One case · Three ways to divide the driving task

The vehicle needs to pass an obstacle. What does the human decide?

An automated vehicle is stationary behind a van. To pass it, the vehicle must enter the oncoming lane. Compare three procedures by asking who assesses the traffic and who drives the vehicle.

A fictional teaching case. The allocation of tasks in each variant is a given fact. ADS means automated driving system, DDT means dynamic driving task.

Choose a case variant ADS assesses the gap The human assesses the gap The human drives remotely

1. The human confirms, the ADS assesses

The ADS proposes passing the van. A person outside the vehicle confirms the manoeuvre while the vehicle is stationary. The ADS independently assesses the gap in oncoming traffic, decides when it is safe to move and performs the entire manoeuvre. If conditions are unsafe, it remains stationary despite the confirmation.

Does confirming a manoeuvre itself mean that the human takes over the driving task?

Read the applicable provisions ↓

Your conclusion and legal reasoning (optional)

Your note stays with this variant when you switch. It is not sent anywhere or saved by the website.

Compare with the legal analysis

Confirming the manoeuvre alone does not amount to taking over the driving task.

Article 2, point 24(c), expressly permits confirmation of a manoeuvre proposed by the ADS while the vehicle is stationary. Point 25 permits this task to be performed remotely where it is safe and consistent with the ADS safety concept. The human does not drive the vehicle and the ADS continues to perform the DDT. On these facts, the system independently assesses traffic and decides when to start the manoeuvre. This allocation of tasks may therefore fall within the definition.

What to verify with the project

Check the safety concept and test records. They must demonstrate that human confirmation does not replace the system’s own traffic assessment and that the system rejects an unsafe manoeuvre.

This conclusion concerns the allocation of tasks under the regulatory definition. It does not by itself establish compliance with all type-approval requirements or permission to operate.

Sources and applicable provisions ↓

2. The human assesses, the system executes

A person outside the vehicle uses camera images to assess whether there is a sufficient gap between oncoming vehicles and confirms the proposed manoeuvre while the vehicle is stationary. The system does not make this assessment itself. After confirmation, it controls the vehicle’s direction and speed.

Does this activity fall within the definition of a remote intervention operator when the human, rather than the system, assesses the gap in oncoming traffic?

Read the applicable provisions ↓

Your conclusion and legal reasoning (optional)

Your note stays with this variant when you switch. It is not sent anywhere or saved by the website.

Compare with the legal analysis

Not with the allocation of tasks specified in this case.

The DDT under Article 2, point 4, includes tactical functions. Their current definition in point 6 covers perceiving the environment, planning and deciding on a manoeuvre, including when to initiate it. Here, the human assesses traffic in place of the system and decides whether the vehicle can move. Our interpretation is that the human therefore performs part of the DDT. This does not satisfy the condition in point 25 that the ADS continues to perform the DDT.

What to verify with the project

Request a description of the decision process and a test record. The decisive issue is what the system independently assesses before moving. Calling the procedure “assistance”, or automatically controlling direction and speed, does not establish that the ADS performs the entire DDT.

This conclusion does not automatically determine driver status under Slovak law. That requires a separate assessment of the person’s actual activities and the relevant national provisions.

Sources and applicable provisions ↓

3. The human takes over driving

A person outside the vehicle takes over driving while the vehicle is stationary. Using camera images, that person continuously controls steering, acceleration and braking and decides when to enter the oncoming lane. The ADS does not perform the driving task during this manoeuvre.

Can this activity still be treated as remote intervention under Article 2, point 25?

Read the applicable provisions ↓

Your conclusion and legal reasoning (optional)

Your note stays with this variant when you switch. It is not sent anywhere or saved by the website.

Compare with the legal analysis

No. In this variant, the human drives the vehicle remotely.

The human continuously controls the vehicle’s motion and decides on the manoeuvre, performing both operational and tactical functions of the DDT under Article 2, points 4 to 6. Point 25 requires that the operator does not drive the vehicle and that the ADS continues to perform the DDT. That condition is not met during the manoeuvre described.

What to verify with the project

Distinguish automated driving mode from remote driving. Examine the transfer of control, the technical conditions for this mode, driver status and the conditions for its use under national law.

This conclusion does not imply a general prohibition on remote driving or preclude approval of a vehicle with several operating modes. It establishes that the human driving described falls outside the definition of remote intervention being examined.

Sources and applicable provisions ↓

Applicable provisions

Article 2, points 4 to 6, of Regulation (EU) 2022/1426: The DDT includes both operational and tactical functions. The current definition of tactical function covers perceiving the environment, planning, deciding on and executing manoeuvres, including deciding when to initiate a manoeuvre.

Article 2, point 24(c) and point 25: a manoeuvre proposed by the ADS may be confirmed while the vehicle is stationary. Remote intervention must be consistent with the safety concept and safe to perform. The operator does not drive the vehicle and the ADS continues to perform the DDT.

The Slovak version uses the term “obsluha vzdialeného zásahu”. The English version refers to a “remote intervention operator”.

Sources and version used

Regulation (EU) 2022/1426 · Article 2, points 4, 24 and 25

Regulation (EU) 2026/481 · Article 1, point 2

The amendment effective from 24 March 2026 replaced the definitions of operational and tactical function in Article 2, points 5 and 6. The analyses use those new definitions. The explanations paraphrase the provisions and apply them to the teaching case. They are not verbatim quotations.

Sources checked: 22 September 2026. The Regulation governs ADS type-approval. National conditions for operation require a separate assessment.

Comparison with the Slovak oversight operator

Parliament adopted the bill on 16 September 2026. Proposed commencement: 1 December 2026.

The adopted text defines an oversight operator as a person supervising the operation of a fully automated vehicle without directly driving it. A person who drives a vehicle remotely is also a driver.

The first variant may involve oversight without taking over driving. The second requires a separate assessment of whether the human’s decisions amount to driving. Falling outside the EU definition does not itself resolve that national-law question. In the third variant, the human takes over driving.

An operator who takes over driving may drive only one vehicle at a time and must not simultaneously supervise another. The EU remote intervention operator and the Slovak oversight operator are therefore not automatically equivalent legal categories.

Adopted text · Slovak Parliament · Article I, points 1 and 3 (Section 2(2)(x) and Section 3(5) of Act No. 8/2009), and Article III, point 1 (Section 2(2)(ak) of Act No. 106/2018). This comparison uses the adopted bill with future commencement.

Analysis of the adopted Slovak provisions →