<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Research in Progress (RIP)</title>
    <link>https://rip.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://rip.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of Safety Perspectives, Approaches, and Needs for Testing, Deploying, and Operating Vehicles Equipped with Driving Automation Systems (Automated Vehicles) on Public Roadways</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2655699</link>
      <description><![CDATA[States and cities across the country would benefit from enhanced technical resources that evaluate different safety perspectives, approaches, and needs in the United States and around the world for testing, deploying, and operating vehicles equipped with driving automation systems (automated vehicles) on public roadways and to assist them in addressing issues in driver licensure, liability and traffic laws under their regulatory jurisdiction. These resources would help inform updates to jurisdiction-specific or agency-specific needs and approaches to automated vehicle safety in the United States. These resources could also help inform the development of a more coordinated multi-jurisdictional, multi-state, or national scale approach for testing, deploying, and operating automated vehicles more safely on public roadways in the United States. 
Below are questions that will be explored as part of this research project. (1) What does safety mean? (2) How does safety get measured? (3) How are safety hazards analyzed and risks assessed and mitigated? (4) What constitutes a positive safety culture for an organization? (5) How does safety get communicated to others? (6) What are effective ways for building public trust? (7) What roles do and should different stakeholders play to ensure acceptable safety? (8) How safe is safe enough for determining when, where, and how to conduct public road testing and/or deployments with or without a safety driver? (9)  Who takes responsibility for ensuring acceptable safety during public road testing and/or deployments? (10) How does liability (including tort and product liability) get addressed in public road testing, deployments and operations of automated vehicles?

The goals of this project are to: (1) Create a clear understanding of different safety perspectives, approaches, and needs for testing, deploying, and operating automated vehicles on public roadways from numerous examples in the United States and around the world. (2) Recognize best practices for the roadway automation industry and state and local transportation agencies in the United States to consider as a basis for a future government-industry coordinated multi-jurisdictional or national framework for safe testing, deployments, and operations of automated vehicles on public roadways.
               ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:03:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2655699</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Examining Attribution of Fault in Fatal &amp; Serious Injury Crashes between Drivers and Vulnerable Road Users</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625585</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Traffic crashes killing or severely injuring pedestrians and bicyclists have increased dramatically in the past 10 years in the US. Research has found media and police narratives to play a strong role in shaping public opinion around strategies to prevent crashes involving vulnerable road users (VRUs), including whether those narratives attribute blame to the VRU victim. In California, following a crash, data are collected by law enforcement officers who make a determination of the “party most at fault.” Concerns exist as to whether fault in crash report data is over-attributed to VRUs, but no systematic research has assessed this.   We will utilize 2016-2023 electronically reported California Crash Reporting System data to identify the presence of a crash witness at each fatal or serious injury (FSI) single-vehicle/VRU crash, under the hypothesis that fault is more accurately attributed when a witness is present. Because VRU victims involved in FSI crashes with a motor vehicle are often unconscious, in transport to a hospital, or deceased at the time of the crash investigation, only the driver’s perspective is incorporated into police reports in the absence of a witness, while the presence of a witness provides additional and, we hypothesize, more objective information. The specific research question is: is the presence of a witness associated with a higher probability that the driver will be named at fault in FSI crashes between a driver and a VRU compared to crashes between a driver and a VRU when no witness is present?  We will use logistic regression to estimate the probability of the driver being attributed fault in crashes where a witness was present compared to crashes with no witness. If the probability is higher when a witness is present, we will discuss the likelihood that this implies that fault is systemically over-attributed to the VRU when there is no witness vs. other explanations. We will control for neighborhood and investigate if the effect of a witness on attribution varies according to reporting agency, victim attributes, or victim mode.  The overall goal will be to estimate minimum correction factors and 95% confidence intervals for VRU-involved crashes so statistics on attribution of fault can be adjusted for future research or in policy settings.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 15:03:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625585</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Tort Liability and Shifting Legal Responsibility in the Safe System Approach</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558416</link>
      <description><![CDATA[One of the most significant federal policy frameworks addressing fatal and serious injury crashes in the United States is the Safe System Approach (SSA). The SSA recognizes that safety is a shared responsibility among all stakeholders, including road users, vehicle manufacturers, roadway designers and operators, law enforcement agencies, and post-crash care providers. Its main principle is that human errors are inevitable, and the transportation system should be designed and managed so those errors do not result in fatal or serious injuries.

However, the principle of shared responsibility and the proactive measures encouraged by the SSA have raised concerns about tort liability and the legal responsibilities of roadway designers and operators. These concerns are sometimes cited as reasons to avoid implementing roadway design changes or operational strategies that could modify driving behavior—even when such changes could substantially improve safety for all users. Research is needed to understand how tort liability laws affect the adoption of proactive roadway safety practices to help transportation professionals apply the SSA without being hindered by concerns about increased legal liability.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to develop a compendium that documents (1) how tort liability laws influence the adoption of proactive roadway safety practices and (2) noteworthy practices for implementing the SSA without being constrained by concerns over increased legal responsibilities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 20:28:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558416</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Liability of Transportation Entity for the Unintentional Release of Secure Data or the Intentional Release of Monitoring Data on Movements or Activities of the Public</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2487295</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Transportation entities collect various amounts of data for transportation related purposes. Without debating the legitimacy of the purpose for the specific data collected, what liability exists for the accidental release of data that was to be securely held by the entity for a transportation related purpose? Similarly, what liability exists for the intentional release of data generated from the monitoring of the movements or activities of the public?  The main objective of this research is to review what statutes, regulations or common law exist regarding the release of data collected for transportation purposes. Included in this research are questions concerning the application of public records laws and the application of any constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2025 16:11:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2487295</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Developing a Prototype System for Measuring Intersection Sight Distances</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2437841</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this research is to develop a vehicle-boardable prototype for the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) that can measure intersection sight distances (ISDs) in real-time. With this prototype, WYDOT will be equipped to assess and reassess sight distances at both existing and new intersections, regardless of their type. The prototype aims to reduce the costs associated with ISD assessments by automating many of the tasks involved in the process. Additionally, it will contribute to reducing intersection-related crashes, particularly those caused by inadequate sight distances. By enhancing its ability to evaluate sight distances, WYDOT will also be better positioned to protect itself from liability in the event of crashes, especially severe incidents resulting from insufficient ISDs. Furthermore, the prototype will assist local jurisdictions in efficiently assessing sight distances for both existing and new intersections, improving overall road safety and infrastructure management.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2024 16:01:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2437841</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Problems Arising out of Highway Programs. Topic 27-05. Addressing Liability Issues of Proactive Safety Improvements</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2209733</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Traditional methods to identify and prioritize locations for traffic safety improvements are reactive. These methods identify locations with high collision rates and features at these locations causing the collisions. This allows transportation agencies to target areas for which funding can be sought to make safety improvements based primarily on past collision history. 

An alternative method to improve traffic safety is to use cumulative collision data to identify the types of locations and road features shown by cumulative collision data to be highly correlated with collision frequency. In new construction, the cumulative collision data can be used to select designs and road features having lower collision probabilities. For existing roads, the proactive data can be used to analyze roads to identify collision-prone locations and features for remediation.  The proactive approach allows transportation agencies to identify problems and possible improvements before a history of collisions and injuries accrues.  

The tort liability problem arising from adopting proactive safety analysis of roads is similar to the concerns that arose with the publication of the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM). The HSM also used amalgamated collision data to predict which road design elements correlate with higher collision experience. The concern was that plaintiffs would use the HSM to support claims current roads are not “reasonably safe,” leading to enormous new liability for public roads.  

HSM authors ultimately included language in parts of the manual that tried to limit misuse of the HSM to establish liability for roads constructed before the manual was available to guide their design. Something similar might be needed for new publications espousing more advanced proactive road safety analysis. This problem is not solved by 23 USC 407. Section 407 prevents the use of road safety data and reports in accident litigation if these materials are compiled or created to analyze improvements to roads eligible for federal improvement funds. Section 407 does not cover manuals and guidelines developed to accomplish the same purpose.

Research is needed to analyze the reasons for and extent of the challenge tort liability could create for transportation agencies adopting a proactive safety approach to design new roads and improve existing roads.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to address the issues facing transportation agencies adopting a proactive safety approach to the design of new roads and the improvement of the existing ones. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2023 10:01:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2209733</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Problems Arising out of Highway Programs. Topic 27-01. Transportation Agency Liability for Roadside Safety Hardware</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2209730</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Transportation agencies install a large amount of roadside safety hardware purchased from manufacturers. Included in this hardware are various kinds of guiderail and other barriers, impact attenuators, and breakaway light poles and sign supports.
  
NCHRP Report 350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features, includes guidelines for crash testing roadside safety hardware and criteria to assess the test results. After the publication of NCHRP Report 350, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) required all road safety hardware utilized on a federal aid eligible roadway to be tested using testing criteria reported in NCHRP Report 350. The FHWA issued certification letters for all devices whose testing satisfied the NCHRP protocols. 
 
In 2009, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) published the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) for use in testing safety hardware. FHWA adopted MASH in 2016, requiring all newly installed roadside safety hardware to be tested and certified under MASH. Prior hardware tested under NCHRP Report 350 can remain in place until replacement due to damage or highway rebuild when MASH-certified hardware must be installed. The federal testing and certification requirements do not apply on roads funded only by non-federal money. Each state must determine what road safety hardware is satisfactory for non-federal aid roads. 

In most, if not all, jurisdictions, transportation agencies have potential liability for claims of alleged negligence in the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of state and local roads. These claims can include allegations that roadside safety hardware was improperly designed, installed, or maintained.  

The complex processes for testing and approval of roadside safety hardware add an extra level of complexity to evaluating potential liability and defenses to liability in the event of tort claims relating to the safety hardware.  

An analysis of liabilities on claims alleging deficient or defective roadway safety hardware, and defenses to such actions, would be of value to transportation agencies and the attorneys that defend them.

The objective of this research is to produce a report that includes a description of the liability that applies to parties involved in the design, manufacture, testing, certification, and installation of roadside safety hardware. These parties include state and local transportation agencies, the relevant federal highway entity, installation contractors, testing facilities, designers, and manufacturers.  ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2023 21:19:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2209730</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Problems Arising out of Highway Programs. Topic 24-03. Guidelines for Drafting Liability Neutral Transportation Engineering Documents</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1889493</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this research is to produce a style and drafting guide that may be used as a practical resource for researchers, practitioners, and those who implement safety projects. This guide would address how to avoid concepts and language that can have legal implications by promoting clear, direct, objective, and fact-based expressions. This guide should be developed through research by lawyers who have a background in tort liability involving organizations that use engineering documents to design, construct, and/or maintain facilities, products, or systems that are often the subject of tort claims. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2021 14:29:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1889493</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Problems Arising out of Highway Programs. Topic 26-04. Pandemics and Contractual Issues</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1889477</link>
      <description><![CDATA[During the COVID-19 pandemic, many transportation departments and authorities and their contractors and consultants looked to the force majeure provisions of their contracts to determine what conditions or terms would govern their performances; what risks and obligations would be upheld; and what potential waivers would apply. The purpose of this project is to research the legal impacts that transportation agencies can expect to have as a result of an extremely unusual occurrence when the nature of the occurrence (e.g., a pandemic) is not specifically identified in contractual force majeure provisions; and the sufficiency or reasonableness of consequences for noncompliance with contract performance levels and with risk transfers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to produce a legal research digest that addresses the following questions:
1.    What are typical force majeure provisions and conditions in transportation construction, maintenance or toll road operation contracts? How did they apply to government mandated and imposed quarantine and business disruptions caused by the 2020/21 COVID-19 pandemic?  
a.       If force majeure clauses do apply, what are the key criteria and circumstances that weighed in favor of the conclusion that force majeure applies?
b.       If force majeure clauses do apply, what performance, time of completion, and financial provisions in the contracts are affected for each side (i.e., the transportation agency and the contractor) and how would these provisions be affected?
c.       If a contractor asserts or could assert force majeure as a basis for non-compliance with performance or financial provisions in a transportation contract, what defenses or remedies could a transportation agency assert to counter the claim of force majeure?
d.       If a transportation agency asserts or could assert force majeure, and a contractor opposes the application of force majeure, what are the best legal arguments to make in support of the declaration of force majeure?
 
2.    If the force majeure clause do not apply or fails to assert &ldquo;pandemic&rdquo;, what other language could be interpreted to be inclusive of a pandemic?
a.       If a transportation contract for construction, maintenance or operation of a transportation facility has no force majeure clause, and either a transportation agency or a contractor has a physical or financial shortfall in performance under the contract, how would the cost of the shortfalls be allocated to each side in the absence of the force majeure clause? 
 
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2021 22:18:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1889477</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Aspects of Transit and Intermodal Transportation Programs. Topic 20-02. 
Liability Insurance Issues for Transit Lawyers: A Primer</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1722784</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Many public transit agencies lack in-house staff with risk management and insurance expertise. It frequently falls to the agency's attorney to review, analyze, and provide advice on the type of insurance required by the agency’s contractors. Research is needed to aid public transportation attorneys in responding to legal issues involving risk management and insurance liability.

The objective of this project is to produce a primer on insurance issues for transit agencies that may operate bus, rail, paratransit, and other types of transit service. The primer will include best practices regarding the types of insurance that a public transit agency should purchase to ensure it is properly protected, including how to determine the appropriate policy limits, and the appropriate qualifications or ratings for insurance companies.
The primer will address issues related to: (1) The types of insurance to be required of the contractors. This will include insurance that will be required for construction projects (contracts with design professionals and general contractors), P3 projects, purchase of goods and other services, and contracts for private operators. Also, the types of insurance may include liability insurance, which may consist of general commercial liability insurance, vehicular liability insurance, property insurance, workers’ compensation and builder’s risk insurance. (2) Appropriate language to include in procurement documents and agreements with contractors regarding the policy limits, insurance company ratings, and self-insurance limits. (3) The types of insurance for agencies that operate interstate service. (4) What should be required in terms of certificates of insurance, including what kind of protection the public transit agency should expect to receive through certificates of insurance and what risks of liability the public transit agency may still have to accept. (5) What a public transit agency may reasonably request in terms of indemnification from its contractors. The primer should provide sample indemnification language for use by public transit agency attorneys for different types of contractors, including general contractors, consultants and other professionals. Also, sample indemnification language related to what the public transit agency should require in terms of insurance and indemnification from subcontractors should be included. (6) The types of insurance appropriate for smaller projects when the public transit agency wants to encourage participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises who may not be able to obtain insurance with larger policy limits.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:00:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1722784</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Aspects of Transit and Intermodal Transportation Programs. Topic 19-05. Legal Issues Surrounding Disasters and Evacuations</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1641378</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Facing increasing incidents of natural disasters, transit agencies are forced to address issues of resilience, evacuation, and recovery associated with those disasters. These issues are compounded by the important role of transit in emergency planning, including the evacuation of threatened populations within their service areas as well as those of other agencies under cooperative scenarios. Agencies must be prepared to execute emergency operations while simultaneously preserving their remaining equipment and infrastructure to facilitate recovery.
 
The objectives of this research are to identify and address legal issues related to:
(1) planning processes at the federal, state, and local levels; (2) resilience planning; (3) 
anticipation of equipment, supplies, and personnel needs within any response scenario; (4) 
cooperation and planning for cross agency and cross jurisdictional support; (5) cross jurisdictional issues related to evacuation from the agency service area; (6) cross jurisdictional issues related to cooperative evacuation operations in other service areas or even states; (7) the authority to undertake extended operations whether in an agency’s own service area or another’s; (8) liability issues related to non-traditional operations, particularly in support of other agencies (including pets, livestock, non-local movement); (9)
authority to expend funds in these operations; and (10) insurance for equipment used in evacuations, facilities subject to disaster damage, and personnel.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:03:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1641378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>