Summary#
HB 1034, “Authorize operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads,” is an introduced bill that would amend Ohio’s insurance and following-distance laws and add new rules in the Revised Code. Its stated goal is to authorize autonomous vehicles on public roads and highways; it is not yet law, and passage is uncertain.
- A fully autonomous vehicle could operate without a human driver if it meets the bill’s registration, safety, operating-domain, failure-response, traffic-law, and interaction-plan conditions. A human driver could also be present while the system is engaged, but must monitor it and be ready to take immediate control.
- Vehicle manufacturers would have to publish an interaction plan with safety and contact information, make it available online, and ensure emergency responders can access it inside and outside the vehicle.
- For motor-vehicle offenses, the human driver is the operator if the system was off and the driver was present; otherwise, the registered owner is the operator. The owner would face applicable penalties, but the bill excludes driver’s-license penalties under Chapter 4510.
- Transportation network companies (TNCs) would have to maintain insurance for fully autonomous vehicles they dispatch. Coverage would range from $50,000/$100,000/$25,000 when available for requests to at least $1 million during a trip or goods delivery.
- The bill would generally bar local laws regulating autonomous vehicles, while allowing public-use airports to charge reasonable fees and set operating locations. It would also allow platoons of up to three connected vehicles on state or interstate highways, subject to a plan filed with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT).
- The bill would not create a new agency or require autonomous-vehicle applications or approvals. The supplied material does not include the current versions of the amended laws, so I could not verify how these rules compare with current Ohio law.
What it means for you#
- People riding in autonomous vehicles: A passenger would not need a driver’s license or have to be able to take control if the vehicle is operating without a human driver under the bill’s conditions.
- Vehicle owners and human drivers: The bill assigns operator status for motor-vehicle offenses based on whether a human driver was present and the system was engaged. The registered owner would be the operator in other cases, but Chapter 4510 penalties would not apply to that owner under this rule.
- Manufacturers: They would have to create and maintain interaction plans for driverless vehicles operating or intended to operate on Ohio roads.
- TNCs: They would have to ensure required insurance covers their autonomous vehicles. For such vehicles, the policy must be maintained by the TNC, not the individual driver.
- Local governments: They generally could not adopt rules regulating autonomous-vehicle operation. The bill preserves the stated airport powers to charge fees and designate operating locations.
- Companies seeking to operate platoons: They would have to file a general operations plan with ODOT. If ODOT does not respond within 30 days, the company may operate the platoon under the filed plan. Each vehicle must carry a visual identifier.
Money#
No publicly available information on estimated public or private costs is provided in the supplied material.
- The bill requires manufacturers and TNCs to meet plan and insurance requirements, but gives no cost estimate.
- ODOT would review platoon plans, with consultation from the State Highway Patrol where applicable; the bill gives no staffing or cost estimate.
- Airports may charge reasonable fees for autonomous-vehicle services, but the bill does not require them to do so.
- The bill specifies no appropriation, new tax, or fee charged to the general public.
What is unclear#
- The bill gives no start date and does not explain how the new rules would interact with existing Ohio programs or requirements; the current amended laws were not supplied.
- It does not set out enforcement procedures, reporting duties, or an appeal process for autonomous-vehicle operations.
- Terms such as “substantially equivalent” traffic ordinances and “readily accessible” interaction plans are not explained in the supplied text.
- The bill’s platoon exception in the following-distance law points to the section on interaction plans, while the platoon definition appears in a different section. That cross-reference should be checked.
- The bill does not explain whether or how local communities, emergency responders, or passengers would take part in setting or assessing operating rules.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to set statewide rules for driverless vehicles rather than leave their operation to differing local laws.
- Requiring vehicles to stay within their designed operating conditions and reach a minimal risk condition after certain system failures could address safety concerns in the bill’s design.
- Interaction plans could give police, firefighters, and emergency medical workers instructions for communicating with or moving a driverless vehicle.
- Requiring TNCs to maintain insurance for autonomous vehicles could make responsibility for coverage clearer when a company dispatches a vehicle.
Case against#
- The bill sets conditions for operation but does not establish a general approval process, reporting system, or specific oversight program for driverless vehicles.
- Assigning the registered owner as the operator in many cases could expose owners to penalties even when no human driver is in the vehicle. The bill does not explain how responsibility would be assessed in a particular case.
- Broadly preempting local rules could limit local governments’ ability to address local operating conditions; the airport exception is limited to fees and operating locations.
- The bill does not estimate the costs of insurance, interaction plans, or ODOT plan reviews, so the financial effect on companies and government is unknown.