The bill amends Title 23 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to treat occupants of and pedestrians associated with disabled vehicles as explicit beneficiaries of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) activities, to require collection of roadside and work zone death data, to broaden Move Over / Slow Down law reviews, and to create two DOT-led working groups to study disabled-vehicle and work-zone crashes. It also directs the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to report annually to Congress on state use and effectiveness of work zone safety contingency funds.
This is a technical but consequential package: it changes what counts in federal safety data, signals priorities for state HSIP spending, mandates multistakeholder data and strategy work, and forces transparency about how states use contingency funds. For planners, safety directors, contractors, insurers, and compliance officers, the bill shifts the diagnostic tools (what’s measured and shared) and nudges states toward using federal safety authority and contingency mechanisms to prevent roadside and work‑zone deaths.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends HSIP eligibility language to explicitly include occupants of and pedestrians associated with disabled vehicles; expands IIJA injury-health data to capture roadside and work‑zone deaths; expands the statutory review scope for Move Over/Slow Down laws; requires DOT to convene two multi‑stakeholder working groups to gather and publish detailed crash data and produce strategic plans; and requires FHWA to submit an annual report to Congress on use of work-zone safety contingency funds.
Who It Affects
State Departments of Transportation and highway safety offices, FHWA and DOT program offices, OSHA, local traffic incident responders and first responders, road construction contractors and unions, insurers, and vehicle/technology manufacturers involved in roadside safety and crash data systems.
Why It Matters
By changing what is eligible for HSIP attention and what gets counted in federal datasets, the bill reshapes priorities for investment and oversight. The working groups and the FHWA report increase federal visibility into state practice and data quality without creating new grant programs — meaning implementation will rely on states’ willingness to adopt data standards and use existing funding authorities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes several targeted statutory edits and creates two formal working groups to reduce deaths that occur at the roadside and inside work zones. First, it tweaks HSIP statutory language so that federal safety programs explicitly cover occupants of disabled vehicles and pedestrians associated with disabled vehicles; that change clarifies that projects addressing those scenarios are within HSIP scope.
Second, it amends an IIJA provision on injury-health data to require that roadside and work‑zone deaths be included when governments compile and report injury and fatality statistics.
Third, the bill expands the statutorily mandated review of Move Over/Slow Down laws to cover a wider set of hazards — not only authorized emergency vehicles but also motorists, disabled vehicles, workers, construction machinery, and vehicles within work zones. Fourth and fifth, the Secretary of Transportation, working with OSHA and other federal partners, must convene two distinct multi‑stakeholder working groups: one focused on disabled-vehicle crashes and another on work‑zone crashes.
Each working group must collect and publish detailed crash data, draft strategic plans to identify and implement solutions, promote better data sharing with NHTSA (including encouraging local adoption of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria), and provide annual updates on awareness and intervention efforts.Finally, the bill tasks the FHWA Administrator with an annual congressional report on the use and effectiveness of work‑zone safety contingency funds authorized under existing Title 23 authority. That report must identify which States used the authority, how much each dedicated, and recommend improvements.
The bill relies on information‑gathering, coordination, and reporting rather than new federal grant programs, so its practical effect will depend on states and agencies acting on the working groups’ analyses and FHWA’s findings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill revises 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2) language so HSIP-eligible activities explicitly include "occupants of and pedestrians associated with disabled vehicles," clarifying federal program scope.
It amends the IIJA’s injury-health data provision to require inclusion of roadside deaths and work‑zone deaths in federal injury and fatality data sets. , It expands the statutory review of Move Over/Slow Down laws to cover motorists, disabled vehicles, workers, vehicles, and machinery in work zones, not just authorized emergency vehicles. , The Secretary of Transportation must convene two multi‑stakeholder working groups (disabled‑vehicle crashes and work‑zone crashes) that must produce data compilations, strategic plans, and annual updates and promote adoption of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria and improved sharing with NHTSA. , FHWA must deliver an annual report to Congress on the use and effectiveness of work‑zone safety contingency funds under 23 U.S.C. 120(c)(3)(B)(vi), identifying which States used the funds, amounts dedicated, and recommendations to improve nationwide use.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Explicitly include disabled-vehicle occupants and associated pedestrians in HSIP scope
This amendment inserts "occupants of and pedestrians associated with disabled vehicles" into three subparagraphs of the HSIP eligibility provision. Practically, it reduces legal ambiguity about whether HSIP dollars can fund countermeasures that prevent or mitigate crashes that occur when vehicles are disabled at the roadside—examples include enhanced shoulder barriers, refuge areas, improved signage/lighting for disabled vehicles, and incident-response safety features. States retain discretion over project selection, but the statutory language strengthens the argument that such projects are eligible for federal HSIP funding and support federal prioritization of disabled‑vehicle scenarios.
Require roadside/work‑zone deaths be included in injury health data
By inserting "including roadside deaths and work zone deaths," the bill expands the scope of injury and fatality data collected under the IIJA provision. That change aims to ensure federal datasets reflect these specific crash circumstances, improving the ability to spot trends and target countermeasures. Operationally, adoption depends on alignment between state crash reporting, medical records, and NHTSA data systems; the bill pairs this change with working-group work to improve data sharing and local adoption of uniform crash criteria.
Expand Move Over/Slow Down law review to cover work‑zone hazards
This edit broadens the statutory language directing a review of Move Over/Slow Down public awareness to include not only authorized emergency vehicles but also motorists, disabled vehicles, workers, vehicles, and machinery in work zones. The practical implication is twofold: federal reviews and guidance will address broader public-education needs, and states may be encouraged to modernize statutes, signage, and outreach to cover work‑zone risks beyond emergency stopping scenarios.
Create a DOT-led disabled-vehicle crash working group with cross-sector stakeholders
The Secretary of Transportation, with OSHA and other agencies, must convene a working group composed of industry and nongovernmental entities (including high‑risk professions, first responders, insurers, vehicle makers, and state/local highway safety experts). The group’s duties are data collection and analysis, producing a strategic plan to reduce fatal and nonfatal crashes involving disabled vehicles, promoting better data sharing with NHTSA (including the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria), and issuing annual updates on awareness/intervention activities. The provision sets expectations for coordinated, multi‑disciplinary problem‑solving but does not appropriate funds for implementation.
Create a DOT‑led work‑zone crash working group drawn from the road‑building community
This parallel working group, convened by DOT with OSHA and FHWA engagement, must include contractors, pavers, engineers, unions, and state transportation officials. Its mandate mirrors the disabled‑vehicle group but focuses on work‑zone crashes, including use and effectiveness of work‑zone safety contingency funds. The group must publish data, propose strategic solutions, encourage adoption of crash-data standards, and provide annual updates—again producing actionable recommendations without attaching new federal funding in the bill text.
Require FHWA annual report on use and effectiveness of work‑zone contingency funds
The FHWA Administrator must report annually to Congress on the number and identity of States that used authority to dedicate contingency funds to work‑zone safety, the amounts each State dedicated, and any other pertinent information with recommendations to improve use nationwide. This creates official oversight and produces a comparability baseline across states, which could influence future policy or appropriations, but the report requirement does not itself change funding formulas or create entitlement payments.
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
- Motorists and vehicle occupants who become disabled at the roadside — the bill increases the chances state HSIP projects and safety strategies will target the specific hazards they face by making those scenarios an explicit federal priority.
- Construction and maintenance workers in work zones — because the bill requires focused data collection and strategic planning on work‑zone crashes and oversight of contingency funds, it raises the visibility of work‑zone safety needs and countermeasures.
- State and local highway safety planners — the requirement for standardized data, Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria promotion, and working‑group outputs gives planners more granular evidence to justify projects and to pursue HSIP funding for roadside and work‑zone countermeasures.
- First responders and traffic incident management teams — improved data, awareness campaigns, and strategic plans aim to reduce roadside exposures and inform safer incident response policies and training.
- Public health researchers and NHTSA data analysts — the mandated inclusion of roadside and work‑zone deaths in injury datasets and improved local data-sharing will produce richer datasets for analysis and policy evaluation.
Who Bears the Cost
- State DOTs and local jurisdictions — they face increased reporting expectations, potential reallocation of HSIP project priorities, and the administrative work to align local crash reporting with Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria.
- FHWA, DOT, and OSHA — federal agencies must staff and support the two working groups and produce the FHWA annual report without dedicated new appropriations in the bill text, increasing administrative workload.
- Road‑building contractors and employers — while primarily beneficiaries of improved safety, they may face indirect costs from adopting new recommended practices, increased contingency fund usage expectations, or additional compliance reporting tied to working‑group recommendations.
- Insurers and data processors — better crash-data sharing and standardized reporting could expose insurers to more granular claim-triggering data and require investment in data ingestion and analytics pipelines.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between achieving better, more actionable safety outcomes by measuring and coordinating (a low‑intrusion, information‑first approach) and the reality that information alone does not change practice: improving safety at the roadside and in work zones likely requires funding, regulatory mandates, and operational changes at the state and local level that the bill does not provide. The bill tightens measurement and oversight but relies on voluntary adoption and existing funding authorities to produce real-world reductions in deaths.
The bill emphasizes data, coordination, and transparency rather than prescribing specific, funded countermeasures. That design creates practical questions about implementation: states must change reporting practices, adopt new crash‑data standards, and potentially shift HSIP priorities without the bill providing dedicated technical assistance or funding.
The success of the working groups’ strategic plans therefore depends on voluntary uptake by states, local agencies, and private actors.
Data standardization and sharing raise privacy and interoperability issues. Inserting roadside and work‑zone deaths into injury-health datasets will require mapping across police crash reports, medical records, and NHTSA systems; states vary widely in their crash-reporting systems and in adopting the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria, so federal recommendations may have uneven traction.
The bill also increases federal oversight visibility (through the FHWA report) but does not change liability rules or create enforceable national safety standards for work‑zone operations, leaving a gap between analysis and on-the-ground regulatory change.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.