Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Ohio Bill to Ban/Fine Self-driving Cars on Ohio Roads

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
This Moderator is somewhat violating TOU by this double posting, but given the wretched difficulty in merging similar threads and so on, I'll step over the line and re-post what I had written Sunday evening, now significantly augmented:

As far as Ohio is concerned, I should think the state would want to be most concerned about what esp. a Democratic administration - but likely a Republican one as well - would suggest to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) concerning how to allocate highway funds to a state that bucks any nationwide coordination of vehicular functions, statuses and mandates.

A properly functioning federal bureaucracy need balance states' rights with citizens' rights. In a geographically fluid society, the possibility of one state crafting laws that fundamentally affect citizens of other states - and in this case, a lot of them - is an area in which the oversight of a federal authority most definitely is appropriate.

Nonetheless, there are few recourses such a federal department legally has at its disposal. In this specific instance, however, the FHWA is in the enviable situation of having very significant purse strings. All states craft their highway budgets closely as a function of what they will be receiving in FHWA matching funds. The FHWA has great leeway in determining what funds go where - were they to rule (correctly, in my opinion) that such an Ohio statute, if enacted, would lessen road safety, would thwart drivers from other states, would disrupt nationwide traffic - any or all of those or more big picture events - then it would definitely be within its purview to curtail funds to Ohio.

Whether or not it will die aborning, both for its own sake and that of future attempts both in Ohio and in other states, the track of this bill needs be watched closely.
 
Sadly I don't think this would help at this point... the federal government can set the MINIMUM standards required for automotive manufacturers to be able to sell, but that doesn't mean that states can't make laws that increase these standards.

Also, I don't think that reciprocity comes into it (though that hasn't come up yet, I don't think) While Ohio is required to recognize drivers licenses and vehicle registrations from other states (Lawriter - ORC - 4503.37 Certificate of reciprocity - exemption from requirements.), those vehicles must still be operated under the motor vehicle laws in Ohio, so, you might be able to get past the part where the cars have to be licensed as Autonomous and have different insurance, but I don't think you could get past the pretty clear statement that says "no person shall operate an autonomous vehicle on the public roads and highways in this state."

Hopefully though this wont go anywhere, it's a pretty scary precedent.

Dan

So, are they going to have giant billboards at the borders "Entering NO Autonomous Driving State".

So people driving cross country would have to know the rules of each state for autonomous driving. That would get interesting quickly.
 
So, are they going to have giant billboards at the borders "Entering NO Autonomous Driving State".

Like the ones around here (Washington State) that say fireworks not allowed in this city...<grin>... probably not though, even assuming it goes through.

So people driving cross country would have to know the rules of each state for autonomous driving. That would get interesting quickly.

I agree, though in the the end, you could see it as being the same as any other traffic law... in some places it is legal to use a cell phone, in others, not.... for the most part, laws are the same (or very similar) between states, but they can be different, and it is up to the driver to know the rules.

Not to bring up an even more controversial issue, but for an example of major law differences, look at gun laws between states!

Dan
 
Sadly I don't think this would help at this point... the federal government can set the MINIMUM standards required for automotive manufacturers to be able to sell, but that doesn't mean that states can't make laws that increase these standards.

Also, I don't think that reciprocity comes into it (though that hasn't come up yet, I don't think) While Ohio is required to recognize drivers licenses and vehicle registrations from other states (Lawriter - ORC - 4503.37 Certificate of reciprocity - exemption from requirements.), those vehicles must still be operated under the motor vehicle laws in Ohio, so, you might be able to get past the part where the cars have to be licensed as Autonomous and have different insurance, but I don't think you could get past the pretty clear statement that says "no person shall operate an autonomous vehicle on the public roads and highways in this state."

Hopefully though this wont go anywhere, it's a pretty scary precedent.

Dan
Tried to read the link but it's too complex for me. Where does reciprocity draw the line? Can I turn off the autonomous feature and still drive through especially if I'm just passing through on an interstate? That would seem to be the reasonable way to enforce it. Like some states have different laws on where on the windshield one is allowed to mount a cellphone/GPS dock, or whether one can drive without a front license plate. These rules usually don't get enforced on out-of-state cars that are just going traveling through, right?
 
Tried to read the link but it's too complex for me. Where does reciprocity draw the line? Can I turn off the autonomous feature and still drive through especially if I'm just passing through on an interstate? That would seem to be the reasonable way to enforce it. Like some states have different laws on where on the windshield one is allowed to mount a cellphone/GPS dock, or whether one can drive without a front license plate. These rules usually don't get enforced on out-of-state cars that are just going traveling through, right?

from the link:
<snip>A certificate of reciprocity issued under this section shall exempt the owner and the driver of every motor vehicle which is duly registered in the state, district, country, or sovereignty other than this state, to which the certificate is granted, from the laws of this state pertaining to registration and licensing ,,, <snip>​

so, as I read it, (note: I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a large box of salt)... the rule says that the owner and driver of a car which is registered somewhere else is exempt from the laws of Ohio pertaining to registration and licensing. there's lots of other stuff about taxes etc that I am ignoring and didn't try to figure out, but the key points seem to be the above ones. having a license plate on the front or not is pretty clearly covered as a licensing issue... the cell phone GPS doc is not and is probably enforceable against you if they wanted (though I suspect most police would not care)

so, I agree this would be reasonable, but that's not how the law is *currently* written. it saws "no person shall operate an autonomous vehicle on the public roads and highways in this state.", not even "no person shall operate an autonomous vehicle in autonomous mode..." the writing pretty clearly indicates that if your car has autonomous technology (and it lists a number of things that aren't "autonomous technology" like emergency breaking, lane keeping, etc...) you cant "operate" it in Ohio unless you meet their other requirements (be a car company, insurance, licensing, etc...)

I have no idea how the interaction of the reciprocity rules would impact this law (since it requires things that are covered by reciprocity), but I am hoping that in the end it wont matter and the law will never get very far!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Waiting4M3
Maybe I missed an announcement somewhere, but exactly when was the claim made that the driver won't be responsible for the operation of a Tesla that has AP 2.0? It's attitudes and thought processes like the one you're displaying here that are helping to inspire legislators to write up bills like this one. The driver is always responsible for the operation of their vehicle, AP is driver assistance, not fully autonomous driving. We are years, if not possibly a decade, away from fully-autonomous driving being a legal, common practice on public roads and if people continue to treat emerging driver-assistance technology as responsibility-absolving features, it will only serve to delay even further that day's arrival. Mis-use of the technology by users who are misguided, at best, in their expectations as to the capabilities and intentions of these features will only cause more fear and misunderstanding among the general population. When Elon Musk talks about AP, he mentions "depending on legal issues and government regulations", well, what do you think this is right here, that we're talking about? This is how the "legal issues & government regulations" part of it works, it starts with individual state officials proposing bills. The technology won't necessarily be the limiting factor in the move to fully autonomous driving, it will be a hard fought battle against public perception and heavily-vested special interest groups and that doesn't happen overnight. Please, I beseech you, please stop saying things like "where the driver is not responsible for the operation of the vehicle", it's not helping things...at all. We are not even close to that point, and it will most likely take much more than changing the vehicle itself, but rather, changes to the transportation infrastructure as well, before we get there.

Let's back up a bit here on the "attitudes and thought processes" :)

I'm equating AP2 with Level 5 autonomous driving, however many years away from it we are, because that's what I interpret this bill to be about. As in, I'm not in the car. I'm across town, and I just hit the summon button, for the car to come from home and pick me up. We currently don't have the legislation (nor insurance company rules) to cover that case - if the car gets in a collision, whose fault is it? Mine, for pressing the summon button? If that's the case, I can tell you I won't be using that at all.

AP as we know it, in my mind, is what the bill talks about as not being covered by it ("Autonomous vehicle" does not include a motor vehicle that is equipped with any active safety system...), because that is where the driver is fully responsible for the vehicle operation, as much as if they were using a 1970's cruise control (at least in my mind.)

I have a feeling that you interpreted my comments as "when AP2 hardware Tesla gets a software update this December, the driver is not responsible for the operation", and you went to violently agree with me, while under the impression that we have the opposite points of view.
 
Let's back up a bit here on the "attitudes and thought processes" :)

I'm equating AP2 with Level 5 autonomous driving, however many years away from it we are, because that's what I interpret this bill to be about. As in, I'm not in the car. I'm across town, and I just hit the summon button, for the car to come from home and pick me up. We currently don't have the legislation (nor insurance company rules) to cover that case - if the car gets in a collision, whose fault is it? Mine, for pressing the summon button? If that's the case, I can tell you I won't be using that at all.

AP as we know it, in my mind, is what the bill talks about as not being covered by it ("Autonomous vehicle" does not include a motor vehicle that is equipped with any active safety system...), because that is where the driver is fully responsible for the vehicle operation, as much as if they were using a 1970's cruise control (at least in my mind.)

I have a feeling that you interpreted my comments as "when AP2 hardware Tesla gets a software update this December, the driver is not responsible for the operation", and you went to violently agree with me, while under the impression that we have the opposite points of view.
But the wording of the current bill seems designed to include current APv1 Tesla's as well. Whether intentional or not, you could say that the driver has periods of non-interaction while driving which the bill says it would classify as self-driving. Of course, to that I would argue may different points, the main one being the nags and also the fact that I could drive with equal interaction in a non-Tesla equipped with cruise-control, a straight road, and a very aligned drivetrain.