HB2992 would amend the federal highway safety framework to broaden who counts in roadside crash safety, require richer injury data, and establish two new working groups to study disabled-vehicle and work-zone crashes. It also updates move-over law public-awareness language and directs annual reports on the use and effectiveness of work zone contingency funds.
The overarching goal is to improve data quality and policy responses around roadside incidents and work zones. This is a substantive shift toward more granular safety analytics and cross-agency collaboration, with implications for state DOTs, industry stakeholders, and public health partners.
At a Glance
What It Does
Expands coverage in the Highway Safety and Improvement Program to include occupants and pedestrians associated with disabled vehicles; adds roadside and work-zone fatalities to injury data; creates two working groups to collect data, publish strategic plans, and improve data sharing (including MMUCC adoption).
Who It Affects
Federal and state transportation agencies, OSHA, insurers, medical/public health professionals, law enforcement, first responders, construction and road-works contractors, and vehicle manufacturers.
Why It Matters
Sets a data-driven foundation for safer roadside behavior and work zones, enabling targeted interventions, standardized crash criteria, and clearer accountability for safety funding.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill begins by reshaping who is considered when federal highway safety rules apply. It expands the Highway Safety and Improvement Program to explicitly include occupants and pedestrians associated with disabled vehicles, ensuring these individuals are counted in safety planning and enforcement.
It also broadens the injury data collected under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to explicitly include roadside deaths and work-zone deaths, improving the completeness of federal crash statistics. To translate data into action, the bill creates two Working Groups—one focused on disabled-vehicle crashes and the other on work-zone crashes.
These groups will gather and analyze data, publish strategic plans, and push for better data sharing with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, including local adoption of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria. They will also issue annual updates on awareness and intervention activities and results.
In parallel, the bill requires a formal annual review of the use and effectiveness of work zone safety contingency funds, with reporting on how many states have used the funds, how much has been allocated, and recommendations for nationwide improvements. Finally, the Move Over or Slow Down law public-awareness provisions are updated to explicitly reference motorists, disabled vehicles, workers, and equipment in work zones.
This package is designed to make roadside crashes better understood and prevented through richer data, clearer standards, and coordinated action across federal, state, and non-government actors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill expands highway safety provisions to cover occupants and pedestrians associated with disabled vehicles.
Injury data is expanded to include roadside and work zone fatalities.
Two new working groups will collect data, publish strategic plans, and pursue better data sharing (including MMUCC adoption).
An annual FHWA report will assess the use and effectiveness of work zone safety contingency funds.
Move Over/Slow Down public-awareness language is updated to cover more actors in work zones.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Highway Safety Program amendments (expanded coverage)
Section 148(c)(2) adds occupants and pedestrians associated with disabled vehicles to subparagraphs (A)(vi), (B)(i), and (D)(vi) of the Highway Safety and Improvement Program. Practically, this broadens who is protected and accounted for in crash data and safety measures, increasing the scope of protective design and enforcement considerations for disabled-vehicle scenarios.
Injury health data enhancement
Section 24108(c)(2) amends the injury data provisions to insert ‘including roadside deaths and work zone deaths’ after ‘fatalities.’ This lifts the granularity of federal crash data, enabling better trend analysis and policy targeting around roadside incidents and work-zone fatalities.
Move Over/Slow Down law public awareness
Section 24109(a) expands the Move Over/Slow Down awareness framework by inserting language to cover motorists, disabled vehicles, workers, and equipment in work zones. This broadens the audience and scenarios targeted by public awareness campaigns and enforcement messaging.
Disabled Vehicle Crash Working Group
The Secretary of Transportation, with OSHA and other agencies, must convene a working group including industry, high-risk communities, and safety stakeholders. The group’s duties include collecting and publishing data on disabled roadside crashes, developing a strategic plan to reduce fatal and non-fatal injuries, promoting data sharing with NHTSA, and encouraging local adoption of MMUCC; it will also report on awareness and intervention results annually.
Work Zone Crash Working Group
A separate working group, in collaboration with OSHA, FHWA, and other agencies, will collect and publish data on work-zone crashes and draft a strategic plan to reduce fatalities and injuries. It will advocate for more effective use of work zone contingency funds and align data-sharing practices with NHTSA and MMUCC standards, plus annual status updates on activities and outcomes.
Review of work zone contingency funds
The FHWA Administrator must annually report on the use and effectiveness of work zone safety contingency funds under 120(c)(3)(B)(vi) of title 23. The report covers which states used the funds, the amounts allocated, and other information to improve nationwide implementation and accountability.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State departments of transportation and highway safety offices gain clearer data, guidance, and standards for disabled-vehicle and work-zone safety.
- Drivers and pedestrians in proximity to disabled vehicles benefit from enhanced data-driven safety measures and targeted interventions.
- First responders, traffic incident responders, and public health professionals gain better data and coordination across agencies, enabling faster, safer responses.
- Insurers and healthcare providers obtain richer, standardized crash data that can inform risk models and prevention programs.
- Vehicle manufacturers and technology firms align with standardized crash data criteria (MMUCC) and data-sharing practices, enabling better safety improvements.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local transportation agencies may face upfront costs to participate in new data collection, reporting, and group activities.
- Federal agencies (eg, FHWA, OSHA) will incur program coordination and reporting overhead to sustain the two working groups.
- Construction contractors and other road-building entities may face new data reporting obligations and compliance costs related to safety data.
- Insurers and healthcare providers may incur administrative costs associated with data sharing and reporting requirements.
- Localities may need to invest in data systems and training to support broader data integration and MMUCC adoption.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Expanding who is protected and how crash data is collected and used vs. the administrative and fiscal burden on federal, state, and local agencies and private partners to implement and sustain these changes.
The bill’s approach relies heavily on cross-agency collaboration and data-sharing standards, which could raise privacy and interoperability questions if data sharing crosses clash with state or private-sector systems. While MMUCC adoption standardizes crash data, localities vary in capability and timing, creating uneven implementation.
The contingent-fund provisions introduce a policy lever for safety investments but demand robust oversight and clear criteria to avoid misallocation. Overall, the bill trades broader, more actionable data and safety programs for increased administrative complexity and cost—an inevitable tension for states with tight highway budgets.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.