Overview
Title
To amend title 23, United States Code, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act with respect to vehicle roadside crashes, work zone safety, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
This bill wants to make roads safer by changing some rules to protect people when their cars break down and when workers fix roads. It also plans to have groups find ways to stop accidents and track how safety money is used.
Summary AI
H.R. 2992 seeks to improve safety on U.S. roads by amending existing laws related to vehicle roadside crashes and work zones. It proposes updates to the Highway Safety and Improvement Program to include better protection for those involved with disabled vehicles. The bill also calls for the formation of working groups to gather data and develop strategic plans for preventing roadside and work zone crashes. Additionally, it requires an annual report on the use of work zone safety funds by states, aiming to enhance safety measures nationwide.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 2992 is a legislative proposal that seeks to amend existing U.S. laws to enhance safety measures related to vehicle roadside crashes and work zones. Specifically, the bill aims to update Title 23 of the United States Code and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to include more comprehensive safety protocols for roadside situations involving disabled vehicles and work zone areas. The bill intends to expand definitions within safety programs, mandate thorough data collection and analysis, and establish working groups to develop better safety solutions. Additionally, it requires an annual report on the use of work zone safety contingency funds, with detailed involvement from various state entities.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the main challenges with the bill is its complexity, which makes it difficult for the general public to comprehend the full implications and details of the proposed changes. The bill lacks a clear timeline for implementing and reporting findings from the working groups, which could slow down vital safety improvements. There's also a potential for overlap and redundancy in the responsibilities assigned to these working groups, as they are not clearly delineated. Moreover, the absence of specific success metrics might lead to ineffective or unmeasurable outcomes. Concerns about financial management arise from the lack of budgetary constraints for the working group activities, potentially leading to uncontrolled spending. The use of the term "high-risk communities" is ambiguous, possibly resulting in biased safety efforts. Finally, the bill does not provide clear guidance on data sharing practices with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, raising potential privacy concerns.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this bill addresses an important aspect of road safety, which affects daily commuters and professional drivers alike. By improving safety around disabled vehicles and in work zones, the intended outcomes could lead to a reduction in accidents, injuries, and fatalities, thereby enhancing overall road safety. However, the bill's complexity might mean that its benefits and functions remain opaque to many citizens unless further clarified.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The bill could have varying impacts on its stakeholders. High-risk profession communities like truckers and first responders stand to benefit from improved road safety measures, potentially experiencing fewer accidents and job-related hazards. State and local government agencies involved in transportation could face increased responsibilities and administrative demands due to mandated data collection and analysis. Technology and automobile manufacturers may engage in developing innovative safety solutions in response to the bill's provisions, creating opportunities for industry growth.
On the downside, without clear financial guidelines and success metrics, there might be ineffective resource allocation, impacting taxpayers and potentially diverting funds away from other necessary public services. Implementing these new protocols could require significant initial investment, for which the burden might fall on state budgets or impact state-managed projects if federal guidance and support are not clearly defined.
Overall, while H.R. 2992 aims to enhance roadside safety—a critical public need—the execution and clarity of its various provisions will significantly determine its effectiveness in achieving that goal.
Issues
The text is dense and complex, making it difficult for a layperson to understand the various sections and their implications. This issue affects the entire section 1 and can lead to misunderstandings and lack of transparency for the general public.
There is a lack of a clear timeline for the implementation and reporting of the findings and actions of the working groups mentioned in sections 1(d) and 1(e). This could hinder accountability and the timely progression of safety improvements.
The roles and responsibilities of the working groups might overlap, but the distinctions between them are not clearly defined in sections 1(d) and 1(e). This could lead to redundancy, administrative inefficiency, and potential delays in reaching safety goals.
The absence of specific metrics or benchmarks for success for the strategic plans and interventions created by the working groups in sections 1(d) and 1(e) might lead to ineffective or unmeasurable outcomes.
There is no mention of budgetary constraints or limits on spending for the working groups and related activities in sections 1(d) and 1(e), which might lead to uncontrolled expenditures and misallocation of resources.
The authorization for the use of work zone safety contingency funds is mentioned in section 1(e) and (f), but there is no analysis or criteria provided for determining the necessity or effectiveness of these funds in improving safety, leading to potential financial inefficiencies.
The term 'high-risk communities' used in section 1(d) is vague and subject to interpretation, which could lead to uneven or biased focus in data collection and intervention efforts.
The text frequently lists multiple stakeholders and agencies without clearly defining their specific roles or contributions in sections 1(d) and 1(e), creating potential for confusion and administrative inefficiency.
There is a lack of guidance on how data sharing with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will be conducted, managed, and secured, as mentioned in sections 1(d) and 1(e), raising concerns about data privacy and security.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Vehicle and work zone roadside accidents Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies existing laws to improve safety around disabled vehicles and work zones by expanding the definitions and scope of safety programs, mandating data collection and analysis, and forming working groups to develop safety solutions. Additionally, it requires an annual report on the use of work zone safety contingency funds, detailing state participation and recommendations for improvement.