{ "module": "ROAT-MOD-ROLES", "snapshot_date": "2026-09-05", "exported_from_hub": "2026-09-05T20:22:16.303Z", "source_sheet": "Role Function Matrix", "rows": [ { "regime_id": "RC-001", "regime_label": "Human driver", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "Important baseline: the legal concept of driver is not simply replaced by an 'operator'; some regimes preserve, redistribute or deem performance of driver duties.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "Yes", "fallback": "Conditional", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "No", "remote_intervention": "No", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Strategic only", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Driver", "framework": "UNECE / 1968 Vienna Convention", "verification": "Primary-source checked", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person", "Core function": "Drives the vehicle and bears traffic-rule duties unless an ADS is deemed to satisfy the driver requirement under Article 34 bis.", "Primary legal / technical source": "1968 Convention on Road Traffic, as amended by Article 34 bis", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "vodič under Act No. 8/2009 Coll.; selected automated-driving duties", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "not the core new draft role", "Functional equivalence": "Strong for human-driver concept; limited once ADS performs the driving task", "Slovak drafting implication": "Baseline driver concept; do not use 'operator' as automatic substitute." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-002", "regime_label": "ADS as functional substitute for driver requirement", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0317", "ROAT-2026-0300" ], "rationale": "Critical ontology distinction: a technical system may perform the driving task without becoming the person legally responsible for service operation, compliance or supervision.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "System", "fallback": "System-dependent", "monitoring": "Self-monitoring", "remote_assistance": "Possible interface", "remote_intervention": "Possible interface", "remote_driving": "No human remote driving", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "Technical compliance", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Automated driving system satisfying Article 34 bis conditions", "framework": "UNECE / 1968 Vienna Convention", "verification": "Primary-source checked", "extra": { "Actor type": "Technical system", "Core function": "Performs dynamic driving in a manner that can satisfy the Convention's driver requirement when conforming to applicable technical rules or domestic legislation.", "Primary legal / technical source": "1968 Convention on Road Traffic, Article 34 bis", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No general autonomous legal person; ADS is treated as vehicle/system functionality", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "ADS remains distinct from operator and supervision roles", "Functional equivalence": "Conceptual only; do not equate system with legal operator", "Slovak drafting implication": "ADS can perform DDT without becoming the legal operator." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-003", "regime_label": "Remote assistance / remote interaction", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0193", "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "Must remain distinct from remote driving. Advice/assistance does not automatically mean takeover of lateral and longitudinal control.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "Support only", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "Yes", "remote_intervention": "Limited", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Possible", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Remote assistance / remote interaction", "framework": "UNECE ADS work / technical interpretation", "verification": "ROAT verified source", "extra": { "Actor type": "Human-supported function", "Core function": "Provides information or support to the ADS without necessarily assuming continuous DDT control.", "Primary legal / technical source": "UNECE ADS Guidance and Interpretation work on remote intervention / interaction", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No settled general statutory category in current Slovak law", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Closest candidates: control-centre and supervision functions; exact mapping unresolved", "Functional equivalence": "Partial", "Slovak drafting implication": "Keep remote assistance distinct from remote driving." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-004", "regime_label": "Transport / service operator", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0040", "ROAT-2026-0218", "ROAT-2026-0311", "ROAT-2026-0312" ], "rationale": "Do not conflate with vehicle owner, ADS manufacturer/provider or remote human supervisor.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "Organisational", "monitoring": "Entity-level", "remote_assistance": "Arranged", "remote_intervention": "Arranged", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Yes", "service_operation": "Yes", "lifecycle": "Possible", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Transport service operator", "framework": "European Union – Regulation (EU) 2022/1426", "verification": "Primary-source checked via ROAT", "extra": { "Actor type": "Legal or organisational entity", "Core function": "Organises or operates the transport service in which fully automated vehicles are deployed.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1426, as amended", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No complete general current-law equivalent for commercial FAV operation", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Closest: prevádzkovateľ plne automatizovaného vozidla / licence-holder architecture", "Functional equivalence": "Partial to strong at service-operator level, subject to exact statutory text", "Slovak drafting implication": "Potential comparator for Slovak licensed FAV operator." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-005", "regime_label": "Remote management function", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0311", "ROAT-2026-0040" ], "rationale": "Ontology should model this primarily as a function or organisational capability, not automatically as one named natural person.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "Support", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "Yes", "remote_intervention": "Yes", "remote_driving": "Not necessarily", "dispatch": "Yes", "service_operation": "Supports", "lifecycle": "Possible", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Remote management", "framework": "European Union – Regulation (EU) 2022/1426 / JRC interpretation", "verification": "Primary / official interpretation checked", "extra": { "Actor type": "Organisational / technical function", "Core function": "Supports fleet/vehicle operation remotely within the approved system architecture, including defined interaction with vehicles and operational management.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Regulation (EU) 2022/1426 and JRC interpretation addendum on Safety Management System and Remote Management", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No general fully developed current-law equivalent", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Closest: riadiace centrum / control-centre functions", "Functional equivalence": "Partial", "Slovak drafting implication": "Model as function/capability, not automatically as a person." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-006", "regime_label": "Authorised self-driving entity / ADS legal-responsibility entity", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0171", "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "High-value comparison for Slovak drafting: UK separates the entity responsible for the authorised self-driving feature from individual users and service-operation roles.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "No direct", "monitoring": "Entity-level", "remote_assistance": "Possible", "remote_intervention": "Possible", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No / distinct", "lifecycle": "Yes", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Authorised self-driving entity (ASDE)", "framework": "Great Britain – Automated Vehicles Act 2024", "verification": "Primary-source checked", "extra": { "Actor type": "Legal person / entity", "Core function": "Legally responsible for ensuring an authorised automated vehicle continues to meet self-driving requirements and other statutory obligations.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Automated Vehicles Act 2024", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No direct current-law equivalent", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Closest: licensed FAV operator, but functions are not necessarily identical", "Functional equivalence": "Partial", "Slovak drafting implication": "Separate ADS safety-responsibility entity from service operator." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-007", "regime_label": "User with limited in-vehicle legal duties during self-driving", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0171" ], "rationale": "Useful to prevent collapsing 'driver', 'user' and 'operator' into one category.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No while engaged", "fallback": "Transition", "monitoring": "Readiness duties", "remote_assistance": "No", "remote_intervention": "No", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Limited", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "User-in-charge", "framework": "Great Britain – Automated Vehicles Act 2024", "verification": "Primary-source checked", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person", "Core function": "Occupies the vehicle and retains specified non-driving legal duties while not responsible for the manner of driving during authorised self-driving.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Automated Vehicles Act 2024", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "Partly comparable to driver / person required to take over under selected automated-driving rules", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Draft role allocation should be checked; not equivalent to supervision operator", "Functional equivalence": "Partial", "Slovak drafting implication": "Do not conflate in-vehicle user with supervision operator." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-008", "regime_label": "No-user-in-charge operational entity", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0171", "ROAT-2026-0301" ], "rationale": "Potential model for commercial driverless operation in Slovakia where no human user-in-charge is present.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "Organisational", "monitoring": "Entity-level", "remote_assistance": "Arranged", "remote_intervention": "Arranged", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Yes", "service_operation": "Yes", "lifecycle": "Possible", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "No-user-in-charge operator (NUIC operator)", "framework": "Great Britain – Automated Vehicles Act 2024", "verification": "Primary-source checked", "extra": { "Actor type": "Licensed legal entity", "Core function": "Undertakes responsibilities that cannot be allocated to an in-vehicle user where the vehicle operates without a user-in-charge.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Automated Vehicles Act 2024", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No current-law equivalent", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Closest: licensed operator of fully automated vehicle/service", "Functional equivalence": "Moderate to strong at organisational level", "Slovak drafting implication": "Strong model for driverless commercial operation entity." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-009", "regime_label": "Technical remote supervisor", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0170", "ROAT-2026-0205", "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "A key warning against translating Technische Aufsicht simply as remote driver: German law deliberately separates supervision/authorisation from continuous vehicle control.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No continuous", "fallback": "Support", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "Yes", "remote_intervention": "Legally constrained", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Technische Aufsicht", "framework": "Germany – StVG / AFGBV", "verification": "Primary-source checked", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person", "Core function": "Performs legally defined remote technical-supervision functions, including assessment and enabling/authorising specified manoeuvres or measures when the automated vehicle requests support.", "Primary legal / technical source": "German Road Traffic Act (StVG), §§ 1d–1f; Autonomous Vehicles Approval and Operation Ordinance (AFGBV)", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No settled current-law general equivalent", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Closest: operátor dohľadu / technický dohľad, but scope must be compared provision-by-provision", "Functional equivalence": "Partial", "Slovak drafting implication": "Closest supervision comparator; not remote driver." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-010", "regime_label": "Automated road transport system operator", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0307", "ROAT-2026-0308" ], "rationale": "France structures responsibility around the transport system/service, not only around the individual vehicle.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "Organisational", "monitoring": "Entity-level", "remote_assistance": "Arranged", "remote_intervention": "Arranged", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Yes", "service_operation": "Yes", "lifecycle": "Possible", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Exploitant du système de transport routier automatisé", "framework": "France – STRA framework", "verification": "Primary-source checked via ROAT", "extra": { "Actor type": "Legal / organisational entity", "Core function": "Operates the automated road transport system under the French service-level safety and commissioning framework.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Ordonnance n° 2021-443 and Décret n° 2021-873", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No complete current-law equivalent", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Closest: licensed operator / service operator architecture", "Functional equivalence": "Partial to strong at service-system level", "Slovak drafting implication": "Service/system operator model; distinct from remote human role." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-011", "regime_label": "Authorised remote intervention person", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0307", "ROAT-2026-0308" ], "rationale": "French law is useful because it expressly links remote intervention to personal legal responsibility; this is a distinct design choice from pure technical supervision.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "Limited intervention", "fallback": "Support", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "Yes", "remote_intervention": "Yes", "remote_driving": "Not ordinary", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Personne habilitée à intervenir à distance", "framework": "France – STRA / automated-driving framework", "verification": "Primary-source checked via ROAT", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person", "Core function": "Performs legally authorised remote intervention within the conditions laid down for the automated road transport system.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Ordonnance n° 2021-443; Code des transports / implementing decree", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No explicit general current-law equivalent", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Closest: operátor dohľadu or a future remote-intervention role, depending on draft wording", "Functional equivalence": "Partial", "Slovak drafting implication": "Good comparator for explicit remote-intervention powers." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-012", "regime_label": "In-vehicle operator during automated operation", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0303", "ROAT-2026-0262" ], "rationale": "Useful counter-example: Croatia explicitly names an in-vehicle operator separately from a remote intervention operator.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "MRM request", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "No remote", "remote_intervention": "In-vehicle commands", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Route / stops", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Operator u vozilu", "framework": "Croatia – Road Traffic Safety Act", "verification": "Primary-source checked via ROAT", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person", "Core function": "Human role located in the vehicle under the Croatian statutory architecture for automated vehicle operation.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Croatia Road Traffic Safety Act amendments, NN 145/2024", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No dedicated equivalent in current Slovak general framework", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Could overlap with a readiness/supervision person depending on final draft design", "Functional equivalence": "Weak to partial", "Slovak drafting implication": "Useful in-vehicle operator comparator; ADS retains DDT." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-013", "regime_label": "Remote intervention operator", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0303", "ROAT-2026-0262" ], "rationale": "Strong comparative candidate for Slovak legislative drafting because Croatia separates remote intervention from in-vehicle operation.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "MRM support", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "Yes", "remote_intervention": "Yes", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Possible", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Operator intervencije na daljinu", "framework": "Croatia – Road Traffic Safety Act", "verification": "Primary-source checked via ROAT", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person", "Core function": "Performs remote intervention functions for a fully automated vehicle under Croatian law.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Croatia Road Traffic Safety Act amendments, NN 145/2024", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No explicit general current-law equivalent", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Closest: operátor dohľadu, but remote-intervention powers need separate analysis", "Functional equivalence": "Partial", "Slovak drafting implication": "Strong comparator if Slovak role intervenes but ADS remains DDT performer." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-014", "regime_label": "Licensed fully automated vehicle operator", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0159" ], "rationale": "Status flag is essential: as of 26 August 2026 this is not effective law and should never be returned as a current Slovak legal role without qualification.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "Organisational", "monitoring": "Entity-level", "remote_assistance": "Arranged", "remote_intervention": "Arranged", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Yes", "service_operation": "Yes", "lifecycle": "Possible", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Prevádzkovateľ plne automatizovaného vozidla – proposed licence-holder role", "framework": "Slovakia – parliamentary print 1329 (draft)", "verification": "Draft text checked; not in force", "extra": { "Actor type": "Licensed operator / legal subject", "Core function": "Would hold the licence and carry central organisational and operational obligations for fully automated vehicle operation.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Government bill, parliamentary print 1329", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No general current-law commercial-operation equivalent; §49 Act 106/2018 is test-operation permit architecture", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Exact draft role", "Functional equivalence": "N/A – Slovak reference point", "Slovak drafting implication": "Draft reference point for commercial-operation responsibility." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-015", "regime_label": "Supervision operator", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0159" ], "rationale": "Key research issue: determine whether the draft function is closer to German Technische Aufsicht, French authorised remote intervener, Croatian remote intervention operator, or an EU remote-management function. It may improperly combine several models.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No continuous", "fallback": "Support", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "Possible", "remote_intervention": "Possible", "remote_driving": "Potential boundary", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Operátor dohľadu", "framework": "Slovakia – parliamentary print 1329 (draft)", "verification": "Draft text checked; not in force", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person / operational role", "Core function": "Would perform supervision functions assigned by the proposed Slovak framework within the control-centre/operator structure.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Government bill, parliamentary print 1329", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No settled general equivalent in current law", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Exact draft role", "Functional equivalence": "N/A – Slovak reference point", "Slovak drafting implication": "Core Slovak issue: define boundary between supervision, intervention and remote driving." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-016", "regime_label": "Level 3 fallback-ready user", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0120", "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "Critical distinction for Level 3: fallback-ready user is not a remote supervisor and is not the service operator.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "After takeover", "fallback": "Yes", "monitoring": "Readiness", "remote_assistance": "No", "remote_intervention": "No", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "DDT fallback-ready user", "framework": "SAE J3016", "verification": "Primary technical standard checked via ROAT", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person / user", "Core function": "Remains receptive to a request to intervene and performs the DDT fallback when the Level 3 ADS can no longer continue.", "Primary legal / technical source": "SAE J3016_202104 – Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "Closest to a driver/person subject to takeover duties in automated-driving rules; no general standalone statutory category", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Should remain distinct from operátor dohľadu; check whether draft allocates any takeover role to an in-vehicle user", "Functional equivalence": "Partial", "Slovak drafting implication": "Keep Level 3 fallback user outside remote-supervision category." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-017", "regime_label": "Remote human driver", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0120", "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "This is the cleanest comparator for testing whether Slovak supervision powers cross the line into actual remote driving.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "Yes", "fallback": "Possible", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "No", "remote_intervention": "Yes – direct", "remote_driving": "Yes", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Remote driver", "framework": "SAE J3016", "verification": "Primary technical standard checked via ROAT", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person", "Core function": "Performs part or all of the dynamic driving task from outside the conventional in-vehicle driving position.", "Primary legal / technical source": "SAE J3016_202104", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No explicit general remote-driver category in current Slovak road-traffic framework", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "No clearly separate remote-driver role; must not be presumed identical to operátor dohľadu", "Functional equivalence": "Weak / no direct equivalent", "Slovak drafting implication": "Explicit separate remote-driver role is needed if direct DDT is ever intended." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-018", "regime_label": "Trip-dispatch / strategic user", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0120", "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "Useful reminder that strategic trip management, DDT performance and remote supervision are separate functions.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "No", "monitoring": "No", "remote_assistance": "Possible", "remote_intervention": "No", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Yes", "service_operation": "Support", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Dispatcher", "framework": "SAE J3016", "verification": "Primary technical standard checked via ROAT", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person / user", "Core function": "Dispatches an ADS-operated vehicle and performs strategic trip functions without performing the DDT.", "Primary legal / technical source": "SAE J3016_202104", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No standalone statutory equivalent", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Possible control-centre dispatch function, but not necessarily a named legal role", "Functional equivalence": "Functional only", "Slovak drafting implication": "Separate dispatch/strategic functions from safety supervision." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-019", "regime_label": "Prototype ADS fallback test driver", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "Testing roles should be kept separate from deployment roles; otherwise prototype safeguards can be mistaken for permanent operational governance.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "Conditional", "fallback": "Yes", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "Possible", "remote_intervention": "Possible", "remote_driving": "Possible", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "Testing role", "keeper": "No", "term": "Fallback test driver", "framework": "SAE J3018", "verification": "Primary SAE source checked; dedicated ROAT J3018 record missing", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person / trained test role", "Core function": "Specially trained person who supervises prototype ADS performance and is prepared to respond to unexpected ADS or vehicle behaviour.", "Primary legal / technical source": "SAE J3018_202012 – Safety-Relevant Guidance for On-Road Testing of Prototype ADS-Operated Vehicles", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "Closest functional analogue is a test-operation safety driver/person able to intervene under the Slovak test-permit regime", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Not a core commercial-operation role in draft 1329", "Functional equivalence": "Partial – testing context only", "Slovak drafting implication": "Prototype-testing safeguard; do not transplant automatically into deployment." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-020", "regime_label": "In-vehicle prototype fallback test driver", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "This role becomes an ordinary test driver once it actually assumes the complete DDT.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "After takeover", "fallback": "Yes", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "No", "remote_intervention": "In-vehicle", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "Testing role", "keeper": "No", "term": "In-vehicle fallback test driver (IFTD)", "framework": "SAE J3018", "verification": "Primary SAE source checked; dedicated ROAT J3018 record missing", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person / trained test driver", "Core function": "Monitors prototype ADS and can safely take over through the vehicle’s in-vehicle braking, acceleration, steering and gear-selection controls.", "Primary legal / technical source": "SAE J3018_202012", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "Strong functional comparator for a human safety driver during Slovak public-road testing", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "No equivalent needed for genuinely driverless deployment unless retained as a special safeguard", "Functional equivalence": "Strong in testing; weak in deployment", "Slovak drafting implication": "Strong comparator for Slovak safety driver in public-road testing." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-021", "regime_label": "Remote prototype fallback test driver", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "High-value boundary case: remote fallback test driving is materially different from remote assistance and supervision.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "Possible during fallback", "fallback": "Yes", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "No", "remote_intervention": "Direct fallback", "remote_driving": "Potentially yes", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "Testing role", "keeper": "No", "term": "Remote fallback test driver", "framework": "SAE J3018", "verification": "Primary SAE source checked; guidance expressly limited", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person / trained remote test role", "Core function": "Remote variant of the fallback test-driver concept, intended to respond to ADS testing situations from outside the vehicle.", "Primary legal / technical source": "SAE J3018_202012", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No explicit current Slovak category", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Should not be collapsed into operátor dohľadu without explicit authority for remote DDT", "Functional equivalence": "Weak / unresolved", "Slovak drafting implication": "Do not hide remote DDT inside generic supervision terminology." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-022", "regime_label": "Safety driver in public-road AV testing", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0172", "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "California 2026 rules retain a distinct permitting pathway for testing with a safety driver, separate from driverless testing and deployment.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "Conditional", "fallback": "Yes", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "No", "remote_intervention": "In-vehicle takeover", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "Testing driver role", "keeper": "No", "term": "Autonomous vehicle test driver / safety driver", "framework": "California – DMV testing regime", "verification": "Official California current regulations checked", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person / licensed test driver", "Core function": "Provides the human driving and safety fallback required for AV testing under the drivered-testing permit category.", "Primary legal / technical source": "California Code of Regulations, title 13, AV testing regulations; DMV 2026 framework", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "Functional analogue of the human safety driver used under a Slovak test-operation permit", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Not a necessary deployment role for fully driverless operation", "Functional equivalence": "Strong in testing context", "Slovak drafting implication": "Testing-only human safeguard." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-023", "regime_label": "AV testing permit holder", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0172", "ROAT-2026-0183", "ROAT-2026-0185", "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "Useful for separating testing authorisation from commercial/deployment operator licensing in Slovak law.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "Organisational", "monitoring": "Entity-level", "remote_assistance": "Arranged", "remote_intervention": "Arranged", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Yes", "service_operation": "Testing programme", "lifecycle": "Possible", "testing": "Yes", "keeper": "No", "term": "Manufacturer / autonomous vehicle testing permit holder", "framework": "California – DMV AV program", "verification": "Official California permit framework checked", "extra": { "Actor type": "Legal entity / manufacturer", "Core function": "Holds DMV authority to test or deploy AVs subject to the applicable permit category, ODD, reporting and compliance conditions.", "Primary legal / technical source": "California DMV Autonomous Vehicle Regulations and Permit Program", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "Closest current comparator: holder/applicant of a §49 Act No. 106/2018 test-operation permit", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Draft licensed FAV operator is closer for deployment, but not identical to California testing permit holder", "Functional equivalence": "Strong for testing permit; partial for deployment", "Slovak drafting implication": "Separate Slovak §49 permit holder from eventual deployment licence holder." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-024", "regime_label": "Automated-vehicle trial permit holder", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "Strong comparator for redesigning Slovak test operation as a controlled validation/trial phase rather than conflating it with deployment.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "Organisational", "monitoring": "Entity-level", "remote_assistance": "Arranged", "remote_intervention": "Arranged", "remote_driving": "Possible by permit design", "dispatch": "Yes", "service_operation": "Testing programme", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "Yes", "keeper": "No", "term": "Permit holder for trial operation with automated vehicles", "framework": "Sweden – Swedish Transport Agency", "verification": "Official regulator framework checked; dedicated ROAT primary record missing", "extra": { "Actor type": "Person or organisation holding trial permit", "Core function": "Obtains permission for automated-vehicle trials and must demonstrate that the trial can be conducted in a traffic-safe manner subject to permit conditions.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Swedish ordinance on trial operation with automated vehicles and TSFS 2021:4 permit process", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "Close functional analogue to holder of a Slovak §49 test-operation permit", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Distinct from draft commercial FAV operator licence", "Functional equivalence": "Strong for testing framework", "Slovak drafting implication": "Strong comparator for a redesigned Slovak validation/trial regime." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-025", "regime_label": "ADS lifecycle safety entity", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "Important comparator to UK ASDE: both separate ADS safety responsibility from ordinary vehicle ownership and human user roles.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "Lifecycle", "monitoring": "Entity-level", "remote_assistance": "Arranged", "remote_intervention": "Arranged", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "Distinct", "lifecycle": "Yes", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Automated Driving System Entity (ADSE)", "framework": "Australia – proposed Automated Vehicle Safety Law framework", "verification": "Official Australian policy framework checked; proposed law not yet in force", "extra": { "Actor type": "Corporation / certified legal entity", "Core function": "Certified corporation responsible for the safety of an ADS over its on-road design life, including safety-management, data and in-service obligations.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Australian NTC automated-vehicle regulatory framework; proposed Automated Vehicle Safety Law", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No current-law equivalent", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Closest candidate is licensed FAV operator, but ADSE is specifically ADS-lifecycle-safety oriented and may be closer to an ADS provider/manufacturer responsibility holder", "Functional equivalence": "Partial", "Slovak drafting implication": "Potential missing Slovak role: ADS lifecycle safety entity separate from service operator." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-026", "regime_label": "Driverless-operation permission holder", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "Japan is valuable because it separates the permission-holding implementer from the natural-person supervisor responsible for remote monitoring and accident response.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "Organisational", "monitoring": "Entity-level", "remote_assistance": "Arranged", "remote_intervention": "Arranged", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Yes", "service_operation": "Yes", "lifecycle": "Possible", "testing": "Permission holder", "keeper": "No", "term": "Specified Automated Operation (SAO) implementer", "framework": "Japan – Road Traffic Act SAO framework", "verification": "Official National Police Agency framework checked; dedicated ROAT primary record missing", "extra": { "Actor type": "Person / organisation holding SAO permission", "Core function": "Holds permission for specified automated operation, complies with the approved SAO plan, educates staff and establishes the organisational measures required by the Road Traffic Act.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Japan Road Traffic Act, as amended by Act No. 32 of 2022 – SAO permission framework", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No general current-law equivalent for driverless commercial operation", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Strong candidate comparator for licensed FAV operator / licence-holder architecture", "Functional equivalence": "Partial to strong at permission-holder level", "Slovak drafting implication": "Clean model for separating permission-holder entity from supervisor." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-027", "regime_label": "Remote operational supervisor", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "A particularly clean comparator if Slovak law intends supervision without continuous remote DDT control.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "Incident response", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "Yes", "remote_intervention": "Limited", "remote_driving": "No routine", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "No", "term": "Specified Automated Operation (SAO) supervisor", "framework": "Japan – Road Traffic Act SAO framework", "verification": "Official National Police Agency framework checked; dedicated ROAT primary record missing", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person", "Core function": "Monitors the state of remote monitoring equipment and performs legally assigned accident-response and reporting measures for SAO.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Japan Road Traffic Act SAO permission framework", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No explicit current-law equivalent", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Potentially close to operátor dohľadu, especially for remote monitoring and incident response", "Functional equivalence": "Partial to strong, subject to exact Slovak powers", "Slovak drafting implication": "Strong comparator for supervision without direct remote driving." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-028", "regime_label": "Automated commercial vehicle pilot participant", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "Ontario explicitly keeps the participant responsible at all times even when an assistant provides remote or in-vehicle oversight.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "Organisational", "monitoring": "Entity-level", "remote_assistance": "Arranged", "remote_intervention": "Arranged", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "Yes", "service_operation": "Testing programme", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "Yes", "keeper": "No", "term": "ACMV Pilot Program participant / approval package holder", "framework": "Ontario, Canada – ACMV Pilot Program", "verification": "Official Ontario programme conditions checked; dedicated current primary regulation record missing", "extra": { "Actor type": "Carrier / organisation", "Core function": "Holds programme approval, develops a graduated testing framework, ensures compliance and remains responsible for the automated commercial motor vehicle throughout the pilot.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Ontario Automated Commercial Motor Vehicle Pilot Program Conditions / applicable HTA pilot regulation", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "Closest current comparator is a test-operation permit holder under §49 Act No. 106/2018", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Not equivalent to permanent licensed FAV operator because Ontario role is pilot-specific", "Functional equivalence": "Strong for testing governance", "Slovak drafting implication": "Participant remains responsible even where human oversight is delegated." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-029", "regime_label": "Driverless-test oversight assistant", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0317" ], "rationale": "High-value drafting model because the legal boundary is explicit: oversight may include safe-stop/manoeuvring/advice, but not remote control for regular driving tasks.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No regular", "fallback": "Safe-stop support", "monitoring": "Yes", "remote_assistance": "Yes", "remote_intervention": "Limited exceptional", "remote_driving": "No regular driving", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "No", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "Pilot oversight", "keeper": "No", "term": "Assistant", "framework": "Ontario, Canada – ACMV Pilot Program", "verification": "Official Ontario programme conditions checked; dedicated primary regulation record missing", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural person / qualified oversight role", "Core function": "Provides oversight from inside the vehicle or elsewhere in Ontario; may initiate a safe stop, manoeuvre to clear the way or advise decision-making, but must not remotely control regular driving tasks.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Ontario Automated Commercial Motor Vehicle Pilot Program Conditions", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "No explicit current-law equivalent", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Very close comparator for operátor dohľadu if Slovak law intends oversight, advice and exceptional safe-state action without ordinary remote driving", "Functional equivalence": "Potentially strong; powers must be compared", "Slovak drafting implication": "Excellent comparator for defining operátor dohľadu without remote-driving creep." } }, { "regime_id": "RC-030", "regime_label": "Vehicle owner as statutory responsibility holder", "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0303", "ROAT-2026-0262" ], "rationale": "Croatia is a useful warning against conflating owner, service operator and remote human roles: the owner carries specific offence and data duties even though intervention roles are separately defined.", "confidence": "", "panel": "current", "ddt": "No", "fallback": "No", "monitoring": "No", "remote_assistance": "No", "remote_intervention": "No", "remote_driving": "No", "dispatch": "No", "service_operation": "Distinct", "lifecycle": "No", "testing": "No", "keeper": "Yes", "term": "Vlasnik potpuno automatiziranog vozila", "framework": "Croatia – Road Traffic Safety Act", "verification": "Primary-source checked via ROAT", "extra": { "Actor type": "Natural or legal person / owner", "Core function": "Bears statutory responsibility for traffic offences committed by the fully automated vehicle subject to exceptions, and has data-preservation/disclosure duties.", "Primary legal / technical source": "Croatia Road Traffic Safety Act amendments, NN 145/2024, Articles 281.d–281.e", "Slovak current-law equivalent": "Vehicle owner/holder concepts exist, but Slovak AV law does not currently use ownership as a complete substitute for driver/operator responsibility", "Slovak draft 1329 equivalent": "Draft operator/licence-holder should remain distinct from vehicle owner unless the law expressly combines them", "Functional equivalence": "Partial – ownership is a separate legal axis", "Slovak drafting implication": "Keep owner/holder liability axis separate from operator and supervisor roles." } } ], "purpose": [] }