Ohio House Transportation Committee - 5-19-2026

Mr. Chairman, I move to amend with Amendment 136 underscore 2384.

This amendment updates driver education exemptions for limited-term license applicants. It clarifies acceptable documentation, including USCIS verified proof of legal presence, requires a valid foreign license, and an employer verification. And it expands the eligible employment categories.

Mr. Chair, I move that House Bill 463 be favorably reported and recommended for passage.

Chairman Willis?

Vice Chair Daniels?

Yes. Not here. Here and yes.

I was checking.

Very good.

No.

Here.

Here and yes.

Representative Klopfenstein.

Representative Lorenz.

Representative McLean.

Representative Kevin Miller.

Representative Muhammad's excuse. Representative Newman. Representative Pizzouli Representative Rogers Yes Representative Troy Representative Blaisdell would you like to be yes or no

No? Okay. With seven positive and two negative votes, bills reported out of committee and recommended for favorable passage. Please remember to sign the report as it comes around. The roll will be left open until 5 today for anyone who needs to join later. And that will stand as fifth hearing and vote. Make sure I got my numbers correct. Yes, 463. Next, we have the second hearing on House Bill 339, representative hoops to allow surviving spouses to retain the Purple Heart license plate. Today we have would be open to opponent interested party testimony. Is there anyone who wishes to testify? We have no registered testimony for 339 today. Seeing no other testimony or questions, what's the pleasure of the committee? The chair recognizes Vice Chair Daniels for a motion.

The motion is in order. Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Representative McLean.

Representative Kevin Miller.

Representative Muhammad is excused. Representative Newman. Representative Pizzouli. Representative Rogers.

Pass it without objection. With a unanimous vote, correct, the bill is reported out of committee and recommended for favorable passage. Again, remember to sign the report as it comes around. It will be left open until 5 o'clock today. And that will stand as the second hearing on 339. Next, we'll have the second hearing on House Bill 425. Representative Hoops, again, to prohibit trespass and unauthorized recording by drones. We have proponent testimony today in the form of written testimony from Kenton Dickinson and Floyd Denison. Please review those at your leisure. Are there any questions or additional testimony on House Bill 425 today? Hearing none, that will stand as a second hearing on House Bill 425. Next, we'll have the first hearing for House Bill 814, Representative Romer, to eliminate the e-check if Ohio meets certain air quality standards. We have sponsored testimony today from Representative Romer. Welcome to the committee, sir, and the floor is yours.

Thank you for your testimony, Representative. I find it a bit disturbing that we've been this far past, just knowing the difference in air quality standards, the things that have changed. Of course, this was done in good faith. This had a perfectly good environmental reason behind it at its inception. but we know that things have changed and we are now, as you stated, wasting money into something that we have already accomplished. So I greatly appreciate you continuing to push forward on this. Questions from the committee. Chair recognizes Rep. Kevin Miller.

That was a great lead-in. The state of Ohio pays approximately $12 million to fund these different e-check locations around the seven-county region. That's $12 million that we could save in Ohio. That could go to a number of other things. Someone had proposed to me, well, maybe we use at least part of that funding that we're already spending to the reduction of VOCs, volatile organic chemicals. There are some plants still producing those. We can put those $12 million either back into the general fund or to continue to even more improve our air. And by the way, that $12 million goes to a Swedish company. That's not even a company in the United States that's operating e-check in northeast Ohio.

Chair recognizes Vice Chair Daniels for a question.

I think it's 31 years.

It's anywhere from in the upper 99 percentile to well over 90 percent.

Well, Chairman, Representative, just as an example, if you don't pass, if you spend $300, now it doesn't mean you're going to have any clear omission from your car, but if you spend $300, come in, produce the bill, then you'd still pass. So, again, as you said very eloquently, that is definitely a burden on our working poor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the $300 representative Romer has now been hit by inflation. It's $4.50 now. So, but, yeah, obviously I was here in 1996 when this went into effect, or at least the initial testing program that's about what it is, and did not support it. It actually included more than seven counties at the time. I think included the metropolitan Dayton area, the metropolitan Cincinnati area. For some reason, Columbus, which seems to have the most congested traffic in the world, has never been subject to these admissions tests. But at the time, you're saying, if we get in compliance, can we get out of this? At the time, I asked the administrator from Region 5 in Chicago, I said, So if we do all of these things and we somehow get the air quality below the cutoff point and we meet the requirements, can we discontinue the E-check program? And he said, no, because we would be fearful that you would slip back into noncompliance. So I said, well, then this basically is eternal, correct? So, I mean, that's kind of the issue you're dealing with. But Representative Miller's question, initially the amount was paid for by the individual, and I think it was Senator Grandel or something that decided, well, we'll have the state pay for it. What they did is they rated the tobacco settlement money. So the money that was supposed to be used to discourage smoking and reduce the smoking rate in Ohio was the money that now was used to underrate the E-check program. So all I can say, Representative Romer, is good luck on this because we've been trying for about 30 years to basically, again, it seems unfair because it's just the seven counties. And I always used to argue that Lake County is the farthest northwest in this region. And the prevailing wind direction in the summer months when you get the pollution goes from the southwest to the northeast. So I says, we're not creating it, we're just getting it from everybody else. And that amendment got table two, but anyways. If I could, Chair, maybe three basic points. Actually, what I have found out is because Lake Erie is there, we get a lot A lot of the pollution that comes from Detroit, which is not covered under E-check, by the way. So, point one, I thought that was very ironic. Relative to the fee, it had gone to $450,000 because for a period of time, a short period of time, we were considered in severe non-attainment. However, when you remove the Canadian wildfire data, that's what would have allowed us to then be back in attainment. So we went from $300,000 to $450,000 back to $300,000. And I had a third one in there, but I forgot.

Thank you, everyone. I appreciate it.

Thanks for having me.

Absolutely. Chair Willis, Vice Chair Daniels, Ranking Member Grimm, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to House Bill 604 on behalf of the Ohio Association for Justice. House Bill 604 does something both significant and troubling. It allows a company to design, control, and profit from a system that puts drivers on Ohio roadways, then shields that company from accountability when things go wrong. It's not a minor policy tweak. It is a fundamental departure from an Ohio legal principle. I want to specify, the Ohio Supreme Court has long held that the test for responsibility in an agency relationship, who has the right to control, is when the principle retained the right to control the manner and the means of the work, not just the result. The law doesn't require that the control actually be exercised, only that the right to control exists. And it is the nature of that relationship, not the label attached to it that governs. The reason why that's important is because just labeling someone an independent contractor doesn't mean that you don't control the actions that they are actually taking. So companies like Uber, for example, one of the TNC, the rideshare companies, they set the price of every ride. They control compensation. They dispatch the drivers using specific designed algorithmic procedures. They dictate navigation through in-app maps. They impose performance metrics that specifically discipline drivers from deviating from their prescribed routes. They monitor driver conduct in real time. and they retained the unilateral right to permanently deactivate drivers. So when we look at the relationship of independent contractor versus employee, there the middle ground of agency whether or not they retained the right to control the actions of that person That is what significant and what most troubling about House Bill 604 So as it written the bill would give complete immunity to these big tech companies for making deliberate design decisions. These are product engineers. They have people called the head of product or chief of product that are making design decisions that deliberately make foreseeable risks of harm to those here in Ohio, and then they fail to act on it. As an example, just one example, Uber knew for years that women passengers face significantly elevated risks of sexual assault or violence or kidnapping. They had options for women-preferred drivers, meaning that a woman can select on their phone to have a women-preferred driver option. Unfortunately, that decision to implement that ability for women to do that was delayed. for years, not because they couldn't do it, but because of a decision made in a boardroom in California. Today, women now have that ability in some jurisdictions, but men still do not. The passenger has no right to choose who comes to pick them up. When we're talking about the agency, the right to control, we have no choice in that. The other issue is that the TNCs require phone manipulation while driving with passengers that directly leads to significant increases in distracted driving. I want everybody to ask themselves, how often have they been in an Uber and have seen their driver in that last mile take their phone and have to deliberately be swiping or looking to accept their next ride? We've all had that experience. And the reason we have that experience is because the algorithm requires the driver immediately to either accept it or it's gone forever. that's the choice that they have which really isn't much of a choice at all if these folks are trying to make a living as a gig economy worker i want to make very clear most fundamentally house bill 604 eliminates what the ohio constitution guarantees which is the right of a jury to evaluate the facts and circumstances of each individual case and make the decision if the right to control if that principle this company in california is actually exercising control over the individual drivers here on the roads in Ohio. OAJ and I do not oppose the independent contractor model when it actually reflects reality. When those control factors are not in existence, we're perfectly okay with that. And courts routinely and summarily dismiss cases where there is no actual right to control the operation of vehicles or other circumstances.

Most importantly, look, for $5,000, the ability to register as a TNC, essentially they get complete broad immunity. So the bill doesn't protect any of your constituents. None. Not the drivers. Not the rider. Not anybody on the streets. Nobody in the state of Ohio. Okay? The only thing that it does is protects a big tech company in California from being able to come in here, scoop profits, while saying that they're just an application, but they're creating specific design decisions. that create risk of harm for people in the state. I urge you to oppose House Bill 604 as written, or to at least amend it to allow juries to appreciate and understand the specific facts of each case. And if the facts of the case show that there's no control, dismiss it. The case should be thrown out. I do not like frivolous lawsuits. I want those gone.

Ranking member Graham. Thank you very much, Chair. And thank you so much for being here today. Um, so when, uh, we had the sponsor, the testimony from the sponsors and then the testimony from, from Uber, um, that's the only one that showed up in person. Um, I had made a point about the, um, the lawsuit in, um, Arizona where there was an $8 million, um, uh, judgment, um, made for someone who was who was raped by an uber driver and i think now they're appealing um when i asked uber about that and also the sponsors they didn't think that this bill um would have anything to do around criminal liability so if you you know and you mentioned that in your testimony um so can you kind of speak to why maybe that's not necessarily the case with this piece of legislation yeah as

And I was actually out of town this weekend, and I used Lyft because I was having trouble with Uber, but I used Lyft, and I did notice the women-only drivers. I've used that before. I do see the trouble with that is that sometimes you have to wait a little longer. And so while that is an option, it's not really affixed to an issue of maybe screening their drivers a little bit better now and now using us, the legislature, to skirt their responsibilities as a company. So, yeah.

We agree with that, fully support that.

Chair, we recognize Vice Chair Daniels.

And through the chair to the representative, respectfully, Representative Daniels, I don't believe so. I believe that this gives blanket immunity for those circumstances because it eliminates vicarious liability. So it eliminates where there is a discretion, right? It eliminates the ability for a jury to hear whether or not they had control over that individual, whether that individual is negligent. What you're talking about is negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent retention. And my read of this, the way that this broadly immunizes those characters, is that they cannot be held liable for those as well. We are happy to have a discussion with you offline and to revisit that with you, see if there's an amendment, see if there's some language we can add in here to effectively eliminate that. But, of course, if Uber knows that they are putting a driver that is dangerous on the roadway, absolutely, we agree they should be held liable. And it sounds like, of course, you would want that, too. We want safe drivers on the road, right? We are fully on board with that. And thank you for the question.

Through the chair and to the representative, yes, I do. And specifically because I believe the classification is important. I think you just mentioned something that's really critical. You said their employment status, right? So we have other statutory language that identifies them as independent contractors, but we know that they're really not. Effectively, they are agents of this entity. And so there's discrepancy there, and there's discrepancy. There's a lot of different varying law on that.

Through the chair and to the representative. May I answer that or no?

Respectfully, I don't believe that the law that you're citing, and I apologize. actually have it written down right here phones down Ohio 45 11.204 I don't think that it adequately addresses the need for the driver to not just perceive because there's perception reaction time so we have perception reaction time that requires the driver to have to look at their phone and make a split-second determination as to whether or not they're going to get paid or not get paid at that moment. And then as they're making that decision, there's a million other things that are going on around them that can cause harm to those around us. And that's the fear. That's the fear that, again, I have represented individuals right here in Columbus who have been hit by a driver who was looking at his phone, veered to the right, struck someone on the side of the road. And, again, I'd be happy to have that conversation offline. I really appreciate the opportunity to do that.

Thank you. So Chair Willis, Vice Chair Daniels, Ranking Member Grimm, and members of the committee, may it be acceptable that my voice is just as good as my colleagues here.

Thank you so much for allowing me to present on behalf of OAJ as well. It's my first time testifying. I'm excited to be here because this is an important issue. when we meet with legislators typically what we hear is that we just want good law right and i think that's something that we all can agree on we want law that is good for ohio good for constituents and does not present unanticipated consequences and i am here to talk less about the nuances of the bill, but more so about consequences that I think probably are unintended of this bill. In particular, I want to focus on some of the questions that were asked before. My testimony has been submitted, so I'll try to be brief. For the sexual assault issue, House Bill 604 grants TNC's immunity for driver sexual assaults, even when drivers have been repeatedly reported previously for sexual assault or misconduct so long as they haven't been prosecuted within the last seven years. And so to Representative Vice Chair Daniel's point, you know, if they are aware of this conduct, negligence is negligence, under the bill as it's currently written, they would be immune from that behavior. And that's not just me bringing up this point that's supported by Uber's own data that's now publicly available. From 2017 to 2022, Uber received complaints about sexual misconduct and rape every eight minutes, which was over 400,000 complaints from passengers. And in many of those instances, those drivers who were being reported for that behavior had received prior complaints before to Uber, but yet they were still allowed to have exposure for these opportunities through the Uber app. And so under the bill, again, as it's currently written, they would be shielded from accountability from such conduct. House Bill 604 isn't just bad for people. It hurts businesses as well. It creates an unfair government advantage for TNCs. It favors a very small group of companies. There's 10 companies that are currently registered, six of which, by the way, are out companies It gives them special immunity protections that other contractor businesses don receive So taxi companies delivery services trucking companies other businesses have to account for liability exposure In insurance coverage, operating costs, safety oversight, TNCs, by contrast, would be able to avoid that cost, allowing them to operate at lower costs, undercut competitors, and make it harder for non-TNCs to not only enter the marketplace but also compete within the marketplace. Another major concern when I read it was that I think it creates a slippery slope. I think right now, again, by providing government-created protections, it creates troubling precedent. Other industries that rely on independent contractors like tech companies, data centers, social media companies, they don't receive this type of immunity, nor should they. There is no principled reason why TNCs should also receive special legislative protection here as well. And so I don't have access to my clock here. I'm probably close to my time, so I'm going to yield for questions. sorry i canceled it once it got there no worries so hopefully that meant my voice was accepted any

committee ranking member grim thank you very much chair thank you so much for being here um this afternoon. So my question's a little bit of a pivot from your testimony. I do want to say thank you for bringing up the issue around the sexual assaults and misconduct, but this is around some railroad issues. So in the proponent hearings, Rep Pizzouli, who isn't here, brought up the issue of TNCs taking some railroad employees to job sites, and that could potentially have an issue with the vicarious liability and those kind of things. And there was a question about workers' compensation. But actually, with railroad workers, they're not under traditional workers' compensation. They are under FILA, And you'll see that in John Esther Lee's testimony from BLT. But my question to you is, would this bill, could it unintentionally create a situation where railroads or transportation companies argue that they're shielded from this liability in crude transportation cases, even though federal law appears to say otherwise? So I kind of want to hear your opinions on that issue.

to give protection to these TNCs?

The answer is no. There is no other mechanism, to my understanding, that provides this type of immunity to other industries. I mean, common examples would be hospitals, right? Hospitals provide services where they hire surgeons who are often independent contractors. They don't get blanket immunity in those situations. Construction companies, plumbers, I mean, you can name the industry. they do not have any type of protections that are being offered through House Bill 604. And again, to my colleague's point, I'll be blunt, the case law is very unfavorable for plaintiffs. These are not easy cases because in many instances, control is not exerted. So in fact, I think it's worth pointing out, there's not been a single case in Ohio where a TNC has been held responsible under an agency theory for the conduct of their driver. And so the mechanisms already exist. The case law is very difficult on our end of things. And so in the rare instances where there are direct negligence claims, we want to be able to preserve those to be able to have courts hear those. And one other very minor point for the legal purposes, outside of agency claims, the other type of claims that you would be looking for to present against TNCs would be the direct negligence types of claims, where it's negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision, typically one of the elements for those claims is that there is an employment relationship. And so my concern also is that based upon the labeling of independent contractor, you can't satisfy that element. And so not only does this bill extinguish agency claims, but also the direct negligence claims for when, you know, those circumstances exist, such as the sexual assault issues where they may know about this history and reports but still allow those people to drive through Uber. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Just a quick thought. So the concern of your group is if we plow this new ground here, because this is maybe letting the camel's nose under the tent, do you see then a kind of a large call from other entities saying, well, we would probably like, you know, to be considered for the same immunity. I guess an expansion of this proposed immunity. Absolutely. So when I say slippery slope, that's what I mean. I would be concerned about other entities asking and seeking for the same type of immunity, which would erode very fundamental principles of the law, you know, like vicarious liability, like having juries hear these on a fact case basis Chair recognizes Rep Klopstein Just a follow on Representative Troy question He asked about other businesses having immunity in Ohio. I guess my question, are there any other states with similar laws that grant immunity to this industry? To my understanding, there are. I'm unfamiliar with those states and those laws. My intent on behalf of OAJ is to protect Ohio law and respond to bills such as these. But yes, there are, and there's also states who have rejected immunity bills such as these. Bottom up? Yes. So we're not precedent setting if there's already other states doing it, and so we would have a track record of what has happened in other states. In terms of precedent setting, when I say precedent, I'm talking about overriding precedent from Ohio, from Ohio Supreme Court. I'm unfamiliar what Supreme Courts have done in those states. I am aware of what the Ohio Supreme Court has done here and has followed for the last 75 years. So this type of bill would override precedent in Ohio that grants this fundamental principle within the law. I'm happy to look further in, and if you have specific questions, I would love to sit down and chat with you and try to figure out answers to your questions, if there are other questions. Well, follow up. So I guess if other states, and I am curious now how many other states already have a similar law in the books, that we can look at and say, yes, there's a negative effect that happened to constituents, or no, it was a good law, and we need to move forward with it. So there's already a track record out there. We just have to do the research to find out. Well, I can certainly look into certain issues of that. I mean, from my just general understanding is I don't know how you would track that when those claims aren't allowed to be presented. You wouldn't have any data to be able to see that because, again, those claims are extinguished. So, I mean, I know attorneys who have complained about certain issues being present that they can no longer pursue. But in terms of benefiting Ohioans, frankly, I don't see one single benefit here to Ohioans. This bill protects a major company in California, Uber, Lyft, other companies. Again, six of the companies of the only ten companies in Ohio are out-of-state companies. And so the benefit to Ohioans, to Ohio businesses, there's just none that I can identify that I've tried to see from other angles. But we could track if lawsuits increase to the drivers versus drivers and companies. So there is a trackable process here where, no, you're never going to know 100% whether we call them frivolous or non-frivolous lawsuits. There is some ability to track drivers being sued, drivers and company being sued, and if that increased or decreased. Sure, but I think what you're pointing to are different issues. They're different claims. So direct negligence of a driver is different than an agency claim against the company. That agency claim would not be able to be presented. You wouldn't be able to allege it. And so in most of these lawsuits where you do see these TNCs being sued, you would still see, uh, complaints and causes of actions against the drivers individually, but you also would see additional complaints against the TNCs. And those are the aspects that you wouldn't be able to track because you can't allege them anymore. You can't allege agency issues. You can't allege direct negligence. And in issues where you're only pursuing the company, you wouldn't even be able to get access to the courts because, again, this creates a barrier to get to the courts to even be heard. And again, to frivolous lawsuits, I'll be the first to say that's bad for our business. It is not a good look. We do not want frivolous lawsuits. And there are mechanisms for those to be dismissed immediately before these issues become expensive and defendable. We want the ability when, again, there are rare instances where issues, there are direct negligence claims or agency theories. We want juries to be able to hear those and consider those on a case-by-case basis, especially if an app company is changing their business. I mean, if this immunity is given, you're green lighting their ability to control drivers just the same as an employer would. And when you're looking at degrees of control, on one hand, you've got an independent contractor. On the other hand, you have an employee. And in the middle, you have an agent. And that's really what these issues are about, is agency. And so there's no distinction if you provide immunity that would limit these TNCs to provide the control that would be more in line with an employer when other businesses would be subject to the same liability considerations, liability exposure, insurance costs. Is he going to be here? You're welcome. Chair recognizes Representative Pizzouli. I bet I know what you're going to ask. Sorry I'm late. I was testifying on another bill. Thank you for coming in, Mr. Sloan. Thank you. Simple yes or no question. Is there anything in this bill at all that is beneficial to drivers and riders? No. That was quick. Any other questions from the committee? Thank you for your testimony. Yeah, thank you. Much appreciated. Thank you. Next, we'll have Ms. Clarissa Epps for in-person opponent testimony also. Thank you, ma'am. Welcome to committee. The floor is yours. Chair Willis, Vice Chair Daniels, Ranking Member Grimm, and members of the House Transportation Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on House Bill 604. I am a ride share driver representing the thousands of ride share drivers across Ohio. We drivers, as you've heard, are independent contractors, which means that we incur many expenses while having flexibility with our working hours. Given the current job market, the majority of the drivers that I know drive for transportation network companies or TNCs full time, logging 50 or more hours per week. I take great pride in providing exceptional experiences as I transport passengers to work, to school, to the airport, to special events, to the hospital, and to many other destinations. As a driver, I'm responsible for those many expenses, including gas and costly maintenance, as I log 1,000 miles of driving every week. This bill will hurt ride share drivers. I already pay additional insurance costs because I'm a ride share driver. We're already struggling to make ends meet. The TNCs take out many fees that reduce the amount of money that goes to the driver. a portion of these fees are for the type of liability that they trying to avoid Transferring this type of liability to us drivers will add expenses and litigation costs that we cannot afford while the TNCs have the resources to handle this type of liability. Please, on behalf of the thousands of ride-share drivers across our state, do not pass this bill. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony today, ma'am. Any questions from the committee? Ranking Member Grimm. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you so much, Clarissa, right? Yes. Thank you so much for being here. I'm glad that you felt comfortable coming forward as a ride share driver to express opposition to the bill. My question for you is, if this bill were to pass, would you continue on as a ride share driver? I'm sure that many of us would. I would also continue on, but it would be at great expense personally, and I would have to try to find another way to make ends meet. Because as I've talked to other drivers over the last 24 hours about this bill, we've had a lot of fear in terms of, well, what happens if a rider makes a false claim? Now we have these litigation costs. We're already struggling. So I wouldn't be able to continue for very long. Follow-up, Chair. What do you see is kind of the greatest threat to you as a ride share driver that you see in this bill? In this bill, looking at the increased liability that will go on to the driver. As I mentioned, I already pay additional insurance costs because I have a ride share endorsement because I'm a ride share driver. So you have the maintenance, you have the gas, which we all know is very expensive. so if a rider were to make a false claim and now have to hire an attorney I have court costs, I have no income now you have all of these things happening where Uber and Lyft tell us that a portion of the fees that they take out cover this type of thing so that would be helpful for us if somebody made a false claim and now we find ourselves in court but you take that away and they get this blanket immunity as you've heard mentioned now what happens to the driver? No problem. Question from Representative Pizzulli. Hello. Thank you for coming in. Good to see you. Thank you, Chair. One of the arguments rideshared companies have said is that this will allow for them to give you, the driver, better rates if this bill is passed to shield themselves from predatory lending. Do you feel confident that if this bill passes that ridesharing companies would increase fares to you at all whatsoever? or how have you seen those rates? Have they just been getting steeper and steeper, it seems, as you've been going on as a driver? I'll be frank. If this bill passes, I see no way possible that Uber and Lyft would give more money to drivers. Over the last year, even, we were promised that we would make 70% of what passengers pay. And we can look in the app and see line by line where time after time we only make 40 to 50 percent of what a passenger pays. So I have no confidence whatsoever that Uber and Lyft would give more money to drivers if they had this bill passed. Any other questions from the committee? Representative Troy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for coming in and testify. and you know I didn think the fee was that low because I had the occasion I had to take an Uber from Pittsburgh here to Columbus and the driver asked me and it was a foggy night and everything else and he asked me what I was being charged and I told him I bought and he says, well, I'm going to get about $180 of that. So there's a pretty good profit margin in there for Uber already, right? You think that any of these additional liability insurance costs, they should be well already compensated to cover those costs themselves and not pass them on to you? Very well. As we've seen from talking to drivers across the state who have organized themselves and have looked at this, Uber and Lyft are just pocketing more and more money, and they're working with representatives across the country to do that. So please do not pass this bill. Thank you, ma'am. That will stand as the third hearing on 604. Do be advised, we do have the written-only testimony that was referenced by ranking member Grimm from John Esterly, and he's from the Brotherhood of Local Mobile Engineers and Trainsmen. That kind of answered a question that was raised by Rep. Pizzouli in our sponsor testimony on this one, I believe. So do take a look at that. Otherwise, it will stand as the third hearing. Next, we'll have the second hearing on sub-Senate Bill 16 from Senator Wilson. This is Established Road Rules Around Distressed Stationary Vehicles. And we have proponent testimony today from Mr. Mike Belcour from the AAA Club Alliance. Welcome to the committee, sir. The floor is yours. Thank you. Chair Willis, Vice Chair Daniels, and Ranking Member Grimm, and members of the committee. My name is Mike Belcourt, and I serve as the manager of driver education and operations for AAA Club Alliance. Today I'm here speaking on behalf of all of the AAA clubs in Ohio. Since its founding in 1902, AAA has been a not-for-profit, fully tax-paying organization committed to advocating for the safety and security for all travelers. AAA proudly serves more than 2.5 million members here in Ohio. On behalf of the AAA Ohio clubs, I want to express our strong support for legislation that will enhance roadway safety both for motorists and those who work to maintain the roads. Senate Bill 16 seeks to protect drivers who are stranded on the roadside due to a disabled vehicle, as well as other motorists traveling on the road. A disabled vehicle refers to one that is stopped on the side of the road and displaying hazardous warning lights, road flares, or caution signals, touches, traffic cones, caution signs, or the reflective triangles. It is common to encounter disabled vehicles on the roadside. The occupants may be changing a tire, waiting for a tow truck, or dealing with mechanical issues. These situations often involve individuals either inside or outside the vehicle. One tragic example occurred last May near Urbana. A 36-year-old man was attempting to change a flat tire on the shoulder of State Route 72. It is a divided highway with two lanes on in each direction. A northbound driver failed to yield the right lane, drifted onto the shoulder, and fatally struck the victim. He was pronounced dead at the scene. His obituary described him as a devoted husband, father, brother, uncle, and friend. Senate Bill 16 would require drivers on a two-lane highways to proceed with caution and slow down when passing a disabled vehicle. On multi highways such as interstates drivers would be required to either move to an adjacent lane if possible or slow down when passing a disabled vehicle While this may seem like common sense our current move over law does not extend these protections to disabled vehicles leading to tragic consequences Although there is no official crash category for fatalities involving occupants of disabled vehicles, Estimates from the Ohio State Highway Patrol and the Ohio Department of Transportation suggest between 2018 and 2023, there were approximately 140 such fatalities or about 24 deaths per year. These are based on pedestrian fatalities on highways or freeways. The current law covers things you see with flashing lights, emergency vehicles, tow trucks, maintenance vehicles, things like that. It does not cover a car that is disabled on the side of the road. But this bill does not extend to ones that are abandoned, that are marked with those orange stickers you see that the police officers have put on it. So we strongly urge your support for this legislation. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I will answer any questions. Thank you, sir, for your testimony today. Any questions from the committee? Ranking Member Grimm? Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you so much for being here. I had mentioned this when the sponsor came in to testify, but I actually had a friend who was killed in another state. She's in Nebraska. She was on her way with her sister to visit their birth parents. Her car overheated. Everybody said she did the right thing, but the driver wasn't paying attention and veered off the road, and she was struck and killed. So this was 26 years ago in August. And I think this is a really important bill. I also do appreciate that there isn't any additional fines or penalties for drivers if they, sometimes you're unable to get over or slow down. But I think it's really important to have something like this because it's a very tragic thing, and having to deal with that as a teen was very difficult. So thank you very much. Through the chair, to the representative, thank you for sharing that. And I think we all have had, know somebody like that or had the experience of having a flat tire or something like that on the side of a highway when the cars are going 55, 60, 70 miles per hour past you. to have an additional protection out there that allows that motorist to be as safe as the person in the car, I think is needed. Any other questions from the committee? Thank you, sir, for your testimony today. Thank you. Do note the fact that we have written testimony on your iPad from Tom Balzer, the present CEO of the Ohio Trucking Association, as a proponent also. And that will stand as second hearing on sub-Senate Bill 16. Next we will hear the first hearing on House Bill 776, Representative Lorenz, regarding motorcycle lane filtering and lane splitting for sponsor testimony. Welcome to committee, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't think I'd pull it off, but I did. The floor is yours. Okay, one sec. No, I'm just kidding. Chair Willis, Vice Chair Daniels, Ranking Member Grimm, and members of the House Department, Transportation Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony on House Bill 776, legislation to establish clear rules in Ohio law for motorcycle lane filtering. House Bill 766 is a traffic safety bill. It recognizes that motorcycles operate differently than passenger vehicles, especially in slow-moving or stop traffic, and it creates a narrow regulated framework for when a motorcycle rider may carefully move between lanes. Under this legislation, lane filtering would only be permitted when traffic is stopped or moving at 15 miles an hour or less. The roadway must have two lanes moving in the same direction, the posted speed limit must be 45 miles per hour or less, and the motorcycle may not travel more than 10 miles an hour above the speed limit of the surrounding traffic. Just as importantly, this bill makes clear what is not allowed. House Bill 776 does not authorize reckless driving, and it does not permit lane splitting at higher speeds. Like you see this out in Los Angeles on the freeways where they just come buzzing right between you if anybody's ever driven out there. That's not what we're talking about here. In fact, we're getting that and making that illegal. It also prohibits filtering along the curb or the shoulder of the roadway. So the goal here is not to create confusion on our roads. The goal is to put forth clear rules so that motorcyclists, drivers, and law enforcement all know what is permitted and what is not. In slower stop traffic, responsible lane filtering can help reduce congestion, keep motorcyclists from being trapped between vehicles, and gives riders a safer way to move through the traffic under limited conditions. House Bill 776 will also require the Director of Public Safety to conduct a statewide public education campaign. That's an important part of this legislation. If we're going to make this change, Ohioans need to really understand the difference between lawful lane filtering and unlawful lane splitting. Drivers need to know that intentionally blocking or interfering with a rider who is following the law is not acceptable, and riders need to know the limits this bill sets. So this is a measured approach. It does not open the door to motorcycles weaving through traffic at high speeds. It creates limited exception for specific road conditions with clear restrictions and an educational component to help make implementation safer. So I respectfully ask for your support of House Bill 776, and I thank the committee for the time and the consideration, and I'm happy to answer any of your questions. Thanks for the testimony. You're bringing the bill to us today, sir. Any questions from the committee? I will add my personal comments. As a Motorcycle Safety Foundation instructor and a Motorcycle Ohio instructor, this is not something that I am necessarily a fan of, and I didn't do it, but I can tell you that the safety organizations recommend it. And so if we're looking at safety, especially for those who are a little bit more vulnerable on the road, the data tells us that this is actually a good thing. It can be confusing for drivers. We know that. But the goal here is to help the traffic flow and try to make it more safe for those on the road who are more vulnerable And that these days is a much higher bar the level of threat for those who happen to still avail themselves of riding a two or three vehicle So this is one of those things. I relish the following testimony that will come on this because it's something that we definitely need to address in Ohio. Greatly appreciate you bringing it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. That will stand as the first hearing on House Bill 776. Next up, we'll have the first hearing on House Bill 773. This is Representative Williams and Klopfenstein to require E15 fuel at our turnpike facilities and do a biodiesel fuel study. Welcome to committee, sir. Looks like you're taking this one alone. The floor is yours. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Willis, Vice Chair Daniel. Thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 773. And I also wish to thank my joint sponsor, Representative Williams, although he is standing me up here. We appreciate his partnership with this legislation, his expertise, and his advocacy on not only behalf of Ohio consumers, but on behalf of Ohio agriculture. Ohio has one of the strongest agriculture economies in the country, and ethanol production plays a major role in that success. E15 gasoline, commonly known as unleaded 88, contains higher levels of corn and wheat-derived ethanol than standard gasoline. Not only is E15 regularly cheaper for consumers, and quite literally I have constituents and colleagues send me pictures of gas pumps from all around the state. I think gloating if they get a bigger spread. The picture today was a 50 cent spread in the price of gasoline and I will go back to the testimony now. Not only is E15 regularly cheaper, but it burns cleaner, more efficiently in modern cars, all the while supporting domestic fuel production. Most importantly, increased E15 adoption directly benefits Ohio farmers, ethanol producers, and the consumers that choose to purchase it. Despite these advantages, E15 remains underutilized across much of Ohio. In many places, consumers simply are not aware that E15 exists, and fuel distributors often lack the incentive to expand access on their own. This leaves Ohio consumers in a position where one of the country's largest ethanol-producing states still has limited availability, and quite frankly, we need to do something about it. House Bill 773 seeks to counter this lack of information by increasing access to E15 through one of Ohio's most visible public partner, private public partnerships, the Ohio Turnpike. This bill requires the Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission to create a plan for the installation and distribution of E-15 fuel at Turnpike Service Plaza prior to 2 July 2027 and include that information in the annual comprehensive financial report. This bill also requires a commission to enter contracts with E15 distributors for July of 2020 and ensures that E15 pumps are placed comparably or adjacent to traditional gasoline pumps where consumers can easily access them. This legislation supports Ohio's agriculture without placing financial burdens on the states and helps address the high fuel prices families across the Midwest continue to deal with. E15 is regularly, almost always, cheaper than standard gasoline, and quite frankly, I've never seen it even equal in price. Expands access to consumers, which is a more affordable option at the pump, while increasing demand for a higher produced corn, ethanol, and wheat products. Much of the infrastructure is already in place, so this transition should be at minimal cost to those that lease the plazas on the turnpike. House Bill 773 is about making Ohio a leader in fuel production rather than allowing other states to capitalize on industry we helped build. If Ohio is going to remain competitive in agriculture and energy production, then we should be making it easier, not harder, for consumers to access fuel produced by Ohio workers and Ohio farmers. And I would say this bill is a win for Ohio farmers, but it's a bigger win for Ohio consumers. And with that, I appreciate the opportunity and would be willing to answer any questions. Thanks for bringing the bill to us. Any questions from the committee? Vice Chair Daniels. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for your testimony bringing this bill forward. I am a huge user of E15 I have got a vehicle that I think I've put 90,000 miles on almost exclusively with E15. It's good gas. I have a question, though. I've often wondered about it being cheaper, why it's so much cheaper. Do you know, are there any subsidies currently in place for E15 gas? Through the chair to the vice chair, I know of no subsidies, but I could stand corrected on that. But at this point, I know of none. Chair, I recognize Representative Rogers. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Representative, for bringing this forward. I was hoping that Rep. Williams will be here with you because I have a question. My question is this bill specifies that you're going to install these at the turnpike, but it only sets up a feasibility study. Why is that for biodiesel? Through the chair to the representative Rogers, did you say biodiesel? Biodiesel is another product that is made from mainly soybean oil. It also is available in other places, much more limited, and it is a good product. It would expand the markets to Ohio farmers. And I guess the feasibility study goes with the modern diesel engines, and maybe Mr. Daniels could speak to this. Not all truck owners or truck drivers believe in the biodiesel. So it's a matter of market education there also. but I think doing a study or a commission on it would look to say hey this is another product we should offer without obligating them to Thank Chair Sure Oh thank you for that explanation So are you thinking with this study I know we don't know what the study would ultimately say, but in the back of your mind, are you thinking that biodiesel should also be included at these stations for the future? Through the Chair to the Representative, yes, I would say biodiesel use will continue to grow. as we want cleaner burning engines, I also think it helps diesel engines burn cleaner, how quickly the market will accept it. If it would lower the cost of diesel at this point, we can't get it to the market quick enough. If you've driven anything as a diesel, it's incredibly expensive. So hopefully that answers your question. Chair recognizes Rep. Kevin Miller. Thank you for the bill. My question surrounds fuel economy, fuel mileage. Is there any difference between what a vehicle would get running E15 versus just regular gas? Through the chair, to the representative, it would be insignificant. If anything, typically the higher the octane, the better the mileage. But because you're only increasing it by one, it's unlikely that you would notice a better mileage.

Go ahead.

I think through the Chair to the Representative, the product takes a different pump. and typically when they put in a station, they didn't put in the infrastructure for it. If you notice, many of the newer stations, and I won't mention a particular brand, but their stations all have it, and they give the consumer the choices. So I guess the matter of having enough pumps to pump a new product is probably the biggest resistance to it coming to the market.

That's okay. Another committee apparently was more important to you. All right, I lost track. Who else had a question? Representative Newman, right? Go ahead.

Through the chair, to the representative, I'm not aware of any study, but I will look for one. I know that we had conversations with the new gas stations that are coming into Ohio, kind of what we're calling major gas stations, that we want that about their consumer choice when it's available. And superficial conversations with them is that there is a high demand for ethanol. And that's not just from them, that's from the actual producers of ethanol within the state of Ohio, that there is high demand, that almost 50 percent of the corn that we grow here in the state of Ohio goes into biofuels. And that means every time that I fill up my tank with E15, I'm just not saving money myself, but I'm also supporting my local farmers. So that makes the most sense to me. Even if I was paying dollar for dollar the same amount for regular gasoline compared to E15, I would buy that product because I know it's helping somebody that I know in the community who's putting in the hard work to make sure that they have agricultural products readily available for us. But I will get back to you with that We will look at some other states to see if they already had some data Through the chair to Representative Newman I think the corn growers have some studies out there but most of that has been, I guess, targeted to farmers, and most people vote with their pocketbook if given a choice. And, you know, sometimes the myths or myths of E15 have to be overcome, that they hurt the modern engines and they don't. Everything since the early 2000 can use E15. So we have 20 years of production of cars that have no problem using E15.

Thank you, Chair. To the representatives, thank you for bringing this bill forward. Just a few questions. Rep. Williams, your remarks were spot on. In the state of Ohio, it's my understanding that we're opposed to mandates, yet this bill here is saying that you're requiring mandates with the retailers to sell a certain product. and you being from Northwest Ohio, Lucas County, how our Toledo refineries are steel workers. They're now being asked to compete. This bill would make them compete with the product that they do without a mandate. Have you spoke to those steel workers?

Yes, sir. Again, thank you. And I just want to make sure that I'm clear because, as you said, you represented those two refineries. Now I represent those two refineries on steel workers. I just want to make sure that this bill will not have a negative impact on the work that they're doing because they do a great job. And I think you will attest to that. But can you just make sure that I want to make sure that I have a clear understanding that you don't believe that they're going to be competing?

Good point.

opponent testimony from Dean Fadal from Ohio Insurance Institute.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to paraphrase and try to go under that three-minute mark and do my best here. So, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair Daniels, Ranking Minority Member Grimm, members of the committee, thank you for having me here today. I'm here as a representative, Dean Fidel, and I'm here as the representative of the Ohio Insurance Institute. We are the trade association for the property casualty insurance industry in Ohio. Our members write about 90% of all the private passenger automobile insurance written in this state. While I appear before you today as an opponent, I'm hoping that we can change my position with some changes to the bill. House Bill 678 proposes to mandate that a private entity undertake a government function, monitoring and enforcing the financial responsibility law. There's a cost associated with that, and there's a burden associated with that. So we are asking that the General Assembly, so this cost is not passed on to consumers, that we be given some help in doing this. First off, there's a – I should read it because I got off track. There's a cost associated with the compliance. And for many companies, that cost will be proportionately larger because they operate either only in Ohio or on a regional basis. Thus, Ohio consumers have greatly benefited over the years from these smaller and mid-sized companies because we literally have hundreds of companies in Ohio vying for business from consumers. As a result, our rates are among the lowest in the country. When you look at the states that have lower rates than Ohio, they don't have much population. They don't have a lot of urbanization. Our rates are actually almost half of what they are in Florida. And that's because we have these smaller companies based in Piqua, Van Wert, Wooster, Bucyrus, who are competing with the big companies that you see advertising on TV every day. So in addition, litigation costs are exploding. We're the only developed country in the world where the litigation system is being used as an investment tool. We are seeing those costs increase greatly. So we are asking that if the legislature intends to mandate this, we would like a full set-off on premium taxes in terms of the cost of getting up to speed to comply with this law. We would also like civil immunity. The state enjoys sovereign immunity. We don't want to create another level of lawsuits for the enforcement and handling of this particular law. And we also don't want to see another regulatory burden placed on companies. Companies are already heavily regulated. We have market conducts examinations periodically. And so those are the three things that we want on the insurance side. Also, we want to say in who the state selects. We've seen numerous incidents. This is where a state has selected a vendor that wasn't qualified, that bad things happen, people who were insured were tagged as being uninsured. We're sharing our information. We're sharing personal information with a third-party vendor. We want to have a say in who that vendor is, and not just from the standpoint of big companies. We want big, medium, and small-sized companies who have experts in those companies to weigh in as to who is selected as the vendor. Finally, we don't want more unlicensed drivers created. I've seen this law changed over the years, and it's gone through many different variations. But when you look at the average age of the vehicle on the road, it's 12 and a half years today. If you look at this private, if you just look at a vehicle, a passenger vehicle, not a truck, It's 14 and a half years old. Average. Average. So that means half the people are driving a car that's about under 13 years old, and the other half is driving a car older than 13 years old. The number of uninsured drivers historically fluctuates with the economy. Obviously, the economy is really bad now, so the people who are on this side of the equation with a car older than 13 years old, some of those people have to make hard decisions, right? And we would encourage you that don't put more people in jail. Don't put more people in a legal hole. If somebody is caught through a random verification and they haven't caused any harm, they haven't caused any damage or bodily injury, give them a free pass. Let them show that they have insurance. File the SR-22 with the state and leave it at that. And then if they have another offense, then that's when you impose the penalties. But I've seen, when we had the random verification law, I saw a lot of people who got into a heap of mess just because they missed a payment and that letter came in the mail. And the next thing they know, they didn't do anything wrong, but the next thing I know, they were in a legal hole that they could not dig out of. And the state runs an amnesty program. They've had well over 100,000 people go through that amnesty program to get their license back, to make a plan for payments, and to restore their privileges. So with that, I know I went over the time. Sorry, I probably should have read it. But, you know, we look forward to working with you to try to make this bill right. We've seen what's been right in other states. We've seen what's gone wrong in other states. We don't like unsured motorists any more than anybody else. If we thought we had a silver bullet, believe me, the insurance industry would have deployed that years ago. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Thank you for coming in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize in advance. I figure that's why everybody left. They knew I was going to have a lot of questions. So as soon as this bill got announced, everybody walked out the door. I think it's because it was 5 o'clock. It could have been because I was testifying. I have to start off by saying I never dreamt when I – you know, I've only been in politics for a few years, and I never dreamt that I would be here arguing with business, especially with insurance. I'm always on your team. When it comes to tort reform you hit it right on the head We got a state that is allowing litigation as an investment tool You know I your friend but I not on this This is nuts You know, your statement about, to read your testimony, please don't put someone in financial legal hole they can't escape from when they haven't caused damage or injury. If someone's found in violation of their first offense, just make them get insurance coverage. and file the SR-22 form with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The goal should be to get more people with auto insurance, not more people without a driver's license or in jail. Under current law, an undersured driver gets pulled over, faces immediate suspension, heavy reinstatement fees, $160. This is current law, $160 for the first offense. HB 678, by contrast, requires the registrar to first send notice when there's no insurance, give the person time to respond, provide multiple response options, and even allows hearings if they disagree. Isn't HB 678 actually more due process and protective for lower income Ohioans who are struggling than the current roadside enforcement that we have?

I'm going to repeat my question because you didn't answer it. Current law. We're talking about innocent people being caught without insurance. Today, current law, an uninsured driver who gets pulled over faces immediate suspension. Reinstatement fees of for the first offense What we are proposing that you opposing by contrast requires the registrar to first send notice Not a demand. Send notice to the person and give them time to respond. Provide multiple response options and it even allows for hearings if they disagree. Isn't HB 678 actually more due process to protect lower income people struggling to buy insurance than the current system? We are improving exactly what you're arguing. And there is no prescription anywhere in this legislation for jail, which is the big crocodile tear thing at the end of your sentence here. It's simply not true. Could you please confirm that for me?

Okay. Another question? So I have struggled so much to understand why you are the only people opposing this bill. The insurance agents are all for it. I have not talked to anyone other than the insurance companies who oppose this bill. And you're the only ones here today. This bill has been around for a long time. This concept has been around for a long time. We keep dragging our feet, stalling. Your suggestion now is we're going to come up with a better way to do it. And that's the frustration that I have. That's where I'm at. So my second question is, the people most likely to be hit by an uninsured driver and who are least able to absorb the out-of-pocket medical and property damage costs are low-income Ohioans. They're the ones who have the least money to buy your expensive, what you think is cheap, uninsured, underinsured motorist coverage. If we accept your logic that we shouldn't really enforce this to protect low-income drivers, aren't we actually leaving those same low-income drivers defenseless when they're hit by one of the one million uninsured or underinsured drivers already in Ohio? They're the ones who can afford it the least, and aren't we putting that burden on them at the most?

So you're not in opposition, you just have a suggestion to improve the business?

I can't believe it. You've already got the SR-22 program. Okay, so what SR-222 is is if somebody is caught, usually it's because they were in an accident or they got a ticket and they were found to not have insurance. So you keep talking about the cost, that this is going to increase the cost. You know, the national average uninsured rate is 15.4%. Aren't we over 20%?

18? Okay. So my question is, hang on a minute, and I lost it here. I got too much stuff. I should have probably condensed a little bit. All right. I'm just going to stop. I think we made some progress. I hope we made some progress, and I hope this bill passes. I hope this bill passes, and hopefully you can do some work in the Senate to improve what you think can improve.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your testimony. My question is kind of surrounding like the cost to implement and stuff that you spoke a little bit about. And I'm just curious if I don't know that the setup is the right word, but the infrastructure that's there to kind of do the reporting with the SR-22s, is that something that we could build upon there, you know, something that's already in place? and maybe for those that don't know, could you explain or kind of walk through how those notifications are made? Thank you.

We've checked. It's about a million dollars for some of these companies in terms of expenses, man hours, and what they have to invest to get this system up to speed and in compliance. And this is based upon what some of the companies have done in some of the other states. So we know how this works, and we just want to make sure that we learn from every mistake that was made in every other state before we implement it.

Sure.

They do, but it might not be electronic or it's not to the volume that the big companies would have where they have it part of their system and it's built in. It's baked in. Not all the smaller companies have that capability.

As I'm saying, companies use different means with which to notify.

It's not all electronic.

Not every time it's electronic.

So, thank you, Chair. Chair, recognize Vice Chair Daniels for follow-up.

We're doing exactly what? It needs to be tweaked a little bit. I mean, that's good language. That is good language. Any other questions from the committee?

But potentially everything just shifts, right? We have to get this right to make it something that's going to be applicable and something we can work in.

music