Roadway Safety Modernization Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 18, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to modernize federal highway safety efforts by enabling the use of advanced data analytics and telematics to proactively identify and address roadway safety risks.
What it actually does
This bill amends Title 23 of the United States Code to explicitly allow federal highway safety grant programs to fund the development, acquisition, and deployment of advanced safety data tools, including predictive analytics and telematics. It integrates these technologies into highway safety planning, freight safety programs, and national priority safety initiatives. Additionally, it directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue guidance on data privacy, security, transparency, and validated methodologies for these tools, and to coordinate their use across federal agencies.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that integrating predictive analytics and telematics will enable a more proactive, data-driven approach to highway safety, allowing states to identify high-risk areas and implement targeted interventions before crashes occur. They contend this will lead to a significant reduction in crashes, injuries, and fatalities, improve the efficiency of freight movement, and ensure federal safety investments yield the greatest possible impact.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the potential for data privacy breaches given the collection of telematics and other detailed safety data, or question the cost-effectiveness and proven reliability of these advanced technologies compared to traditional, well-understood safety interventions. Some may also worry about the potential for algorithmic bias in predictive models or the financial burden on states to adopt complex new systems.
The bill is concise and relatively straightforward, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1)
Expanding Eligible Activities for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
This provision amends Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code, to allow states to use Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds for developing, acquiring, or deploying safety data systems, including predictive analytics and telematics. It also mandates that safety data used in HSIP planning should, where practicable, include data from these advanced tools for risk modeling and proactive identification of roadway safety risks.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this change will enable states to move beyond reactive crash analysis to a proactive, preventative approach, leveraging modern data science to identify and address safety hazards before they result in accidents. This will lead to more efficient allocation of safety resources and a greater reduction in severe crashes.
Critics contend
Skeptics might argue that diverting funds to potentially unproven or costly technologies could reduce resources available for traditional, demonstrably effective safety improvements. Concerns could also be raised regarding the privacy implications of collecting and analyzing extensive safety data, and the potential for algorithmic bias in predictive models.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for technological innovation and proactive safety with the need to ensure federal funds are spent on demonstrably effective and privacy-conscious solutions.
Section 2(a)(2)
Integrating Advanced Data Tools into the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP)
This section amends Section 167 of Title 23 to allow National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) funds to be used for developing, acquiring, or deploying safety data tools, including predictive analytics and telematics, specifically for improving freight safety and supporting performance-based planning. It also requires the Administrator to assess the need for operating standards for 'intelligent freight transportation systems' and report to Congress within one year.
Section 2(b) and 2(c)
Guidance and Interagency Coordination for Safety Data Technologies
This section mandates that the Secretary of Transportation develop and issue guidance within one year on best practices for anonymizing and securing data, protecting personally identifiable information, promoting transparency and accountability in using predictive analytics, and ensuring these technologies are grounded in validated methodologies. It also requires coordination within the Department of Transportation and consultation with other federal agencies (Energy, Commerce) to promote effective use and interoperability of these tools.
This section adds new definitions for 'Intelligent freight transportation system' and 'Safety data' to Section 167 of Title 23, United States Code.
Section 2(a)(2)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms relevant to a specific section of code. It clarifies the scope and intent of the 'intelligent freight transportation system' concept introduced earlier in the bill.
Case for: Defining these terms clearly ensures consistent interpretation and application of the bill's provisions regarding freight safety and the use of advanced technologies. It provides necessary clarity for implementing agencies and stakeholders.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against clear definitions, as they are essential for legal precision. However, the breadth of the 'intelligent freight transportation system' definition could be a point of discussion if it is perceived as too broad or too narrow.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the scope of eligible projects and systems under the National Highway Freight Program, potentially influencing billions in federal funding over time.
This subsection amends Section 167(j) to require the Administrator, within one year, to determine the need for establishing operating standards for intelligent freight transportation systems and, if a need is found, submit a report to Congress on that need.
Section 2(a)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative mechanism to defer a complex policy decision (setting operating standards) to a later date, allowing for further study and stakeholder input before committing to specific regulations.
Case for: Proponents would argue that assessing the need for operating standards is a prudent step to ensure the safe, efficient, and interoperable deployment of intelligent freight systems without prematurely imposing potentially burdensome regulations. It allows for an informed, data-driven decision.
Case against: Critics might argue that deferring the decision on standards could lead to a patchwork of incompatible systems or delay the full realization of benefits from intelligent freight technologies. Some might prefer immediate action on standards to provide certainty to industry.
Estimated impact: Could lay the groundwork for future federal regulations or guidelines impacting the design, operation, and interoperability of intelligent freight transportation systems, potentially affecting billions in infrastructure and technology investments.