights. And here we've
got a basically that there's a FISA. work going
on in Congress. And, you know, Representative
Chip Roy is trying to attach provisions into
the funding for FISA that would tackle what he
thinks is another type of surveillance, and that
would be the alcohol impairment prevention systems
that NHTSA is currently considering rulemakings
on. This is yet another. person saying that these
systems are surveillance, which I suppose is
the, you know, the bank shot type logic that
they're using to try to get this addressed in
the FISA stuff. But, you know, once again, you
know, I think it was Thomas Massey from Kentucky
before. Now it's Chip Roy from Texas using this
nonsense arguments to. try to convince people
that there's some type of surveillance going
on here. I just need to break it to Chip and
to Thomas Massey, who are coming out and saying
that this is some. you know, new horrible thing
that's happening to the government is mandating
your cars. The automakers and the insurance companies
to a great extent are already surveilling you
and what you do and your cars at all times. Some
of the automakers are selling that information
to insurers. Some of them are selling it to data
merchants that could ultimately be bought by
almost anyone out there, including really nefarious
parties. So you're already being surveilled in
your cars. And the important thing part of this
is that the impairment prevention technology
that's being proposed doesn't necessitate surveillance
of any type. There is no requirement that it
surveil humans. There's no requirement that it
stores the information. It's gathering. You know,
this is all going to happen in the NHTSA rulemaking
that has just barely begun on implementation
of these systems. And NHTSA could. put in that
rulemaking that automakers are required to delete
any information gained from the systems using
or the systems that are behind impairment monitoring
to be erased immediately and not used by anyone.
You know, the auto industry and the automakers
are the ones who want to monetize your data,
right? They're making a lot of money doing that.
So instead of attacking a federal mandate to
prevent drunk drivers from killing people, you
should be attacking the corporations who are
monetizing all of this data that they're gathering
on you and your car. So that their entire, you
know, they're using this, you know. roundabout,
you know, Fourth Amendment arguments that don't
make any sense. There's no state here mandating
a surveillance system. There is the United States
mandating a system that can prevent drunks from
killing people. It doesn't go much further than
that. And, you know, this is just essentially
Chip Roy is just the latest in a number of politicians
who, in my opinion, are defending the right of
people that want to drive drunk, which is not
a right. It's not even a privilege. It's illegal.
So for that, Chip, Gaslight of the Week for you,
buddy. I'm not saying I work in Hollywood casting,
nor am I saying that Chip Roy would be an actor,
but. If I were to cast somebody to play the role
of drunk driver, I'd cast somebody who looks
a lot like Chip Roy. He goes on this. I'm going
to quote from he put this on Twitter. Keep in
mind, this is something he posted on Twitter.
There is an appropriation amendments to defund
vehicle kill switches. Dems snuck into legislation
years ago. They didn't. That needs unanimous
conservative support. The federal government
should get the heck out of our cars and trucks,
and no company or third party should invasively
track us. Kill the track our movements. Posted
using a cell phone on Twitter. The cognitive
disconnect here is outstanding. It is. It is
pretty outstanding. It's just a shame that. You
know, you've got this huge problem that represents
almost a third of the crashes. crash deaths on
our roads every year. We've got potential ways
to solve it. And yet, you know, this is the real
Luddites. You know, I think some people probably
refer to us as Luddites for our opposition to
autonomous vehicles that are unproven from a
safety perspective, despite all the crazy claims
we hear from them. But this is a real Luddite.
You've got technology here that can actually
save thousands of lives every year by preventing,
you know, a scourge on our roads. And people
are making arguments as though you know, this
technology is somehow going to turn them into
the CIA and the FBI and, you know, you know,
result in their grandmother being thrown in jail.
It's not none of that. None of that is happening
here. This is all a smokescreen that's being
created by people who are actively supporting
people who think they have a right to drive drunk
and kill other people. Yeah, these people are
I think the official term is not so. But hey,
again, central casting here. You're looking for
a drunk driver looking like Chip Roy. Just saying.
Just saying. He looks Hollywood face ready. So
the winner of this week's Gaslight is me. Because
everyone got really excited and I couldn't even
say half the things I wanted to say. But hey,
we all jumped in there. That was pretty good.
Thanks everybody else for playing. If you'd like
to play in the home game, go to autosafety .org
and click on Donate. Accepting amounts of any
kind you want to get. All right. Big ones. Yeah.
Shouldn't we have a spinning wheel where we select
categories or something? There's got to be a
way to turn this into a game show. Could be.
It already feels like a game show to me. I don't
know what you're talking about. Let's make a
wheel, something like that. Let's make a wheel.
That's the worst sounding game show ever. It
keeps coming around. It's not too bad, actually.
All right. Let's go back to some Waymo. Okay.
This is from the Washington Post self -driving
taxis in D .C. They could soon be legal under
a new bill. The title of that article. And this
was my original gaslight. My original gaslight
was the D .C. representative, D .C. council member
Charles Allen. I'm going to quote from this article.
Allen said he sought to address a number of concerns
about autonomous vehicles ranging from safety
to congestion to the placement of human workers.
A major component of the bill is vehicle miles
traveled fee. which Allen said would disincentive
the robot cars from cruising around D .C. streets
without passengers and unnecessarily adding to
congestion. Revenue from the fee, which along
with permitting fees, Allen estimates would bring
in millions of dollars, would be split between
a new funding stream for the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority and a fund for displaced
drivers, for orphans, spray tanning salons and
a whole bunch of other things. The bill would
require a study of the potential scale of displaced
workers and come up with ideas about how the
fund could aid them. This is fantasy. We all
know this is just horseshit. He knows this is
horseshit. First of all, you're going to disincentivize
a multi -trillion dollar corporation with a little
fee? Come on! Is the fee a few million dollars
each time they're deadheading a ride? And we
know they have to deadhead to get from point
to point, right? And if they're disincentivized
from doing that, what are they going to do? Are
they going to take up parking spots in D .C.?
Like, there's no real good way around that problem.
If you don't have people in the car, you know,
it's a problem with Uber and Lyft. It's a problem
with any of those services. You're going to have
deadhead miles where vehicles are traveling,
using up, you know, fossil fuel generated energy.
to not carry any passengers. Well, but don't
forget that all of these companies have about
one person in their call centers for each vehicle
on the road. So they've already got an enormous
overhead associated with this. The economic rationale
for all of this seems to be to create this illusion
of great value, even though they're all running
at a loss and, you know, pass it off to somebody
else. I guess it's a classic condition for gold
rushes. So I don't think that any small additional
fee is going to make any particular change in
the deployment strategy for these companies because
they're already losing enormous amounts of money.
And losing a little more isn't going to really
matter if your strategy is just to create an
illusion of success and then turn the problem
over to somebody else. an ipo this is very much
a politician trying a new tact saying hey like
i i want us to do this out in a smart way and
we're going to charge them fees so displaced
workers can we'll figure out some way to give
them money by the time it gets them they'll all
have left the country but How high would the
fee have to be, right, to actually make an impact
on displaced transit workers' lives, right? It's
absurd. I just don't see that happening. We always
hear the same thing when people want to have
a lottery, that it's going to go to schools,
education, it's going to go to teachers. Of course,
what happens is the money comes into the general
fund and it gets distributed just like any other
money that's in the... city or state budget so
this is i have to agree with you anthony this
is pretty much complete nonsense oh ladies and
gentlemen banner day it is wednesday april 29th
at 10 14 in the morning fred perkins has agreed
with me uh continuing with another waymo issue
this is another waymo related article from the
new republic .com this is titled waymos aren't
going to solve traffic deaths none of us wrote
this surprising I'm going to quote from this.
In reaction to the political pushback, robo -taxi
enthusiasts present a straightforward moral arithmetic
that an irrational tech backlash and provincial
concerns about protecting taxi and rideshare
drivers' jobs are holding back a revolution in
road safety that will save tens of thousands
of lives per year. To be sure, early data from
Waymo looks promising because Waymo's providing
it. Compared to the average human driver in places
where it operates, Waymo reports that its vehicles
are 92 % less likely to be involved in crashes
with serious injuries or fatalities and 92 %
less likely to be involved in crashes where pedestrians
are injured. Let's ignore school buses and anything
else related there. And if you're a Waymo customer,
you're 92 % more likely to want to be left alone
and perhaps suffer from some sort of issues.
that require professional help. I'm going to
stop talking now. Yeah. Just to reiterate that
92 % is a nonsense number. Give me the best part.
I'm saving the best part for you. Oh, the last
is the paragraph you look at says the arguments
Kelsey Piper dubbed Waymo's as. Um, or autonomous
vehicles as a pretty good cure for car accidents
before claiming provocatively that autonomous
vehicles will save more people than a cure for
most cancers, which is utter bullshit. Kelsey
just wanted to make sure you heard that Kelsey
knows that only 36 ,000 people die a year from
cancer. Cause that, that was the latest number
of how many people died on the highways or on
the roads was 36 ,000. So. Oh, Kelsey. I will
go to one of my favorite quotes in the article
from former NHTSA administrator Ann Carlson.
And she says, you know, I'll get to it in a second.
There's no magic bullet. You know, increasingly
Waymo safety data seem impressive, but we're
talking about a scale that is tiny compared to
what you would actually need if you were going
to drive down traffic fatalities and traffic
crashes. I take the maximalist safety claims
with a big grain of salt. And I think all of
us should take the maximalist safety claims with
a big grain of salt because it's what we're seeing
over and over, what we've seen since Kyle at
Cruise. how much better these vehicles are than
human drivers. Well, the data is not there yet,
and it's going to be a long time before it even
approaches a point where we could do that. And
even then, it's only going to be data, you know,
as we've discussed ad nauseum. How do you truly
build a data set that you can rely on when these
vehicles are constantly changing the software
and operational, you know, parameters that define
their safety performance? A really tough question,
but even at this point, we have so few miles
driven in these vehicles that it is very difficult
to make any type of claims, particularly the
maximalist safety claims that pretend that this
is going to save us all from cars in the future.
Mainly because that requires that humans stop
driving cars before we can see that. And, you
know, guys like Chip Roy aren't going to like
that philosophy either. I have a feeling that
taking cars away from people ultimately is going
to be almost as difficult as taking away guns.
Right. Further down in this article, I'm going
to quote some more. Next generation vehicle features
such as automatic emergency braking and ignition
interlock devices, breathalyzers that prevent
cars from starting, drivers' blood alcohol content
exceeds the legal limit, hold a lot of promise,
but are exceedingly difficult for NHTSA to mandate.
Michael, why are these things exceedingly difficult
for NHTSA to mandate? There are a lot of factors
there. Number one, I would say is the agency
is clearly underfunded and lacks the technical
expertise to get it done. But number two is.
They're underfunded because the auto industry
has long opposed funding increases for NHTSA
that would allow them to do a better job there.
But then the industry turns around and pushes
back every time the agency tries to implement
any sort of safety system that's going to raise
costs. And it's kind of a... It's just a really
sad situation where I think NHTSA is so preoccupied
with pushing back on the auto industry that they
don't even have time to get to the rulemakings
of great importance. Like right now, I think
we should be getting out better speed prevention
technology onto vehicles. been out long for a
long time mandated in Europe. And yet we've just
conveniently ignored it in America, where a lot
of people seem to think that speeding is some
sort of right guarantee by the Constitution.
We've seen it with alcohol impairment, which
we've already discussed today, you know, pushback
politically, but also. There's a lot of manufacturers
that just sit there and say, well, we can't do
that yet. Even if the technology is there, they're
not putting into their cars because they know
as soon as they put this technology into their
vehicles, that NITS is going to have vehicles
to test and to establish standards for. A really
good example of that is in child presence detection.
So we've got a problem that's already starting
this year with. caregivers and parents leaving
children in hot cars. And there is technology
that can detect children in the back seats or
front seats or wherever in a car and warn, whether
by horns or by other means, warn people around
that there's a problem so that that child can
be rescued and not, you know, die from hyperthermia.
That technology has been placed in, I think,
at this point. maybe two, maybe three models
out of the entire, you know, out of the thousands
of models that are in auto manufacturers' fleets.
And until that technology at least penetrates
the fleet to some extent, NHTSA can't properly
evaluate it functionally to set a minimum safety
standard. So what do manufacturers do? They just,
as a group, Don't put it in. Now, whether there's
some kind of collusion going on behind the scenes
or whether manufacturers just have approached
it that way, we don't really know. I would guess
the former. But it really sets up a situation
where safety technology is, you know, safety
technology already takes 25 to 30 years to penetrate
the fleet after it's mandated. And NHTSA is taking.
20 years sometimes to get to the point where
they're actually mandating it in the fleet. So
if you have a safety system that comes about
that can save a lot of lives, it's not going
to be in your car until, you know, you may not
even see it while you're alive. It's going, it
could be up to 50 years before that technology
reaches, you know, penetration in the fleet and
its maximal performance. So it is a very long
slog. And it's something that I think, you know,
there need to be a lot of modifications to NHTSA's
authority. There needs to be some government
reform around things that prevent agencies from
acting quicker, like the Paperwork Reduction
Act and other things. But there is a lot of work
to be done to ensure that our nation's regulators
can operate freely and actually act. to ensure
that new technology that can save lives makes
it into vehicles. Because right now, manufacturers
are obstructing the safety systems that need
to go into cars while rolling out scads of convenience
features that technically, or in my opinion,
can reduce safety in many circumstances. Michael,
isn't it so that there's only like a half a dozen
engineers at NHTSA who are responsible for all
of these? technical standard evaluations and
implementations. And didn't they get really doged
by Tesla? Some did. You know, it's hard to know
exactly what the staffing levels are and what
at NHTSA because they're not telling anyone.
We know that they lost some. you know, I think
it was seven out of 10 employees in their autonomous
vehicle areas. You know, they lost their previous
director of rulemaking who retired, I think.
So they've got a new director of rulemaking there.
And that's really where the, you know, the meat
is, the sausage is made is in the rulemaking
department. That's the area where they have to
deal with all of the cost benefit analysis and
all of the, you know. government requirements
for meeting the standard on appropriate rulemakings.
So we don't really have a lot of insight there,
but knowing that NHTSA, I believe, has lost about
25 % of its employees over the past year makes
you, you know, you have to question whether or
not they're going to be able to fulfill their
functions. Yeah, when I was in government not
too long ago, I really found about 25 % of the
time that I was there was just spent answering
emails for stuff that was really unrelated to
the technical work that I was supposed to be
doing. And I can only imagine that's gotten even
worse now with all this nonsense coming out of
the White House and all of its stooges up there.
So I really think that if you looked at full
-time equivalents being spent to evaluate. safety
technology that could be implemented and tested
and built into rules and, you know, end gap and
all the different things that NHTSA is capable
of doing. What you're going to find is there's
only a couple of full -time equivalent engineers
who are trying to, probably working very hard
to try to do all this stuff, but it just can't
get done. It just can't get done with the current
funding and implementation staff they've got.
Yeah, I mean, you've got hundreds, maybe even
thousands of engineers working in the industry,
creating technology to go into cars. But you
have a very, very, very small staff at NHTSA
who's dedicated to doing so with a budget that
is a fraction of what manufacturers have access
to. So it's not a pretty picture. And I think
we're there because NHTSA is underfunded. I mean,
they need more staffing. You know, they need
more. They need funding for NCAP. They need funding
for research. They need funding for rulemaking.
They need funding for enforcement. And they're
getting it at incredibly low levels. And it's
a shame, but it's essentially part of the toolkit
of automakers and the automaker lobby is to keep
NHTSA hamstrung because that goes in their favor.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to point out that
I asked Michael a very simple question. I thought
it was it was saying, you know, what's keeping
NHTSA from doing this? And then there's just
so many things. So this is even still now. So
this is a a very passionate response. And I want
to let you know, before we started recording,
Michael was telling me about his fantasy of potentially
becoming a farmer. Come on. So what I want to
say is, ladies and gentlemen, prevent him from
becoming a farmer. We need him. Autosafety .org.
Click on donate. Where else are you going to
get that? Again, simple question and the passion
and knowledge. No one else. I'm a farmer. I mean,
what are you going to grow? Sausages? No, I mean,
I think I think I'll start with, I don't know,
herbs or herbs are nice to have. Well, I think
you'd look good on a tractor, Michael. Stop it.
Stop it. This is the Anti -Michael Farmer Fund,
autosafety .org. Click on Donate. Let's talk
trucks. We've been talking about trucks a little
bit more recently and truck drivers. There is
a op -ed piece in the New York Times, you know,
fake news, titled Truckers Kill More Than 5 ,000
People a Year. Regulators Are at Fault. You know,
I... I just immediately have to point out that
truckers do not kill more than 5 ,000 people
a year. More than 5 ,000 people a year die in
crashes where heavy trucks are involved, right?
But when you look at the distribution of crashes,
I think a quarter of them are. Truckers essentially
killing themselves by getting into crashes. You
know, one vehicle crashes that just involved
the truck. Those are included in that 5 ,000
number. And also the crashes where, you know,
someone other than the trucker is at fault, which
represent, you know, roughly the numbers are
kind of vague, but roughly half of that 5 ,000.
So it's, you know, it's... It's clickbait. It's
a terrible it's a terrible title and it's completely
wrong. Although I, you know, I do you know, I
do agree with a lot of what the author writes
further down in the article. The title's awful.
So I'm going to quote from further down, quoting
the discrepancy in how we value human life based
on the mode of transport is staggering. When
the Boeing 736 Max crisis claimed three hundred
fifty six lives across two crashes. It triggered
a global grounding of aircraft and brought the
company to its knees. This was a necessary indigent
response to a failure of safety oversight. We
reached that same death toll on our interstates
every 24 hours, a 737 mass scale catastrophe
each month. We have allowed ourselves to become
numb to carnage on our highways that we find
intolerable in our skies. This collapse is the
result of a decades -long policy experiment that
prioritized cheap and fast over safe and sustainable.
For years, a powerful narrative promoted by special
interest groups like the American Trucking Association
has dominated discussions of highway safety in
Washington. These groups have claimed that there's
a perpetual truck driver shortage and have used
that idea as justification for sourcing labor
less expensively. The shortage was always a mirage.
While industry groups warned in 2021 that they
needed at least 80 ,000 new drivers to meet demand.
The number of active motor carriers registered
with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
actually surged, climbing from roughly 500 ,000
to more than 900 ,000 in the past decade. This
is common nonsense tactic we see across all industries,
from the tech industry saying, we don't have
enough workers, we need H -1B visas so we can
bring in guys from Bangalore and pay them half.
So this was great. I thought the... comparing
this to plane crashes is straight out of the
fred perkins playbook i think it's a great metaphor
do the same thing yeah and i i don't know if
this is around it's a funding right i mean that's
you know if you look at faa funding versus nizza
funding and the amount of people that are killed
in plane crashes versus car crashes it doesn't
make a lot of sense right um And also here, you
know, you're looking at the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration's budget, which is also
incredibly low, thanks to many years of lobbying
by the ATA. You know, in the article, it says
in 2010, they had about $1 ,100 in oversight
funding for every carrier that was registered
with the agency. But with the explosion in registrations,
we've talked about that recently with the skeleton.
What do we call that? The fake fleets? What are
they called? Yeah, the fake fleets. I don't know
what they're called, but they're foreign zombie
fleets or something like that. You know, a lot
of registrations were committed. They've had
an 85 % increase in that. And plus, you know,
40 % increase in inflation over that time means
that the FMCSA has a significantly smaller amount.
of money to monitor and oversee the operation
of all these these companies so it's you know
the fmcsa is also being driven to um in in capability
essentially of of enforcement by you know both
the explosion in fleets and a clear lack of funding
and updating the types of funding an agency can
receive over time, you know, to account for inflation.
Chameleon carriers. That was the term, chameleon
carriers. Ladies and gentlemen, it just comes
down to the simple thing. Do we need $300 million
on a ballroom or do you want to fund safety on
your highways? Frankly, I like the ballroom idea.
That ballroom idea is great. Yeah. I mean, Fred
and I have been taking tango lessons over the
internet for years now. Absolutely. And I'm looking
forward to dancing with you, by the way. You're
going to dance with all of us right now. Let's
do some Tao. Do some Tao. Okay. Tao this week
is going to be kind of short. I've just observed.
Hold on. I want to pause for a second. Tao this
week is going to be kind of short. Everybody
take a deep breath. I'm just teasing. So everybody
has heard from the AV companies that safety is
the first priority, right? Right. And you've
really got to question the ethics of the companies
because what we've seen with Waymo as a leading
example of the AV companies is that in San Antonio,
when a single car was disabled by the weather,
they disabled the entire fleet for days, right?
Actually, there were two cars that were involved
in different water events in San Antonio, so
I take it back. But when they've been observed
passing school buses with flashing red lights
over and over and over again, they actually refused
to suspend operations, even during those few
hours of the day when the school buses are active.
In my mind, it's a vivid example of how they
put priority for preservation of capital and
the importance of operations far ahead of the
value of human life, particularly the human life
associated with school children. It's a real
ethical problem in my mind. Whenever you're putting
capital preservation so vividly, ahead of the
priority for human life preservation, it's a
real problem. There's a lot of bad examples in
society of organizations that have done this.
It never ends well. But for the AV companies
to say that safety of people is their first priority,
and then to exhibit the behavior that says, well,
it's really not. Our first priority is preservation
of capital, expansion of the business, and continuation
of operations as normal, it should not pass anybody's
muster that they are, in fact, good actors, that
they're acting in the best interest of the public
in any sense, and that they really do care at
all about human safety. This is somewhere between
a scam and a gold rush. And for legislators and
people who are in a position to regulate these
companies, it's really, I guess it's unspeakably
embarrassing, at least. And in Congress, that
they would allow these operations to happen without
even notifying people that they're suspending
their rights. And that, for example, with Zoox.
That they're being introduced into a vehicle
that is not compatible with federal motor vehicle
safety standards. Not even the minimum requirements
that NHTSA has put out for safe operation of
vehicles. And yet it goes on and goes on and
on and on. And there's got to be somebody in
the legislative arena somewhere that actually
reads these things and puts thought into. whether
or not regulations are compatible with the risk
as acknowledged by the companies to the vulnerable
populations that they serve. Anyway, that's it.
I think any company that in action puts capital
preservation far ahead of human life preservation
should not be allowed to operate in public and
should clearly be brought to task by legislators
and hopefully reporters who, rather than just
churning the nonsense that these companies put
out, actually look at the basis for the statements
that they make. That's it this week. This week's
Tower of Red brought to you by Monsanto, makers
of Roundup Ready and other wonderful things.
Churning the nonsense. I think that might be
this week's episode. Very good. Doesn't buy our
own Monsanto now. I don't know. It doesn't matter.
You know, don't use it on your farm. Before we
jump into recalls, let's, you know, I think we
got time for a little, we haven't mentioned it
really this week, so I'm going to do it. Tesla.
That's right. This is an update to a story we
talked about before about Tesla says from inside
EVs, Tesla says we'll need to build micro factories
to retrofit old cars for full self -driving.
Okay. Just for the recap, for those playing the
home game, long time ago, a man who was balding,
and didn't have much of a chin, said, I've got
a car that will drive itself. It's great. These
cars will always be ready. Time passed. They
have the hardware necessary for full self -drive,
was the line. It has all of the hardware. The
software will get there. Time passed. This man's
chin became more prominent, and his hair became
full. And his car still can't do what he claims.
It says, basically, so these people who bought,
Full self -driving and paid for it. He's like,
well, I guess we got to, you know, our lawyers
are telling me we got to kind of retrofit your
cars and do this. And I'm doing this is very
magnanimous. So I'm not going to charge you for
it because, you know, laws. It doesn't cover
people who bought these cars, didn't pay for
the software because like, well, I've got the
hardware. Once the software is ready, then I'll
pay for it. He's like, yeah, we're not going
to cover you guys. And so this is for vehicles
that are running hardware version three. And
now what Elon is claiming now is it looks like
we're going to be able to achieve unsupervised
self -driving with hardware four. He's not even
gaslight worthy just because everything he says
is a lie and may cause pregnancy. Yeah, that's
I mean, this it's retrofits or something that,
you know. traditional manufacturers try to avoid
like the plague because they are incredibly expensive
um you know and and the safety situations we've
seen where retrofits are going to be essentially
necessary to um do a recall when those retrofits
if those retrofits are you know costly at all
manufacturers will fervently resist them so the
fact that they're proposing a retrofit here really
suggests to me that they're trying to continue
this grift more than anything, that these vehicles
are someday going to be fully autonomous. They're
not. They don't have the – they're replacing
the cameras that you have as part of this, not
just the computer. You're going to need more
than those cameras to ever achieve full autonomy.
And this is just – you know, one more layer of
nonsense. I just, I don't see the, I don't see
the cost benefit here. I mean, at what point
do you just say, sorry, we didn't get it done.
Here's your money back. Right. Versus continuing
this. pattern of saying oh we're going to replace
the computers until we figure this out even though
we're going to continue to use substandard sensor
packages and we haven't really shown that we
have the capabilities to produce a fully autonomous
vehicle at all um there are just so many problems
here with tesla's model and the fact that so
many people have bought into it um that this
is there's going to be pain here right either
either way um either there's going to be Tesla
having to cough up a lot of money to pay back
customers who are, you know, led into this belief
or these customers are going to lose their money
because, you know, Tesla is not going to be held
to account. A couple of points. Safety claims
by Tesla based on hardware less than four are
invalid as far as operations with hardware four
are concerned. They were probably both shouldn't.
in any event. But in order for them to say that
we've gone X miles without a Y number of accidents
really requires stability in the statistical
base from which you're drawing. And if you're
changing all the hardware all the time, as Anthony
pointed out earlier, you've got no statistical
base. The other point is that Much as I hate
to do it, I have to agree with Donald Trump that
immigrants are ruining the country. Oh, my God.
So there you go. We've reached the end. You're
going to edit that out, Anthony? Nope, I'm going
to loop that over and over and over again. Much
as I hate to do it, I have to agree with Donald
Trump. Before we jump to recalls, this one's
been sitting in our box for a while, and it's
just too funny. From the New York Post, this
is from April 10th. Batman -like technology needed
to stop deadly high -speed car crashes in California,
colon Congresswoman. What a weird title, but
okay. It's the New York Post. It's the New York
Post, right. Every person on our road deserves
to get home safe. I don't know of everybody,
okay? Come on. Yeah, the officer on patrol, the
family driving to dinner, the teenager walking
to school. This is Congresswoman Laura Friedman
for her Next Generation Road Safety Act. Continuing,
right now, our officers are facing a massive
technology gap. They don't have the modern tools
to de -escalate dangerous chases quickly and
safely. So this is, I think, a big vote. And
Michael and I, I'm going to speak for you, Michael.
I think we agree 1 ,000 % more grapplers. Yeah,
we love the grappler, but also I like the other,
the drones and other gadgets here, because that's
something else that I've, I've thrown a little
support behind is why are we, you know, why are
we chasing these people with, you know, $5 ,000
cop cars all over the, all over the country and
risking innocent people's lives when you can
just send up a drone to follow them. Right. Um,
doesn't make a lot of sense. I think we need
a lot more drones used to. for pursuits that
wouldn't become pursuits because the driver of
the vehicle that's fleeing wouldn't even know
they were being pursued by a drone in the vast
majority of cases. So I, you know. Drones are
another area of surveillance that I think is
concerning, but where you have a criminal activity
taking place, sending up a drone to follow that
car and to determine who it is, to get law enforcement
there to arrest that person whenever they stop
the car is a far better option than chasing through
city streets and putting everyone else's life
at risk. Yeah, you got some technical problems,
though, like darkness and bad weather and operating
the drone. And so there's a few steps between
here and there. It's one of those things that's
easy to say, but hard to do. Yeah, that's why
we want the congressman's funding to go through
so they can explore that. We know the grappler
works, though. Will the drones have the grappler?
because that i believe that a drone a drone that
you know part of the grappler is using the weight
of the police car to stop the vehicle so unless
it's a very large drone no hey grappler inc if
you're hiring we're all looking for jobs we want
to work for grappler i have no idea but it's
true 400 million of ballroom money ought to do
it so yeah that's one drone and with that let's
let's jump to recalls speaking of uh grappling
i don't know i got no transition here ford are
you trying to forward forward 140 ,201 vehicles
the 2024 to 2026 ford ranger a short in the power
takeout for the right or left sun visor assembly
may create heat or spark resulting in a fire
in the a pillar area wait there's a power takeout
for the so the the sun visors power howard Is
that what it is? Yeah. I mean, this, you know,
you could probably quote a Carly Simon song on
this one, but it's, it powers the light that,
that, that, that, that's on the makeup mirror
and this pickup. I love it. Yeah. Cause you know,
when I'm driving my pickup to the work site,
I got to make sure that I got my lip liner on
correctly. That's, that's, that's the problem
here. And you know, it also, I believe powers
the, the interior light in the vehicle. But,
you know, it makes you wonder, you know, when
convenience becomes a problem for safety, this
is yet another example of it. And it looks like
this one's going to take a long time for Ford
to get repaired for some of these folks. You
know, they're talking about August as the date
for the final repair. There's going to be an
interim repair, I believe, in the time being.
It's going to be, you know, end of summer before
we see owners being able to get a final fix for
this. Next up, Volkswagen 18 ,853 vehicles, the
2019 to 2024 Audi e -tron, 2020 to 2024 Audi
e -tron Sportback. The screw connection from
the input rod on the brake pedal to the actuator
rod on the brake booster may not have been performed
according to manufacturing specs. Because of
this, the screw connection may disconnect. So
someone is a Friday afternoon, someone didn't
tighten a screw? Is that what's happening here?
I don't know. It's a large number of vehicles.
I don't think they were building 18 ,000 vehicles
on a Friday afternoon. Yeah, but Bob only comes
in on Friday afternoon. He's hanging out with
Chip Roy the night before, so he's a little woo
-hoo. I mean, it says they're not performing
the screw connection according to manufacturing
specifications, which suggests that it is a manufacturing
issue versus design. And the fix really only
requires them to torque it properly. So it does
look like it's a manufacturing boo -boo. This
one's going to be fixed relatively quick. You
know, I think owners will have a final remedy
available by June, but since they're just tightening
a screw, you think Volkswagen, you could get
that done a little faster. Well, let's find out
because next up, Volkswagen, 38 ,710 vehicles,
the 2025 to 2026 Volkswagen Taos. In the event
of a severe rear end collision, tension in the
wiring harness may cause the fuel pressure sensor
located on top of the fuel tank. to become dislodged
or separate from the fuel tank. If this happens,
fuel will leak from the tank in the event of
a subsequent vehicle rollover. Whoa! Is this
a... I mean, this one seems very specific, and
they're saying in a rear -end collision, like,
is there an FMVSS that says this shouldn't happen,
or is this... There is. And then it's 301, which
is the fuel integrity standard where there's
a rear collision. And what you're seeing here
is essentially you can look at the remedy program.
All the fixes here is an 80 millimeter wiring
harness extension. What's that? Three inches.
So you're basically giving three inches of give
to a wire to make sure that it doesn't essentially
pull. part of the fuel system out of the fuel
tank in a rear crash um so it shows you you know
volkswagen saved money by not installing you
know three inches of a wiring harness into this
critical safety system and you know now they're
starting to see results in the field and in testing
that suggests that that wasn't the best decision
now they're going to have to do a recall on what
is that almost 40 000 vehicles right of a vehicle
i've never even heard of The interesting thing
for me on this one is who found this out? Transport
Canada when they were testing these and doing
crash tests. They were doing rear crash tests
on this. And I assume Transport Canada is the
Canadian equivalent of NHTSA. Yeah. Okay. But
does NHTSA do rear crash tests too? Yeah. Oh,
okay. They do. And their standard is the same.
Canada's. It's CMVSS 301 in Canada. They're just
copying off us. Which is the fuel integrity standard.
And so as part of that, there's a rear collision,
I want to say 35 miles per hour, somewhere thereabouts.
That essentially evaluates the performance of
the entire fuel system, the fuel tank, fuel fillers,
and other parts of the fuel system to make sure
that there's not fuel spillage after a crash.
Okay. Last up, Jaguar. 170 ,169 vehicles. 2021
to 2024 Land Rover Range Rover Velar. 2020 -23
Range Rover Evoque. The 2019 -24 Sport. 2020
to 2024 just regular Range Rover Discovery Sport,
Discovery, Defender, F -Pace, E -Pace, U -Pace,
We -Pace. A concern has been identified on Jaguar
and Land Rover mild hybrid electric vehicles
where the DC -DC converter can fail due to an
internal fault in the boost control microchip.
I have so many questions here. Brad, what's a
DC -DC converter? That was not my first question.
Why do you need to convert from DC to DC? Because
different devices need different voltages. Okay.
And so DC -DC converters... It's a complex little
thing, but they're pretty common. But you can
adjust the voltage up or down using DC -DC converters.
Typically, they're used inside of a circuit board
for some specific small amount of current that's
needed by some particular device. Oh, I got it.
So some cars are moving to 48 -volt systems,
so you'd have a DC -DC converter if I still have
a 12 -volt appliance or the cigarette lighter
thing. I know DC is down 12 volts. Hey. Usually
not that much current, but you might have some
kind of a semiconductor device that needs a different
voltage level, typically. My other question was,
what is a mild hybrid electric vehicle? Like,
is it not the Picante version? No, it's mild
hybrid. It's one that uses the generator. that
you typically think of under the hood as also
a kind of motor. So that in certain circumstances,
they can give a little bit of boost to the propulsion
rather than a full hybrid, which actually uses
an electric motor as a primary drive for the
wheels. So the mild hybrid provides a boost,
but it provides a boost as an adjunct to the
normal propulsion system. So it goes through
the engine, through the transmission. Rather
than directly to the drive wheels. Excellent.
That makes sense? Yep. It totally makes sense.
Okay. And so that's what have we learned today,
listeners? We've learned that Chip Roy is a grown
man who still uses the name Chip. We've learned
that you can convert DC to DC. We've learned
that Waymo's almost sociopathic PR team has infiltrated
their product management speak. And we've learned
that Fred likes to wear a hat indoors. And with
that, you know, I hope you've enjoyed our time.
Thanks, everybody. Bye, everybody. For more information,
visit www .autosafety .org. But wait, before
we go, and you might edit this out, Anthony,
but I just thought of a great name for the unmanned
aerial systems that law enforcement could use.
Go for it. uh drone claybrook that's coming in
after the music all right bye bye