Cars With No Steering Wheel Are Coming. Is Florida Ready?

Imagine sitting in a car with no steering wheel, no brake pedal, no gas pedal, and no mirrors. Now imagine that car is driving you through Orlando traffic on I-4. That scenario is no longer science fiction. NHTSA just removed the requirement that cars have steering wheels and pedals, and Florida's laws already allow fully driverless vehicles on public roads. But here's the question nobody in Tallahassee seems to be asking: when that car runs a red light, who gets the ticket?

What NHTSA Changed: No More Steering Wheels Required

In 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation made a series of sweeping changes to federal motor vehicle safety rules. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced three major rule changes aimed at modernizing the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for vehicles equipped with automated driving systems.

The bottom line: manufacturers can now build and sell cars that have no steering wheel, no pedals, and no mirrors. Here's what changed:

• Streamlined exemption process: Manufacturers can now build up to 2,500 vehicles per year without traditional driver controls. The approval process has been cut from years to months.
• FMVSS updates: Rules governing transmission controls (FMVSS 102), windshield systems (FMVSS 103/104), and lighting equipment (FMVSS 108) are being rewritten to accommodate vehicles that assume no human driver.
• Occupant protection standards: Vehicles without steering wheels must still meet the same crash safety standards as traditional vehicles. The engineering changes, but the safety bar stays the same.

Florida Already Said Yes to Driverless Cars

While NHTSA is just now catching up, Florida has been one of the most permissive states in the country for autonomous vehicles since 2019. The Florida Legislature passed laws that essentially rolled out the red carpet for self-driving cars.

Here's what Florida law currently says:

F.S. 319.145 adds the registration and safety framework: autonomous vehicles must comply with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and must be capable of achieving a "minimal risk condition" (essentially, pulling over and stopping safely) if the automated driving system fails. For autonomous vehicles operating as ride-hailing networks, F.S. 316.85(4) requires compliance with the insurance standards in F.S. 627.749, which sets significantly higher coverage requirements than the minimums for human-driven personal vehicles.

Waymo has already announced plans to launch autonomous ride-hailing in Miami by 2026. When those vehicles hit Florida roads, they may not have a single person inside.

It's Already Here: Miami-Dade's Self-Driving Patrol Car

If you think driverless vehicles on Florida roads are a future problem, think again. The Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office is already testing the nation's first self-driving police patrol car.

The vehicle, nicknamed "PUG" (Police Unmanned Ground), is an autonomous SUV equipped with 360-degree cameras, license plate recognition technology, a deployable drone, and real-time integration with law enforcement databases. It can patrol neighborhoods on predetermined routes, respond to crash scenes with thermal imaging, and log as many uninterrupted patrol hours as roughly 20 deputies.

For now, a deputy rides in the passenger seat during a year-long pilot program. The vehicle was donated by the Policing Lab, a non-profit, and the sheriff's office used no taxpayer dollars to acquire it. PUG won't be used in police chases and is speed-limited, with no highway capability.

But here's the irony that should make every Florida driver pay attention: the same state that hasn't figured out who gets the ticket when a driverless car runs a red light is already putting driverless cars in police fleets. Florida is deploying autonomous technology to enforce the very laws that don't yet account for autonomous technology.

The Criminal Law Problem Nobody Is Talking About

Here's where it gets interesting from a criminal defense perspective. Florida's traffic and criminal laws were written for human drivers. The autonomous vehicle statute says the software is the "operator," but Florida's criminal code requires something the software doesn't have: criminal intent.

Who Gets the DUI?

Florida's DUI statute (F.S. 316.193) makes it unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence. If a fully autonomous vehicle with no steering wheel is driving itself down Orange Blossom Trail, and a drunk passenger is sitting in the back seat watching Netflix, is that passenger in "actual physical control" of the vehicle?

Under current law, the answer is almost certainly no. The passenger has no steering wheel to grab, no brake pedal to press, and no ability to control the vehicle. The automated driving system is the operator. But here's the problem: you can't arrest software for DUI.

Who Gets the Traffic Ticket?

This isn't hypothetical. In California, police watched a Waymo vehicle make an illegal U-turn, but couldn't figure out who to cite. There was no driver to hand a ticket to. The vehicle drove itself, committed a traffic infraction, and no one was held accountable.

Florida's traffic code assigns violations to the "operator" of the vehicle. Since F.S. 316.85 defines the automated driving system as the operator, technically the ticket should go to the software. But software can't appear in court, can't pay fines through the clerk's office, and can't receive points on a license it doesn't have.

• Speeding (F.S. 316.183): If a driverless car exceeds the speed limit, the "operator" is the software. No human to cite.
• Running a red light (F.S. 316.075): Same problem. The automated driving system made the decision to proceed.
• Leaving the scene of a crash (F.S. 316.061): If an autonomous vehicle is involved in a collision and drives away, who committed the hit-and-run?
• Reckless driving (F.S. 316.192): Requires "willful or wanton disregard" for safety. Can software act willfully?

The Liability Shift

What Florida's law does accomplish is a clear liability shift. When an autonomous vehicle causes damage, the responsibility moves from the human driver to:

• The vehicle manufacturer (product liability for software defects)
• The fleet operator (Waymo, Cruise, etc., as the entity deploying the vehicle)
• The vehicle owner (under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine)

This works reasonably well for civil claims and insurance payouts. But criminal law is a different animal. You can sue a corporation for damages. You can't send a corporation to jail for vehicular homicide.

What Florida Needs to Figure Out

Florida was forward-thinking in allowing autonomous vehicles on its roads. But the criminal and traffic code hasn't kept pace with the technology. Several questions remain unanswered:

• Criminal accountability framework: Who faces charges when an autonomous vehicle causes a fatal crash? The remote teleoperator? The company's CEO? The software engineer who wrote the code?
• Traffic enforcement mechanism: How do officers issue citations to vehicles with no human inside? Should tickets go directly to the fleet operator's registered agent?
• DUI in the age of autonomy: Should Florida update its DUI statute to address passengers in fully autonomous vehicles who are intoxicated but have no control over the vehicle?
• Evidence collection: Autonomous vehicles generate massive amounts of data (sensor logs, decision records, camera feeds). What are the rules for law enforcement accessing that data after an incident?
• Insurance adequacy: The $1 million minimum may sound high, but a multi-vehicle crash on I-4 with serious injuries could easily exceed that.

What This Means for You Right Now

Fully driverless vehicles without steering wheels aren't on Orlando roads yet, but the legal and regulatory framework is already in place for them to arrive. Here's what matters to you today:

• If you're involved in a crash with an autonomous vehicle: The legal landscape is complex. Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine means the vehicle owner or fleet operator carries liability, but proving fault requires access to the vehicle's data logs, not just a police report.
• If you're a passenger in an autonomous vehicle: Your legal status as a "passenger" versus "operator" may not be as clear as you think, especially in vehicles that still have some manual controls.
• If you're charged with DUI in any vehicle: The distinction between "actual physical control" and passive riding is a defense argument that's about to get a lot more complicated, and potentially more favorable to defendants, as autonomous technology blurs the line. Understanding your rights during any traffic stop remains essential.

The technology is moving faster than the law. That gap creates both risk and opportunity. As a criminal defense attorney and former law enforcement officer, I'm watching this space closely because the cases are coming, and the attorneys who understand both the technology and the criminal code will be the ones who can actually defend their clients.