Safer Roads for Those Who Serve Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 26, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to reduce injuries and fatalities among highway workers and other roadside personnel by improving data, promoting safe driving practices, funding research, and incorporating safety measures into federal infrastructure planning and grants.
What it actually does
This bill amends titles 23 and 49 of the U.S. Code to enhance roadside worker safety. It mandates improved data collection on roadside worker crashes, requires states to develop strategies for addressing increasing injury/fatality rates, expands the scope of "Move Over" laws to cover more roadside personnel, authorizes public awareness campaigns, funds research into safety solutions, and integrates worker safety as a criterion for federal infrastructure grant programs.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill addresses a critical and growing safety issue for individuals who work or are stranded on or near roadways. They emphasize that enhanced data collection will enable more targeted interventions, public awareness campaigns will educate drivers, and integrating safety into grant criteria will incentivize safer infrastructure design and construction practices, ultimately saving lives and reducing severe injuries.
Opponents contend
No explicit opposition is identified in the provided bill text. Potential concerns, if raised, might focus on the administrative burden on states for new data collection and planning requirements, or the cost of new federal appropriations, but these are not explicitly articulated in the bill's context.
The bill is concise and its provisions are clearly laid out, making it accessible for a quick review to understand its core objectives.
Section 2(1)(A)(iii) and (C)(iii)
Enhanced Data Collection for Roadside Worker Crashes
This provision requires states to improve their data collection methods to specifically differentiate crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries involving "highway workers" from those involving other road users. The goal is to provide a clearer, more accurate picture of the safety risks faced by these workers.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that accurate and specific data is fundamental to understanding the scope of the problem and developing effective, evidence-based safety strategies. Without differentiating highway worker incidents, the true impact on this vulnerable group can be obscured, hindering targeted interventions.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against improved data collection, though some might express concerns about the administrative costs or technical challenges for states in implementing new data systems.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff is between the administrative cost and effort required for more granular data collection versus the potential benefits of more precise safety interventions and improved resource allocation for safety programs.
Section 2(2)
State Strategic Highway Safety Plan Requirement
If a state experiences an increase in highway worker injuries and fatalities over the most recent two-year period for which data is available, it must include specific strategies in its next strategic highway safety plan to address these increases, taking into account Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommendations.
Section 3(a)
Expanded Focus for Highway Safety Programs
This section amends 23 U.S.C. 402(a)(2)(A) to broaden the scope of state highway safety programs. It now explicitly includes reducing injuries and deaths when hazard lights are activated, or when various roadside personnel (construction, utility, tow truck, disabled vehicle occupants) are stopped on or next to a roadway. It also specifically adds reducing injuries and deaths of drivers and highway workers in work zones.
Section 3(c)(1)
Updated "Move Over" Law Public Awareness Materials
This provision directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to update its public awareness materials within two years. The updates must more fully reflect the types of vehicles and drivers supported by State "Move Over" laws, including construction workers, utility personnel, tow truck operators, and drivers of disabled vehicles.
Section 4(b)
Highway Worker Safety Research and Outreach
This section directs the Secretary of Transportation to conduct research and outreach activities specifically aimed at improving highway worker safety. This includes addressing roadside incidents and exploring solutions through behavior-based interventions, education, engineering, and technology. The Secretary must build on existing research and utilize existing facilities like the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center and university transportation centers.
Section 5(a)
INFRA Grant Criteria for Worker Safety
This provision amends 23 U.S.C. 117(h) to add a new criterion for Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant applications. Projects will now be evaluated on the extent to which they include measures to protect highway workers and other road users during construction (e.g., planning to reduce vehicle intrusions, manage speeds) and after completion of the project.
Section 5(b)
Mega Grant Criteria for Work Zone Safety
This provision amends 49 U.S.C. 6701(f)(3) to add a new criterion for National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) grants. Applications will now be evaluated on whether, and to what degree, a project includes a work zone safety plan describing how highway workers and other road users will be protected during construction and after completion of the project.
Section 5(c)
BUILD Grant Criteria for Worker Safety
This provision amends 49 U.S.C. 6702(d)(4) to add a new criterion for Rural Surface Transportation Grant (BUILD) applications. Projects must now demonstrate efforts to protect highway workers and other road users during construction and to improve safety for highway workers after project completion.
The bill repeatedly defines "highway worker" by reference to an existing Code of Federal Regulations section (23 CFR 630.1004) rather than explicitly stating the definition within the bill text.
Throughout the bill (e.g., Sec. 2(1)(A)(iii), Sec. 3(a)(3), Sec. 4(a)(1))
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to maintain consistency with existing regulatory definitions and avoid redundancy within the statutory text, simplifying compliance for agencies and states already familiar with the regulation.
Case for: Using an existing regulatory definition ensures consistency across federal programs and avoids creating conflicting definitions, simplifying compliance for agencies and states already familiar with the regulation.
Case against: A reader unfamiliar with federal regulations would need to perform an additional lookup to fully grasp the scope of the bill's protections, potentially hindering immediate comprehension for a casual reader.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the bill's protections apply to the specific category of workers already recognized under federal highway safety regulations, providing clarity on the target beneficiaries.