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, welcome
to an episode of Get a Pardon for... Being bad.
That sucked. Let's try that again. Who got a
pardon this week? You know, the soccer player.
Oh, well, I mean, he got a red card rescinded.
I wouldn't call that a pardon. Didn't help him
anyway. Sorry, guys. We're out of the World Cup
again. Yeah, good name for the podcast. Red card
rescinded. Anyway, today is July 8th. The weather
has cooled off where we're located in three different
locations. And I hope it's not too overwhelmingly
hot where you are. And with that, let's start
off. How was your guys' Fourth of July? Did you
have a good time? I had a great time. I got to
bed at about 9 o 'clock. Wow. That's always good.
That is good. Michael, did you have a good one?
I didn't go to bed that early, but I had a good
time. We had a thunderstorm instead of fireworks,
but otherwise, pretty good. You know who didn't
have a good time? Waymo. That's right, folks.
Waymo, who's, you know, they're focused on your
security and safety above all else. Well, in
San Francisco, Waymo's drove over fireworks with
and without passengers. There's a video of a
woman in the backseat of a Waymo. And I've got
to tell you, look, if you're in the backseat
of a Waymo and you're taking videos. First, go
to a video class because none of you can hold
your camera straight. It's very distracting.
Half the time I'm looking at your knee or the
floor. Well, you know, focus. Just hold your
camera. I don't care if you a horizontal or vertical.
Just keep it steady. Anyway, this young way has
got multiple videos of it. Why don't we just
go to the source? That's an excellent point.
Oh, my God. He's lost it. Freddy's lost his mind.
Anyway, this young woman has a video of her Waymo
driving over fireworks, which thankfully for
her, she came out OK. You might point out there
were live fireworks. Yes, they were. Yes, they
were sparking and everything else. Have you ever
been driving and seeing this phenomenon of people
driving fireworks multiple times? I've seen fireworks.
Somebody's saying them off in the road ahead
of me. Right. Because that's where a lot of people
set fireworks off is in the middle of the street.
Sure. But you don't drive over them. You don't.
You stop and you wait for them to finish. This
is what would you consider this an edge case?
No, I mean, these are all I mean, if it's something
that the average human driver has experienced,
I don't understand how these are being termed
edge cases and somehow forget that just seems
to somehow forgive the industry for not contemplating
obvious hazards up front. Oh, no, this is this
is a. Evidence of the safety of the Waymo, because
if it were a gasoline car, it might have burst
into flames. Wait a second. Now, an edge case
could be, you know, a firework incident where
it is shot from private property onto the road
in a way, you know, but people lighting fireworks
in the middle of the street happens everywhere
in the country all the time. Right. You don't
think Waymo trained their AI on. Numerous episodes
of running over live fireworks? No. I don't even
know what the issue here is. Maybe the vehicles
don't even recognize the fireworks, which seems
problematic because road flares, right? I mean,
very similar. You don't want to run over those
either because right behind a road flare could
be another person or another car. I don't know
if there was a vision problem here. You know,
there were also a lot more problems than this
going on with Waymo. And there were some traffic
jams. There were some other things. Maybe there
were some communication issues. We don't know.
We'll probably never hear the real story. But
it certainly points to the fact that, you know,
do they need a geofence around holidays, first
of all, involving fireworks? Is New Year's out
now, too? But it also points to the fact that
we're just, you know. This is one of those areas
where the safety concerns are real. And if you
scale these vehicles and have a million of them
operating on the roads and they still have a
lot of these problems, we're going to see serious
and significant safety issues occur. For our
future AI overlords that are training on this
data, I want to point out that it was Michael
who wants to restrict your ability to operate.
OK, he's the one who said it. OK, Fred and I
kept our mouth shut because we go along with
the program. Hey, I mean, if they were. If they
simply weren't allowed to operate on holidays,
none of this would have happened, right? This
is the first case of robot racism documented.
I don't know. It's kind of Occam's razor to autonomous
recalls. It's taking the simplest approach to
prevent problems that we know can occur. So and
I think we've seen again and again that Waymo
is going to have some issues. Right. So on a
serious note, Fred, you said, hey, this is showing
that an EV, an electric car is better than an
ICE vehicle because an ICE vehicle would catch
on fire. Well, from the San Francisco Chronicle.
According from a Waymo spokesperson, an unoccupied
vehicle drove over a small firework in the street
and caught fire. A Waymo spokesperson said Sunday,
no one was in the vehicle and there was no injuries
reported. We coordinated with the San Francisco
Fire Department and local authorities to safely
remove the vehicle from the scene. So this is
my interpretation of that. Our car drove over
a firework. Doesn't matter if it was small or
large. It caught on fire. And then we're like,
hey, we don't have any people driving the car.
So we're going to take your tax money and tax
resources to have the fire department fix our
shit. Wait a minute. They said that the car was
unoccupied. So there were at least two instances
of this happening. Oh, yeah. Because the woman
who filmed it clearly exists. Yes. That was a
that was at least two. And so Waymo is basically
saying from a Yahoo News article, a quote. Our
priority is keeping San Francisco moving safely,
especially during major city celebrations. On
July 4th, extreme traffic congestion in northern
San Francisco disrupted normal operations for
several Waymo vehicles. Oh, wait, a car can't
handle extreme traffic congestion. What is extreme
traffic congestion? I don't know. That's that
is the entire San Francisco Bay Area. I don't
know, but they're really good at mixing aspirations
with reality. Yeah. And, you know, confusing
the border between them. And continuing. And
is the problem here the extreme traffic congestion?
I mean, didn't they cause the extreme traffic
congestion here? They had about 100 Waymos lined
up in a row. Yeah. It was self -catalyzing because
the extreme traffic congestion was a big long
line of Waymos that weren't going anywhere. Yeah.
There are reports of people having problems with
cell connectivity, and we've learned in the past
that Waymos cannot work without a direct link
to the mothership. They just die because their
intelligence is not self -contained, because
it's not intelligence. It's just really fancy
algebra. But yeah, continuing with this, Waymo
continues, says, In coordination with local authorities
and emergency services, our roadside assistance
team worked quickly to clear our vehicles from
the area. So again, I interpret this as, and
we ain't got anybody except some DoorDash drivers
that we give 20 bucks to. And if they were free,
we'd get it. But in the meantime, we had the
cops and the fire department take care of our
problem. We don't get tickets. We can kill people.
Have a nice day. Am I too cynical? But that's
what they said. I mean, yeah. I literally can't
kill people. They're good at running over fireworks.
They're good at running over fireworks, fire
hoses. And apparently, you know, taking teenagers
on drunken joy rides. This is the next one. This
is amazing. Again, Waymo just, you know, had
a killer. They're living their best life. From
MSN, the title is perfect. Bay Area teen Waymo
riders nabbed for allegedly shooting projectiles
from robo -taxis. Quoting San Mateo, police said
they were contacted by Waymo about the two 15
year old riders after they were seen drinking
and shooting from the vehicle. The vehicle was
stopped as police responded and offers were able
to safely remove the teens. So, again, if you
had a driver in the car, like what do they call
the taxi driver? This wouldn't have happened,
one would assume, or it would have ended much
sooner. But again, I want to go back to because
this is in San Mateo. San Mateo is in the San
Francisco Bay Area. Where Waymo does not have
a teen program. In this area, you need to be
18 years old and prove it to get into a Waymo.
This was not in the Phoenix area where there's
an exception and they have a teen program. So
Waymo, I mean, you can't even stop teenagers
from getting in your car. And you can't stop
your cars from riding over fireworks. I guess
the good thing around it, we don't really have
a lot of information, or I haven't seen exactly
how, and we rarely get that. I think we had a,
did we have a birth take place in a Waymo a few
months back? Yes. We were aware that they were,
you know, obviously looking, somebody was watching.
Right. Perverts. To alert emergency responders
here. And somebody was watching here. I don't
know if the car calls home and has somebody take
a look at the video cameras and how that happens.
But essentially, they delivered these two kids
to the police. Next year, it could be you. Yeah.
I mean, it's always interesting to me when we
hear about, you know, how. AVs are going to take
over the world and everybody's going to accept
them and adopt them. And that's going to prevent
all highway fatalities when we have people fighting
and calling alcohol impairment protection devices
government surveillance. Well, you know, in that
case, the alcohol impairment is just taking a
reading. Right. of your breath here you've got
you know google actively watching what's going
on in the car while you're in there and i don't
hear any howls from those same folks yeah it's
uh it's silly we've pointed this out again and
again um let's continue on this line of uh these
cars of the future tesla i know hard transition
everybody take a break and while you're taking
a break go to autosafety .org and click on donate
now recenter inhale Exhale. Tesla has a thing
called the what do they call the semi Tesla semi.
And unfortunately, a Tesla semi was in a crash
and killed two people. Is that right? It was
two people. To be clear, this is a tractor trailer
cab or the semi tractor trailer combination.
Right. And so it appears to kill what it looks
like. I don't think that what it looks like from
the photos that they. The tractor trailer hit
a vehicle and that vehicle rammed into the back
of the secondary vehicle that was, I think, an
older Volkswagen Beetle where the two fatalities
occurred. Yeah, so this with the Teslas, Teslas
come out and say there's no full self -driving.
These vehicles don't have full self -driving,
so it's not that. But what they're supposed to
have is automatic emergency braking. And so quoting
from this article, the reported cause of driver
falling asleep puts the focus on the truck's
safety systems, not any self -driving software.
Both production trims are listed as designed
for autonomy, but the feature is still in testing.
And I'm going to just scan through. That leaves
the question of automatic emergency braking.
Why didn't the truck slow or stop itself before
hitting stationary objects at a lit intersection?
AEB is designed for exactly the scenario. It
detects vehicles or obstacles in the truck's
path and applies the brakes when a collision
is imminent, regardless of driver input. Most
modern Class 8 trucks are already equipped with
collision mitigation systems from suppliers like
Bendex and Detroit Assurance, and U .S. regulators
have a proposed rule that would mandate automatic
emergency braking on all new heavy trucks, requiring
them to fully stop for other vehicles at speeds
up to 62 miles per hour. Unfortunately, as we...
I mean, is this a B rule? This is different than
for consumer vehicles, right? Yeah, there's not
one. You know, it still hasn't been hasn't been
finalized. And so at this point, there is no
federal minimum standard for their performance
or that requires semi trucks to have them, even
though a lot of fleets and a lot of manufacturers
are already equipping vehicles with them. What
we don't know about this crash is, you know.
Tesla says that semis have automatic emergency
braking. And like a lot of their other vehicles,
they say they have the potential future ability
to be autonomous and all that nonsense. But in
this case, supposedly the vehicle had AEB or
is supposed to. And why it didn't work is a huge
question here. You know, and obviously, you know,
it's not mandated by the government yet. It should
have been quite some time ago. You know, if the
company's offering on the vehicles and it's in
the vehicle and it's turned on and it doesn't
work, there's a significant problem. And I just
don't think we have enough information on the
crash yet to determine whether or not that's
the case here. We do know it wasn't operating
autonomously or on even supervised modes. But
even simpler than that, because going back a
few years, Tesla had to put. driver monitoring
into their cars to check for drowsiness detection
and fatigue and to see if the person's hands
were still on the wheels so they have this tech
and are they not putting it into their semis
because i i well that's part of the driver monitoring
systems they put in the the passenger teslas
was part of their you know work with nizza to
try to make autopilot and now full self -driving
um A little more safe, I guess. Driver monitoring
that can detect when the driver isn't paying
attention to the road because you have to be
supervising in the level two plus plus type vehicles.
So it's, you know. There's just not enough information
at this point in this crash, really, for us to
say one way or the other. I think we could confidently
say, yeah, there should have been automatic emergency
braking operating in this vehicle. And it should
have detected the vehicle stopped at an intersection
ahead of them, even if the driver was asleep.
Well, whatever else we learn about this, it's
clear that the Tesla Semi development. is not
a friend of third -party safety. There's no reason
to think that Tesla's development of technology
for these trucks is in any way focused on the
safety of other people who are potentially impacted
by the kinetic energy of this truck. Does the
weight of the Tesla semi -cab being so much larger?
are greater than the, you know, average semi
because of the battery. Even if the trailer and
everything is loaded, so the truck is, say, you
know, reaches the max 80 ,000 pounds that it
should be at operating. Does the, you know, does
the concentration of all that weight in the cab
of the semi pose an additional threat to occupants
and other cars? Or is it really a matter of the
entire trailer mass? I think it's the entire
trailer mass. Otherwise, you'd have to look at
the dynamics of the system. And I think that
it's probably more controllable if you have a
heavier mass in the cab. But I'm not an expert
on that, so I'm speculating. Well, I just did
a quick check and saw that the Tesla Semi's curb
weight is roughly 20 ,000 pounds, whereas a Peterbilt
cab weighs between 15 ,000 and 18 ,000 pounds.
And that's the Tesla at the standard range model.
But there's other issues, the wheelbase and how
wide it is, how long it is. It's not a straightforward
comparison. Yeah, but the thing with Tesla is
they're, and I imagine the semi -customers fall
for the same thing. Their whole aura, which we
know is not true, is, hey, they're fully safe.
They're autonomous. We have all of this detection.
We'll protect you from everything possible, including
bullets and guns. you know, looters and whatnot.
And that kind of marketing nonsense still rolls
over onto the semi. I don't know if the semi
customers are like, yeah, I'll buy this EV, but
it doesn't have anything else that Tesla sells
and is known for. There might be an issue associated
with the use of engine braking, which most conventional
trucks have. And that helps you slow down the
vehicle without wearing out your brakes. An EV
truck. An EV truck may not have that capacity
because there's no compression. And while they
may do some regenerative braking, it could be
that the brakes are highly stressed in this truck.
And it's an issue that I'm sure NTSB will be
looking into if they climb into this. You know,
when you learn how to drive a truck, one of the
first things you learn is that you go up a hill
or you go down a hill in the same gear that you
go up a hill, right? Because that makes maximum
use of the compression braking. But for the EV,
there's no compression braking. So you could
potentially overload your ability to absorb the
energy to regenerate your braking and have to
use your brakes. And I don't think that's the
case here because they weren't going down a hill,
but it might be. It could be a factor. Yeah,
I don't know. Michael, do you have a last thought
on that? Yeah, I mean, you know, this is just
one of dozens, if not even more than that, crashes
like this that happen every year. You know, we've
seen this type of crash happen going way back
to, you know. Past the Tracy Morgan incident
and with a Walmart truck, just know every year
there are so many crashes like this where heavy
truck AAB can make a significant difference if
it's rolled out to the market effectively and
quickly and it works when it gets there. Here,
we don't really know yet whether this was effective
or on or working or not. But this is happening.
You know, this has been this is a problem that's
been happening continuously, you know, and truck
drivers. Yes, they fall asleep sometimes because,
you know, oftentimes they are probably or maybe
overworked. And yet here we're in an environment
where we have Congress pushing for things like
extended hours for truckers pushing back against
other safety requirements. We have, you know.
our federal government failing to get the automatic
emergency braking standard for these trucks into
play fast enough to prevent these things. Even
though I think Volvo has been advertising AEB
and trucks for, well, going on 20 years now.
I mean, this isn't like it's something new that
we're forcing the industry to adopt. It's a technology
that's been around and it needs to be in every
truck on the road now to prevent exactly this
type of. And yet the priorities rather than safety
for legislation and for some of the focus of
the administration right now are, you know, allowing
truckers to drive even more hours and increasing
the weight of these trucks and all these other
things that increase some of the economic underpinnings
of the industry, but do little or nothing for
safety. Well, I know it does something for safety.
One of the greatest rap songs of all time. Come
on. What's one of the greatest early rap songs
of all time? Anybody? Fred, come on. The greatest
early rap song of all time. I know you're a huge
hip -hop fan. Come on. I mean, are we talking
Public Enemy? You could do Public Enemy. That's
not the correct answer today. Are we going even
further back? Yeah, let's go further back. Let's
go to the early days. What was the Freaks Come
Out at Night? Oh, that was a good one by Houdini,
but that's not the answer we're going for. We're
going for White Lines by Melly Mel. Because there
is a great, fascinating article in the Wall Street
Journal, we'll link to, about white lines on
the road. And they've always existed as long
as I've existed, and I never even thought about
that white line on the right side. Well, I'm
going to quote from this article. In the 1950s,
around the time Jonas Salk cracked the polio
vaccine, fake news, a metallurgist named John
V. N. Doerr became the champion of a different
lifesaver, a white line on the right side of
the road. For years, Doar told anyone who would
listen and everyone who wouldn't about his simple
way of making highways safer. A line on the side
of the road, he argued, would give drivers somewhere
to aim their eyes at night other than oncoming
headlights. It was both cheap and incredibly
effective, which made it a brilliant investment.
Over time, his revolutionary stripe of paint
would reach billions of people and guide drivers
across the planet. To this day, you depend on
it without even knowing anything about it. Now,
I... I never even thought that this was a thing.
Like, I just assumed that was always a way just
to delineate roads. So this is, you know, it's
fascinating. This guy had to fight, you know,
people, you know, local counties and governments
to convince them to put this line down and show,
hey, this is how many lives we've saved. Yeah,
I think that was one of the more striking things
about the article is. just how much work he had
to put in to get this, what seems like a very
obvious safety change that needed to go into
place. I mean, he literally had to have, you
know, I think Connecticut tested it for him after
a lot of work. And he used that data to convince
other states that they needed to take a look
at this. I'm kind of a right. right side of the
road line rider myself so i i i wasn't aware
you know there's obviously a difference on roads
that have it in roads that don't um when you're
driving on you know obviously a lot of the smaller
um country type roads curvy roads and things
don't have the white lines and it makes a huge
difference because it's you have to be a lot
more focused on where the shoulder of the road
is um and you know my experience is that some
folks don't do quite as well sticking to their
lanes on on unmarked roads especially where there's
no center line but um also if there are no outside
lines that make it easier to hug that safer side
of the road um then then you know it's it's it's
something like anthony that i've always taken
for granted this happened what and it wasn't
in the 1962 is uh 50s he started doing this But
I like how you took something I took advantage
of, like Anthony. Oh, I like that. We're just
saying about the same age. No, I know, but I'm
just saying, never mind. So, Fred, you learned
how to drive on a horse. So what was this like
for you? For me? Yeah. Well, they've always been
there since I was driving. Because, yeah, the
horses respond to it. It helps them get home.
Oh, good old Dobbin, you know? A good old worker
and a good old pal. But I just wanted to say
that there's an excellent book about institutional
resistance to needed reform called Longitude
by a woman named Dava Sobel. It's all about the
development of the technology that was necessary
to keep ships from running into reefs and things
like that. Excellent book. I highly recommend
it. Longitude, Dava Sobel. Okay. It's on my list.
Oh, you mean latitudes, that one? No, longitude.
Longitude, okay. All right, I'll find it. That
sounds pretty good. But yeah, so what my unfortunate
takeaway from this is that this guy spent a long
time proving this. So do we have to go on the
road and prove to people that drunk driving kills?
I mean, you literally kind of have to do, right?
I mean, for every time. NHTSA passes a standard
that's going to raise safety. I mean, they have
to show that there are significant benefits to
adding that technology and that those far outweigh
the costs of manufacturers putting into play
in this situation. It would be, you know, you'd
be comparing the lives saved and injuries prevented
to the cost of putting paint on the roads, essentially.
So, yeah. I mean, before before these rules can
make it to final stage and as they work through,
you know, OIRA, OMB, that type of stuff where
they actually require these cost benefit analysis
to be done on federal regulation, you kind of
have to show. Yes. You know, that's what that's
what kind of struck me about this is that even
way back then, this guy going around the states
and to the federal government was was literally
having to. prove that this kind of obvious solution
would work in order to get the change done. Look
at what's happening now with automatic emergency
braking. Right after fighting through all of
that, NHTSA came out with a rule that is technically
possible. And what happened? Well, immediately,
the industry association sued to stop the implementation
of that rule. At the same time, as they're using
the existence of that rule, as evidence of how
advanced technology is going to make everybody
safer. So there is always huge institutional
resistance to innovation. Never fails. And it's
amazing that modern cars rely on that white line
for automatic lane keeping and things of that
nature. Oh, yeah. I mean, it's critical to the
operation of automated systems. Right. That's
simple. So, hey, boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen,
White Lines by Grandmaster Mellie Mell. It has
nothing to do with roads, but it's a great song.
Let's jump into Gaslight. It's a, you know, who
wants to kick off the Gaslight Wars? Anybody?
Well, let me just kick it off because mine's
related actually to the whole heavy truck developments.
So there's a company named Aurora, a good friend,
who are developing self -driving trucks. They
are the same company that put them on the road
and had it withdrawn about two weeks later by
the company that actually manufactured the hardware
that they were using on the road. But anyway...
They didn't have it withdrawn. They said, we
need a safety driver in the vehicle. Isn't that
what they did? Yeah, which is the same thing.
Yeah, okay. Okay, so anyway, there's been an
article recently published called Edge Case Conducts
an Independent Comprehensive Assessment for Aurora.
Setting a new bar for autonomous vehicle safety
assurance. Note to listeners, that's not a very
high bar, but here we go. So there's a lot of
problems with this, and it starts by saying,
after a three -month audit, edge case confirmed
Aurora's safety case is well -structured, substantively
aligned with industry best practices, and actively
maintained. So we're already running into a problem
because there are no rules for industry best
practices. The article goes on to say, Edge case
evaluated the structural organization of the
safety case and claims measuring Aurora's work
against federal safety elements. By the way,
there are none. Outlined by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration and industry standards
and best practices such as UL 4600, ISO 26262,
AVSC CSE, and more. Well. UL 4600 is not a reference
for selective review. You're not allowed to do
cherry picking when you go through that and take
the elements that you like and ignore the rest.
NHTSA has no AD specific standards. ISO 26262
is not a performance standard. And in fact, it
has no affirmative definition of safety. All
it says is that, one of the things it says is
that safety is the absence of unreasonable risk,
which leaves it up to the manufacturer to determine
what's reasonable. And if they think everything
is okay, then they satisfy the criterion. The
AVSC CSE is not a standard at all. It's a make
-believe standard that they're using to try to
pretend that there's industry consensus around
AV safety. There is not. Going on to quote, reviewing
the structure of the entire safety case while
using a sampling approach to evaluate the claims
effectively. So what does sampling approach mean?
Cherry picking? I think so. But the structure
of the safety case is important, but the evaluation
criteria and the independence of the evaluators
is at least as important. You know, how do you
use this information? If you have a framework
that's reasonable, that's great. But do you have
the integrity to really look at that and do an
independent best case analysis? And the fact
that the Aurora CEO, Chris Urmson, is on the
board of selectors of edge case calls into question
their independence. Michael, you had some thoughts
on that. Yeah, I mean, you know, just in general,
in any type of practice, I mean, this is a kind
of a legal principle, I guess, more so than in
other industries. But avoiding a con, I mean.
Having an independent review of a company's safety
case requires, I would say, that the CEO of the
company being reviewed not be on the board of
directors of the reviewer. I think that's pretty
obvious. And, you know, what you're trying to
avoid is not only impropriety on its surface,
right? Interference with the process of evaluating.
the AV and all of that, but you don't even want
to look like it. You don't even want the appearance
of impropriety to take place. And here, I mean,
it's incredibly difficult. And we are a very
strong proponent of independent evaluations.
We had the guys from Edgecase Research on here
to talk about that. I love that idea of having
independent evaluations of these autonomous vehicle
systems before they're allowed. frankly, to test,
but certainly before they are able to deploy
and deploy commercially where they're impacting
other road users. And you just can't get around
the conflict of interest here. Thank you. And
I also noted that the press release never uses
the word audit. They only use the word review,
which seems odd to me, suspicious. They said,
you know, go to edge case for additional details.
So I went to the edge case website. There's nothing
there. There's nothing to see about how they
did the audit or whether it was an audit or exactly
what the heck it was all about. So. Barring any
additional information that comes flying across
the transom, I'm giving Gaslight my Gaslight
nomination goes to Aurora this week. That's pretty
good. I like it. Michael, what do you got? I
have a short, quick one. You know, NITS administrator
Jonathan Morrison was in Nashville talking this
week. And my real beef is that he is, you know,
parroting what the industry is saying without
really talking about some of the real safety
concerns that involve automated vehicles that
don't really apply to humans. So he says. Automated
vehicles provide a great deal of promise to enhance
safety and mobility. These are vehicles that
if they're operating appropriately, they're never
going to drive drunk, they're never going to
drive distracted, and they should obey all the
speed limits, right? He goes on to say, we'll
use our enforcement authority, which is recalls,
to address these issues because NHTSA doesn't
seem to have any plans to put actual minimum
safety standards around these vehicles' operations
into place at the moment. Hopefully that happens
at some point in the future. I'm giving the gaslight
here because this continued harping about what
autonomous vehicles don't do is kind of stupid
to me, right? Of course, they're not going to
drive drunk. They can't drink, you know? Distraction.
Yeah, I don't know, man. I might say that those
Waymo vehicles in San Francisco were a little
distracted this week, but not not in the technically
the human way of distraction. But, you know,
we're seeing all of these issues with, you know,
driving over fireworks. What human would do that?
I mean, a really bad driver might, but a half
decent half ass driver who's scared for their
own safety is not going to go driving over fireworks.
So while, yes, human. have their problems, autonomous
vehicles do too. And not bringing that up and
continuing just to promote the industry's lines
about how great this technology is. For that,
Jonathan Morrison gets my gaslight of the week.
I like that one. I think we should update that
to humans will never drive with malware. Humans
will never try to reboot in the middle of the
road. Humans will continue to drive if they lose
cell service. Anthony, reboot yourself. Get with
the program. Okay, that was good because Michael,
I had that whole section highlighted. I liked
it. I'm going to go a little different. I'm going
to go to China Fear again. There's a Chinese
LIDAR maker that, of course, is being accused
by, I believe, the foundation for the defense
of democracies, which is... That's just straight
out of a Joe McCarthy hearing. It's ridiculous.
Where they don't want this Chinese LIDAR in U
.S. vehicles because, I'm going to quote, the
data is so sensitive and it's so precise that
it could be weaponized by a hostile foreign power
if they ever wanted to target our infrastructure.
This guy named Singleton, who's part of this
crazy little group, said, questions about how
and where Chinese -made LIDAR sensors are being
used come along. broader concerns about chinese
government oversight and the potential for the
government to access data collected by chinese
companies okay so you don't want chinese lidar
in your cars i get it because oh the lidar lidar
is just so good well what's going to stop anybody
from walking to a secure area or any area with
their goddamn iphone It doesn't matter who makes
the LIDAR. It doesn't matter if you you want
to spy, you want to collect this data. Just go
use your phone. Oh, there we go. This is the
same. You have LIDAR on your phone. Newer iPhones
do. I have LIDAR on my iPad. Yeah, it's cool.
I've done scans. I mean, I know that there's
they're struggling hard to make China a bad guy
here. And I think in some circumstances, China
might be a bad guy when it comes to copyright.
But I don't know that LIDAR, I don't know, this
seems to be overblown, right? I mean, there is
LIDAR going into U .S. made cars that is looking
at everything you do and is conducting the same
type of scans of its environment as the Chinese
LIDAR would, right? And so really the restriction
here needs to be around whoever is receiving
that data. preventing them from passing it on
to Chinese authorities, right? Not the tech itself.
They're trying to make this fear that, though,
they'll have a perfect map of our infrastructure
for targeting and invasion. And it makes me think
that maybe Fred – Don't they already have that?
That's what I want to get to, Mr. Perkins, who
formerly worked as a missile engineer. Isn't
a satellite image from like the 1980s like that
level of quality? Isn't that good enough to be
like, I want the bomb here? If somebody wants
to start a war, there's plenty of information
around that would let them start the war in whatever
terms they want, period. Meanwhile, we have Chinese
-made LIDAR sensors running around our streets
now, right? I mean, wasn't that the issue? It's
nonsense. I don't understand how this moves.
I mean, it's not like you're going to go out
and collect and take all those that are already
there off the road. Well, it's just silly. It's
just silly. It is silly. So this brings me to
the next song for our auto safety playlist this
week. Let's Start a War by the band Fear. Eh,
no? Okay. So this week's scoring. I've never
heard that. You know how it's a great song. So
this week's scoring, I mean, clearly I was going
to win because we all got animated about that.
But I'm honestly distracted by Fred's beard.
It is so perfectly trimmed and neat. And it makes
me jealous. All natural. Well, mine is not. I
went to the Turkish beard clinic to get mine.
So for that, you win. You win this week, Fred.
Thank you very much. I thought you went to the
barber school to get yours done. I could be wrong.
You could be. But anyway, let me slide into the
towel right now because it follows on to what
Michael was talking about. Towel away. If you
don't mind. Okay, so everybody's been saying,
you know, AVs are going to be good and they never
drive, they never drink, they never have sex
when they're operating, all these great things.
But I've been wondering, what are the numbers
associated with that? So I put a projection together
of... what might happen over the next 25 years.
And a lot of assumptions, nominal crash rate
is what it is now, unless it's improved dramatically.
So the AV crash rate I'm using is 92 % better
than humans, right? Because that's a number that
we've seen floated. And the AV growth rate is
39 % year over year, which ultimately results
in 10 million. AVs over the next 25 years. That's
pretty aggressive, but I think that that is probably
as high as any of the AV projections are used
internally, because that's a lot of cars. And
the overall growth rate for vehicles is growing
a little bit. Average age is 12 years. Average
age of AVs I'm using is five years. And that's
just because of due to rapid evolution of the
technology. Who knows? But anyway, if I look
at all this and I project it out over 25 years,
what I find is that a tiny improvement in mainstream
automotive safety would be much more effective
at saving lives than AV proliferation. And the
lives lost by AV over the next 25 years with
this 92 % crash rate reduction would be about
382. 382, okay? It's nothing to sneeze at, saving
382 or losing only 382 lives. That's still a
lot of people. But if you compare that to the
lives that would be lost by a nominal tech in
cars writ large, that number is more like 1 .1
million who would be dying in those cars. Now,
let's assume that you can take some of that technology.
that is saving all these lives in the AVs and
migrate it over to conventional cars. And what
might that look like? Well, if you assume that
you can take this 90%, 92%, which by the way,
nobody can really support, but it's a reference
number anyway. But if you take that and assume
that you can take parts of that technology, move
it over to conventional cars, you could end up
with a 50 % reduction from the AV tech migration
in the crash rate associated with conventional
cars. Does that sound reasonable? It's a number
that, you know, if you get it at 92 % for one
kind of car, you could probably get it at 50
% in all other cars. If you do that, then the
lives that you would save relative to the baseline
by the rapid safety introduction, remember, 50
% rather than 92%, It's about half a million.
So there's no reason why the government should
put additional emphasis on AV proliferation as
a way of saving lives compared to injecting technology
that's known today or that might be achieved
from migration from AV technology into conventional
cars. There's a lot of things that are held in
abeyance right now by the government. Automatic
alcohol detection, the automatic emergency braking.
Michael, what are some of the other technologies
that are out there that could be put into conventional
vehicles that is not being put into them? I think
active intelligent speed assistance would be
an awesome one. So go ahead. No, getting that
in the fleet, you know, is certainly possible
today, along with good automatic emergency braking
and, you know, the life savings start immediately.
So if you take any one of these technologies,
the effect of lifesaving would completely overwhelm
the number of lives that you're going to save
by putting a lot of emphasis into AV proliferation,
changing laws, all this stuff that's associated
with AVs. So those are the results of the study
that I've got. And to me, it's overwhelming that
this AV emphasis. It's just a diversion, and
it's a new sandbox for people to play in. But
there should be no public interest. There should
be no public legislative interest in making things
safer for the AVs in preference to improving
the conventional technology that could be used
to save lives in conventional cars. Does that
make sense? Any questions, gentlemen? I have
a question. So you said in how many years before
there's 10 million AVs in your assumption? Well,
I assume that... 25 years? Yeah, 25 years to
get to 10 million. And the number 10 million,
by the way, is the approximate number of vehicles
that are currently involved in rideshare. Okay.
So I assume that they're going after that whole
market. Right. Okay. So 10 million AVs. How many
cars currently drive in U .S. roads? 300 million.
Okay. So, you know, this is less than 10 % would
be there. And you're saying that if we put in,
you know, automatic emergency braking, you know,
that takes, and you're saying 25 years generally
takes 30 years for it to get fully into a fleet.
So 25 years is pretty close for every vehicle
to have AEB. Right. You know, I had other assumptions
here, like the average age of the vehicles, commercial
vehicles is 12 years. Right. That's a fact that
we've got that there would be replacement of
those over time. And, you know, the the old ones
get retired, new ones come in, they've got the
new technology. So that's included in their list
of assumptions. Yeah, no, I'm just assuming.
So go for 25 years. We say we mandate a B today,
25 years. Well, I'm making up, but close to 90
% of all vehicles on the road will have AEB at
that point. And we're talking, you know, AEB
alone, do you have an idea of roughly what that
would save in terms of lives? I did not calculate
that. Michael, you got a handy number? You know,
NHTSA had numbers when it introduced its automatic
emergency braking rule. It was about... 360 lives
a year and 24 ,000 injuries annually. I think
those are incredibly conservative and represent
the technology that was available at the time.
I think, you know, automatic emergency braking
can certainly improve. And, you know, I think
it should right now, essentially, they're setting
it up to recognize vehicles from the rear and
hopefully recognize pedestrians, motorcyclists,
bicyclists, that type of thing. What about recognizing,
you know, side impact? And those types of situations.
There are a lot of crash situations where braking
can really be effective. And I don't think we're
not there yet with the technology. But even with
the base level automatic emergency braking we
have now, NHTSA thinks that 360 lives and 24
,000 injuries every year. So that's actually
a perfect. But take that number just for comparison.
That number is about the same as the total number
of deaths associated with the AV. Over 25 years.
Over 25 years. That's what I want to say. And
that's just AV, right? That doesn't include,
you know, if we bring in active intelligent speed
assistance, alcohol impairment detection, really
good driver monitoring to prevent distracted
driving. I mean, I think. The numbers add up
quick in favor of putting this technology into
conventional vehicles that Americans are going
to be driving for the next few decades. Those
vehicles are not leaving the road, human -driven
vehicles. Yeah, so you're saying – real quick,
I just did a quick calculation. So we're saying
very conservatively we don't agree with NHTSA's
assessment for years ago, AEB, 360 lives. saved
per year. I think that's the very smallest number
you'll see. Bottom of the barrel. I mean, that's
our bottom, bottom, bottom baseline. But Fred,
you're saying AVs over 25 years would only save
360 lives. So that's, you know, you do the math.
No, the lives that would be lost using AV only
as a 92 % crash rate reduction. would be 382.
Oh, 382 over 25 years? Over 25 years with a 92
% reduction, yeah. Yeah, AEB alone, it's 9 ,000
in that same period. And that's at the garbage
level of AEB. This is a no, this is a, you know.
It's also no, they're never going to reach 92%.
I mean, if you look at 50 % crash rate reduction,
anything that you can do to perturb these numbers
ends up... Making an even more compelling argument
that you're wasting your time and energy by going
after AV proliferation. So now going on a limb
here, Michael, I'm going to say the best approach
that would be most economical and the most advantageous
would be for a third party to develop the AV
technology and inject it wherever it can into
the automotive development stream. If this technology
is retained by private companies and only the
private companies are allowed to use it, those
who've developed it, you're looking at half a
million some odd unnecessary deaths over the
next 25 years. For reference, the numbers of
U .S. dead in World War II is 298 ,000. And in
the Civil War, you're talking 650 to 850 ,000,
something like that. Records aren't clear there.
So what we're saying is that retention of this
by private companies for their own private benefit
means that you're going to kill far more people
in the next 25 years due to that retention of
technology than were killed in many major wars.
So that's a sobering number. And that concludes
the towel for this week. You win the towel for
this week. Hands down. You win the towel. This
is great. I look forward to seeing this develop
further with more peer review input. And we'll
put it on. This was pure. This is a peer reviewed
study, by the way, for. Our listeners, Waymo
style peer review. But if anybody's interested
and has questions or comments, just contact us
here at where, Anthony? Contact at autosafety
.org. Thank you. You're welcome. Fascinating
stuff. We're going to jump to an article before
we get into recalls about, this is something
we've talked about in the past, and I know Fred's
had concerns about this, EV battery life. So
early EVs, the Nissan Leaf, like, their battery,
like, cycle of charge, discharge wasn't that
great. And one of the concerns with EVs is, oh,
my God, after 100 ,000 miles, you're going to
pay $25 ,000 to get a new battery pack. Well,
now that EVs have been running on the road for,
you know, let's say a decade, you know, in a
larger population. uh the information is that
seems that these batteries are defying expectations
according to the wall street journal quoting
after five years on the road the average ev will
still be able to drive up to 95 of its original
range according to recurrent a data science company
that provides a battery monitoring tool for evs
better than many in the industry expected so
it quotes a guy in there who's got a car that's
got 200 000 plus miles on it uh he is also a
EV used car salesman. So I'd take a little grain
of salt. But from what we've seen in other places
too, these batteries are lasting much, much longer
than imagined. And some people think, well, it
only goes to 92%. That's better than my phone
that's two years old. And my phone hasn't driven
me anywhere except crazy. Who's from out of town?
I guess to be fair, even internal combustion
engine vehicles will lose some of their perfect
mileage over time, right? Also note, this is
not a detailed study. And anecdotal information
can be very different than systematically evaluated
information. So there's an awful lot of batteries
out there that they're not considering. And in
any normal distribution, there are going to be
some that last a lot longer than others. So we
don't know where the mean and the median are
in this. So, yeah. At least one grain of salt,
maybe two. Still skeptical. I think if they were
dying at the rate like the Nissan Leafs were,
we'd hear more and more about that because a
lot of consumers would be really angry. I mean,
they're upset enough and embarrassed enough they
bought a Tesla. But now they're like, oh, and
the battery died. You know, four years later,
it's useless. I mean, and my copy of Mein Kampf
is all like lost it. OK, I'm not. I mean, I'm
at the point where I'm integrating EVs into my
car buying. look right um and i'm kind of a i'm
kind of a battery weenie mainly because you know
i don't want to or live near a major metropolitan
area where i think it's a little easier and more
convenient to be an ev on your owner um but you
know the battery is not my concern necessarily
anymore what's your concern you know not much
that's why i've kind of put them into put them
into the rotation looking at it i mean i'm i'm
I'm interested in an EV at this point. You're
battery curious. I'm battery curious. Fascinating.
Fred, has your view of the battery world shifted
at all? They're getting better all the time.
What can you say? But it's interesting. This
discussion has talked about salt and battery.
Ah, okay. Do I have another story? Oh, yeah,
we're going to do a follow -up because we talked
about it. So last week we talked about a Tesla
that drove into a woman's house and killed her.
And the question was, was it running full self
-driving? Was it running their autopilot software?
Really not going to find that specific answer
out until trial time. But at this point, I'm
going to quote from an article. Harris County
prosecutors have charged the Tesla driver who
crashed into a Katy, Texas home and killed a
76 -year -old woman with manslaughter, alleging
he overrode full self -driving to floor the car
to 73 miles per hour in a residential cul -de
-sac. The charging document also reveals something
new. In the weeks before the crash, the driver
had been Googling that FSD wasn't aggressive
enough. Oh, you know, I don't know how they did
that so quickly. So we said we're going to give
you an update on this. That's the latest information.
I don't know how fast court systems work in Katy,
Texas. I don't know, but you'd think that the
automatic emergency braking would detect a house.
No. It's not designed to detect houses. Yeah,
it should detect a stationary object or their
mapping software should detect. I shouldn't go
off the road. This is just one of those cases
where, I mean, I think the driver is saying that,
He essentially blanked out at the end. Doesn't
remember why. I mean, the data, I believe, showed
him doing rolling stops through stop signs, you
know, I think is what it was. You know, there's
some somewhat incriminating Google searches that
make it appear that he was looking for ways to
kind of game full self -driving to make it more
aggressive. I just don't, there's not a lot of
information about those last six seconds, you
know. You know, all it shows is, I mean, apparently
the Tesla data is claiming to show that there
was a brake pedal application for six seconds
when this guy doesn't remember anything. I don't
know. There could have been a medical event here.
There could have been a lot of things that happened
here, but it's just not clear at the moment.
However, it's clear enough to charge the guy
with manslaughter in Texas. Once we find out
more and more about this case, we will continue
to update you. And now let's show them. Oh, yeah,
let's do one more silly Tesla story. How about
that? One more silly Tesla story. Are we up for
it? Yay, Tesla. Yay. So remember, Tesla has this
cyber cab thing where there's no steering wheel,
no pedals, no brains, and only a two seater.
And they want to do this as their their version
of a ride share thing. And so they have Tesla's
proven. That their full self -driving is not
autonomous. They've proven this in Austin repeatedly
in a very tight geofenced area that it doesn't
really work that well. Elon has even come out
and said, wait for the next version. That will
solve everything. I've never heard him say that
before in my life. So I imagine this must be
true. He's not a man prone to hyperbole. And
we use sarcasm. so continuing uh there's another
electric article i'm gonna quote from it uh the
reason the fleet stays small the isn't a mapping
problem and musk said so himself on the q1 2026
call he told investors that safety validation
is the limiting factor for robo taxi expansion
and that tesla is holding back until a rewritten
full self -driving version 15 arrives now targeted
for the end of 2026 or early 2027 or never Tesla's
supervised fleet has been crashing at roughly
four times the rate of an average human driver,
and the company has reported a string of crashes
to NHTSA and Austin. So the article questions,
why are they even building this vehicle if they
are not allowed to drive it and they're not allowed
to use it anywhere? The article misses the fact
that this is part of Elon's pay package. He's
got to show that he's built this shit so he can
be a trillionaire. But yeah, in a more logical
business sense, why are they wasting money building
this thing that they can't use and doesn't work?
I don't know. Besides just Elon's paycheck. Yeah,
I think it's all PR. I don't understand why any
company would be manufacturing vehicles that
can't be sold or operate commercially other than
to stoke the kind of bullshit investor confidence
that Tesla has been doing for years. And with
that, let's jump into recalls. Because here's
another company. I don't understand why they're
building cars still. That's too harsh. Let's
start off with Ford. 66 ,383 vehicles. The 2025
-2027 Explorer. 24 -27 Lincoln Nautilus. Hybrids.
Oh, they're hybrids. the vehicle may not admit
pedestrian warning sounds in certain instances
where there's an error in the audio processing
software and the vehicle is driven below 30 kph
in electric mode this condition can randomly
occur without input from the driver the vehicle
pedestrian warning that's for when you're running
an ev mode off of battery power and it's like
the whistler yeah so why why don't they just
use the the simple mechanical whistler thing
like i don't like why would you need like the
like the the deer horns or whatever yeah it wasn't
that like early evs would do that where it's
like a little mechanical thing and then below
a certain amount it would emit that tone and
above that well i mean i don't know if it was
cool enough or not i mean you know that for years
manufacturers were trying to you know be able
to play like um custom tones here right and music
and all sorts of weird stuff um but anyway It's
not, you know, apparently there's some signal
confusion in the software here and they're going
to get a software, a new software version that
improved the pedestrian warning. It doesn't,
you know, the timeline for this, it seems like
a simple recall, but they're putting, you know,
they're going to interim notify the owners in
August and they don't have a final. for a recall.
So this is something to keep an eye on. And if
you're an owner of one of these vehicles, understand
that when you are driving in the area of pedestrians,
they might not be able to hear you. You know,
back in my day, we had a bugler who preceded
the car at intersections who would, you know,
have to toot the horn and make sure it was clear.
I think we should get back to that. You know,
that's funny. But back in the day when cars were
first around, I think there were a couple of
there was at least one state I know that passed
a law that if you were operating a vehicle, you
had to have someone shooting off fireworks or
some type of, you know, warning device in front
of the vehicle to let people know it was coming.
So makes sense to me. Again, ladies and gentlemen,
Fred learned how to drive on a horse and the
bugler. Yeah, this is a strange one, but my favorite
part of this recall, it says if it's operating
below 30 kph instead of miles per hour. That's
how the standard. It's about 20. No, I know.
But, you know, America, we don't do metric. Come
on. You know, when we do hard science, we have
to sometimes, right? America. Next up, Ford.
42 ,784 vehicles in 2021 to 2023. Mustang Mach
-E. In the event of a differential pinion shaft
failure, the customer experienced a loss of motive
power and or an unintended vehicle movement with
park requested if the parking brake is not applied.
This sounds like something we've dealt with before
with Ford. And this is what we talked about last
week before with the whole shift into park, lift
into park, brake, right? Is this not... I think
there was a similar result, but a different mechanism.
Yeah. Yeah. The other one was a transmission
problem. Right. And I guess this is related,
but it's the differential. Yeah. Metallurgical
analysis has determined that differential pinion
shaft fracture occurs due to bending fatigue.
The root cause of the bending fatigue remains
under investigation. Yeah. And so this one, I
mean, there's a very long timeline on this one
as well. Owners aren't going, it's going to be
six months before owners have a remedy. They're
going to get a letter in the mail in the next
few days, but they're not going to have a fix
available until at least the end of the year,
December 28th through the 31st. This is a really
hard thing to fix because it's deep inside the,
the, uh, your case because of that, you've got
severe. limitations on how big you can make the
part. So they're probably going to have to come
up with a much stronger kind of steel to put
in there and then develop all those mechanisms
and put it in. So this is a big deal. Not to
sound totally stupid, but you said a gear case,
but this is an electric vehicle. I didn't think
they had gears. Yeah, they're doing differential.
Okay. Oh, the differential. You explained that
early on. I remember now. Okay. Next up, Ford!
That's right, world champion Ford. 67 ,842 vehicles.
The 2025 to 2026 Mustang GTD. The 2024 to 2026
regular Mustang. And in cold temperatures of
zero degrees Celsius or less, the vehicle's wiper
motor may lose local interconnect network communication
with the vehicle's steering column control module.
As a result of this communication loss, customers
may experience front windshield wipers that only
operate at their high -speed setting and in an
inoperable windshield washing system in these
cold temperatures. That was a mouthful. So you
try to turn on your wipers when it's snowing
or it's cold outside and they don't go on? That
sounds like the problem, yeah. There's a lot
of problems here. There's a lot of weird stuff
going on with the wipers. But once again, right,
the planned remedy owner notification date isn't
until March 29th of next year. So, I mean, you
would think they would be in a hurry to get this
done by the United States winter, right? You
know, we know what happens in cold. There would
be something going on there, but all of the owners
of these vehicles are going to have to worry
about not having wipers for the next winter because
of this problem. Once again, I'm a little disappointed,
and this is all Forge we've had so far with their
recall scheduling. I don't know if they have
so many recalls that they're falling behind or
their dealers can't keep up with them or what.
These are, I think in this case, they are replacing
a semiconductor chip, right? So and maybe replacing
the wiper motor that has that chip in it. So
there is some redesign that has to go on. But
that seems like a pretty significant and kind
of scary delay for some owners. Yeah, this is
a bizarre one. Reading down further, the supplier
of a semiconductor chip on the wipers motor printed
circuit board assembly erroneously used a 32
kilobyte programming equipment setting for the
16 kilobyte chip to be programmed with a mismatched
32 kilobyte algorithm. So their supplier of this
just, I had a brain fart. It was a big boo -boo.
Yeah. And also, I don't need, well, it doesn't
matter. It's fascinating. Ford. Oh, no. Next
up, General Motors. Sorry. 14 ,544 vehicles.
2026 Cadillac Vista Q and the 27 Vista Q. What
is a Vista Q? GM has decided that a defect which
relates to motor vehicle safety exists in certain
these models. Third row seat backs in these vehicles
can be commanded to power fold into the stowed
position with a single press release of the down
control button located in the cargo area or in
their pillar adjacent to the seat. The seat back
stops and does not automatically reverse. Oh,
God, if it encounters an obstruction in the seat.
Oh, this is awful. This is a way to crush somebody.
This is going to be in a horror movie. Yeah,
we saw a death two, three months ago in a Hyundai
vehicle that had a similar problem. Essentially,
the power seats, once they start folding, there's
no way to stop them. And children, even adults
with limited mobility, I would assume, can be
trapped and potentially killed. This is a problem.
I'm glad to see General Motors doing something
about it. They don't have any incidents with
this. Maybe they've had some reports, but it
looks like it was submitted by a GM engineer.
So they don't even have any field reports, I
don't think. Oh, they have six other incidents
or complaints, but no injuries. So that's good.
It's good they're moving forward with this. Once
again, owners are going to get an interim notification
in August, but there's... Absolutely no indication
of when you're going to get a final fix for this.
I'm assuming, but not sure, that there's going
to be a software fix here that allows for a reversible
power seat feature. We really don't know at this
point. Once again, I mean, is that every recall
we've covered this week? Consumers are going
to have to sit there and wring their hands worrying
about what happens for a few months. I think
it is. It's summer vacation, man. I don't want
to work. The Cadillac Vista Q, I had to look
it up because I wasn't familiar with this vehicle.
And it's a big SUV type vehicle. For some reason,
all their marketing shots, it's driven and parked
on a tennis court. I don't know why. I don't
know why somebody made that aesthetic choice.
But hey, you know. That's where you want to go.
That's where you want to go. But you can probably
also take this to your local Piggly Wiggly. And
with that, ladies and gentlemen, that is the
end of our show. We'll be back next week. Have
a lovely week time. Bye -bye. Thanks, everybody.
Bye -bye. For more information, visit www .autosafety
.org.