To amend sections 4511.01, 4511.042, 4511.213, 4511.45, 4513.17, and 4513.21 of the Revised Code to make changes to the law governing dedicated organ recovery vehicles.
HB367 would create and define a new category of vehicle in Ohio law: a “dedicated organ recovery vehicle.” The bill specifies that such a vehicle must be contracted with an organ procurement organization, clearly marked as an organ recovery vehicle, used to transport human organs, and driven by a person with emergency vehicle operations training and at least three years of experience using emergency lights and sirens. It then extends several traffic-law exemptions and special operating rules to these vehicles.
More specifically, the bill exempts dedicated organ recovery vehicles from certain traffic restrictions that apply to ordinary vehicles, including some rules on lane use, passing, and related roadway conduct, when the vehicle is being operated in accordance with the bill’s requirements. It also adds dedicated organ recovery vehicles to Ohio’s “move over” law, requiring motorists to change lanes or slow down when approaching a stationary organ recovery vehicle displaying flashing, oscillating, or rotating lights. In addition, the bill allows these vehicles to use sirens, whistles, or bells when transporting human organs and to receive right-of-way treatment similar to public safety and emergency vehicles when using audible and visual signals.
The bill would amend sections of the Revised Code governing vehicle definitions, emergency and public safety vehicle rules, flashing lights, sirens, and right-of-way obligations. It would also repeal the existing versions of the affected sections and replace them with updated language that incorporates the new organ recovery vehicle category. The practical effect is to give organ transport vehicles a legal framework closer to emergency-response vehicles, with the goal of facilitating faster and safer organ delivery.
The available legislative record shows little public controversy at this stage. The bill was introduced and referred to the House Transportation Committee, but there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to have a generally supportive, public-safety-oriented purpose, aimed at improving organ transport efficiency and reducing delays that could affect transplant outcomes.
Because no committee discussion or vote history is available, there is no documented opposition or competing viewpoint in the record provided. Any potential contention would likely center on whether organ transport vehicles should receive emergency-vehicle-like privileges, and whether the training, identification, and operational requirements are sufficient to justify those exemptions, but that issue is not reflected in the supplied legislative history.
HB367 would amend Ohio traffic and vehicle statutes in Chapters 4511 and 4513 to recognize and regulate dedicated organ recovery vehicles. It would add a new statutory definition for these vehicles and extend to them certain exemptions, right-of-way protections, and equipment permissions currently reserved for emergency and public safety vehicles. The bill would also modify the state’s move-over requirements so drivers must yield to stationary organ recovery vehicles displaying appropriate warning lights, and it would authorize the use of sirens or similar audible signals while transporting human organs.
The bill appears to have a favorable, practical, and public-safety-driven posture based on its text and sponsorship, with no recorded opposition, votes, or hearing testimony in the materials provided. Its purpose is framed around improving the speed and safety of organ transport, which typically draws support because of the time-sensitive nature of organ recovery and transplantation. The absence of committee transcripts or vote history means there is no documented controversy in the available record.
No specific contention is documented in the provided materials. If concerns were to arise, they would likely involve whether dedicated organ recovery vehicles should be treated similarly to emergency vehicles on public roads, whether the driver qualification requirements are adequate, and whether the expanded use of lights, sirens, and traffic-law exemptions could create safety or enforcement issues. However, none of those concerns are reflected in the available legislative history.