<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/common/TRIS Suite/feeds/RSS.aspx?s=PHNlYXJjaD48cGFyYW1zPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJzdWJqZWN0aWQiIHZhbHVlPSIxNzg3IiAvPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJkYXRlaW4iIHZhbHVlPSI3MzAiIC8%2BPHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9InN1YmplY3Rsb2dpYyIgdmFsdWU9Im9yIiAvPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJ0ZXJtc2xvZ2ljIiB2YWx1ZT0ib3IiIC8%2BPHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9ImxvY2F0aW9uIiB2YWx1ZT0iMTYiIC8%2BPC9wYXJhbXM%2BPGZpbHRlcnMgLz48cmFuZ2VzIC8%2BPHNvcnRzPjxzb3J0IGZpZWxkPSJwdWJsaXNoZWQiIG9yZGVyPSJkZXNjIiAvPjwvc29ydHM%2BPHBlcnNpc3RzPjxwZXJzaXN0IG5hbWU9InJhbmdldHlwZSIgdmFsdWU9InB1Ymxpc2hlZGRhdGUiIC8%2BPC9wZXJzaXN0cz48L3NlYXJjaD4%3D" 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>Designing Flexible Vehicle Efficiency Regulations for Light-Duty Vehicles</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2775563</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Improving the efficiency of the vehicle fleet and diversifying available vehicle technologies are critical strategies for strengthening transportation system resilience and reducing dependence on imported fuels. One type of public policy to achieve these goals is performance-based regulations, which act upstream in the supply chain by requiring vehicle manufacturers to meet a specified standard across a fleet. A key feature of modern vehicle regulations is the inclusion of flexible design mechanisms that allow manufacturers to choose among multiple compliance pathways. These mechanisms—such as credit trading and banking—are intended to reduce compliance costs and improve policy acceptability. However, despite their widespread use, there is limited systematic understanding of how these design features are defined, their rationale for implementation, and how they influence regulatory outcomes. This project will develop a comprehensive framework for understanding and designing flexible vehicle efficiency regulations. The work will identify flexible design mechanisms embedded in global vehicle efficiency regulations, analyze how different policy design features influence compliance costs and cost distribution across manufacturers, and provide policy-relevant guidance for designing efficient, durable, and adaptable vehicle regulations. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 15:23:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2775563</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Department of Vehicle Regulation Fraud Identification and Mitigation Study</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2768420</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Administrators in the Divisions of Driver Licensing (DDL), Motor Vehicle Licensing (DMVL), and Motor Carriers (DMC) lack sufficient time to research possible forms of fraud. Nevertheless, administrators are aware of various forms of fraud impacting the operations of each division. DDL has contended with the production of illegal driver’s licenses, while DMVL has confronted issues with rebuilt title fraud, use of fraudulent personal IDs to apply for certificates of title, and non-payment of motor vehicle registration fees, along with misused temporary tags and stolen vehicles. DMC has to negotiate challenges associated with International Registration Plan (IRP) credentialing fraud, use of counterfeit International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) decals, and underpayment/non-payment of Kentucky Weight Distance (KYU) taxes. Because these issues present a significant challenge to the Department of Vehicle Regulation (DVR), administrators need timely data-driven insights into the types of fraud occurring in areas over which DVR has statutory or regulatory responsibility.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 17:04:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2768420</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Changing Motor Carrier Safety and Credentialing Violations to Civil Penalties</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2768419</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers are often cited for tax, credentialing, and permitting violations even though they are generally the responsibility of the motor carrier. If convicted, drivers may have misdemeanor violations added to their criminal record. This dynamic creates confusion among CMV drivers and potentially results in hardship. It also makes it difficult to adjudicate violations fairly. A potential solution lies in reclassifying these violations as civil penalties. Before this could be done, however, the Kentucky Transportatin Cabinet (KYTC) needs to understand how other states approach the adjudication of CMV violations, determine the fiscal implications of fines and court fees, and a develop a proposed policy or legislative framework for enacting changes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 17:04:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2768419</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Enhancing Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety and Compliance: Evaluating The Aries Pilot and Illegal Bypass Behavior in Oregon</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2726122</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Illegal bypass of weigh stations and roadside inspection facilities poses a measurable safety and compliance risk within Oregon’s commercial motor vehicle (CMV) system. When vehicles evade inspection, potential violations such as overweight operations, equipment deficiencies, and hours-of-service noncompliance may go undetected, increasing crash exposure and infrastructure damage risk. Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT’s) Commerce and Compliance Division (CCD) currently lacks a standardized, integrated methodology to quantify illegal bypass behavior or link bypass events to inspection outcomes, crash involvement, and carrier safety history.
OBJECTIVES: This research will deliver to ODOT: (1) A standardized and replicable data integration framework linking ARIES pilot data with CCD inspection, violation, crash, and carrier safety records. (2) Measurable and trackable performance indicators to support ongoing internal monitoring of illegal bypass activity and automated enforcement effectiveness. (3) Quantitative analysis of the magnitude, characteristics, and safety implications of illegal bypass behavior in Oregon. (4) Evaluation of ARIES pilot impacts on compliance rates, inspection targeting efficiency, enforcement productivity, and CMV safety outcomes. (5) Implementation guidance and best-practice recommendations to inform strategic investment decisions, future site deployments, and FMCSA Innovative Technology Deployment (ITD) funding applications.
This research will strengthen ODOT’s ability to detect and deter illegal bypass behavior, directly advancing Oregon’s transportation safety goals. By integrating ARIES data with inspection and crash records, CCD will be able to target high-risk vehicles more effectively, reduce unnecessary inspections of compliant carriers, and improve enforcement productivity. The project supports ODOT priorities related to Safety, Innovative Technologies, Process Improvement, and Stewardship of Public Resources by providing measurable evidence to guide enforcement modernization.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 17:24:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2726122</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Applying Telematics Data to Support Traffic Enforcement</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2720301</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Telematics is increasingly used to help traffic enforcement shift toward data-driven, risk-based, and preventive safety interventions. Telematics systems collect data such as vehicle speed, acceleration, braking, cornering, location, time of day, and sometimes phone distraction indicators. In a traffic enforcement context, this data can support hotspot identification and targeted enforcement deployment. Relevant traffic enforcement applications include: 1. Speed management - telematics can reveal where speeding is routine, not just where crashes have already occurred. This is especially useful on arterials, rural roads, school zones, and work zones. 2. Distracted driving risk - mobile-device telematics can indicate patterns of phone interaction while driving. This is better suited for network-level risk mapping than individual citation issuance. 3. Commercial fleet compliance - fleet telematics can support internal safety management, identify repeat risky driving behavior, and guide employer-based interventions. 4. Work-zone safety - telematics can help detect excessive speeds near work zones and support placement of speed safety cameras or police presence.

The Governors Highway Safety Association has recently promoted a shift toward using anonymized, aggregate telematics insights to identify risky conditions before crashes occur, such as repeated high-speed driving through school zones or distraction on rural roads.

Research is needed to develop a better understanding of the application of telematics data to support traffic enforcement.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this research are to: Document the existing state of knowledge regarding the application of telematics data to support traffic enforcement; Assess pilot projects underway in various states; Assess primary issues and unintended consequences, and propose measures states can take to manage risks; Develop a guide for state highway safety and other state agencies indicating (1) how they can use this technology to promote traffic safety and (2) recommendations for standardizing the use of telematics data to meet user needs; Propose a study design for use in potential future BTSCRP research to address knowledge gaps.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 20:00:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2720301</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Cybersecurity Analysis to Support Secure Transportation Cyber-Physical Systems</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2696948</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project is designed to strengthen transportation cybersecurity in an era where artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled and AI-enhanced cybercrime is increasingly capable of scaling deception, automation, and attack sophistication against cyber-physical systems. The project builds directly on the team’s prior legislative gap analysis and the development of TraCR AI, a retrieval-augmented large language model that helps transportation officials and policy makers identify applicable legal obligations and compare regulatory approaches across jurisdictions. The central technical contribution is the development and testing of a modular defensive wrapper for transportation-focused large language model (LLM) and retrieval augmented generation (RAG) tools, intended to detect and mitigate adversarial attacks that exploit legal reasoning systems and to support a testbed for LLM-targeted cybercrime scenarios. In parallel, the project includes legal and policy research that assesses gaps in US frameworks for addressing AI-enabled cybercrime and draws on international examples to inform best practices for governance, enforcement, and secure deployment. The overall objective is to produce deployable defenses and practitioner-facing guidance that improve trustworthiness in AI-assisted compliance and policy analysis for critical transportation infrastructure.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 16:33:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2696948</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Regulatory Assessment for Remote Assistance and Remote Driving</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2664622</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Automated driving systems (ADS) may rely on assistance from remote users. This operation may take the form of remote assistance, also referred to as teleassistance, where a remote user provides strategic advice to an ADS encountering a situation it cannot manage. In other instances, it may take the form of remote driving, also referred to as teleoperations or remote operations, where the remote user performs some or all of the real-time dynamic driving task (DDT) including braking, steering, acceleration, and transmission shifting. 

Although these technologies are actively in use, there is little understanding of the technological, operational, and legal challenges associated with their use from a government perspective. There are no standards governing minimum performance requirements of these systems such as minimum latency, network uptime, operator response time, minimum staffing levels, and remote user training standards. 
Many state ADS laws do not address remote users, and when they do, they merely require a valid license. Additionally, no state currently requires ADS to disclose to passengers when they are being controlled by remote drivers. 

Given the unknowns and potential safety concerns, more information is needed that can be used to develop more receptive regulations and standards, as well as better awareness of passengers utilizing these technologies
         ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 17:28:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2664622</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic 57-20. Practices Related to Offroad Vehicles Sharing the Road, Path, and Trail</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2630494</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Preliminary Scope: In many rural areas, offroad and special purpose vehicles [e.g., all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), utility task vehicles (UTVs), four-wheelers, golf carts, and dirt bikes] share the roadway with cars and trucks. These vehicles also share trails and paths with pedestrians and cyclists. Users of offroad vehicles may be unaware of how they can legally mix with existing traffic on roads, paths, and trails. There is a gap in knowledge about how state departments of transportation (DOTs) manage offroad vehicles and the challenges these vehicles may pose.

The objective of this synthesis is to document state DOT practices for offroad vehicles on roads, paths, and trails. Information to be gathered includes (but is not limited to):
(1) Current state laws or regulations governing the registration and operation of offroad vehicles on different classifications of roadways, paths, and trails; (2) Data utilized by state DOTs to determine ownership/usage rates and safety issues; and (3) State DOT coordination with local jurisdictions.

Information will be gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and follow-up interviews with selected DOTs for the development of case examples. Information gaps and suggestions for research to address those gaps will be identified.

Information sources (partial): (1) Utah Street-Legal OHV Requirements, Utah Division of Motor Vehicles website; (2) Off-Highway Vehicles on Roads, Consumer Federation of America website; (3) Case Studies of Communities of Less than 10,000 People with Bicycle & Pedestrian Infrastructure, Western Transportation Institute, 2022; (4)        Development of Strategies for Shared Use of Roadways between ROV/ATV and Typical Highway Vehicles, South Dakota Department of Transportation, Research in Progress; (5)
Documenting the Characteristics of Traffic Crashes for RITI (rural, isolated, tribal, and indigenous) Communities in Idaho, National Institute for Advanced Transportation Technology, 2020; (6) Safety Evaluation of Statewide Off-Highway Vehicle Use in Alaska: Crash Review, On- and Off-road System Use, and Conflict Evaluation, Pacific Northwest Transportation Consortium, 2018.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 03:51:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2630494</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Aspects of Airport Programs. Topic 18-01. Legal Responsibilities Arising Out of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Air Carrier Access Act</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625813</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) ensure the rights and accommodations of individuals with disabilities in the United States. The ADA provides a comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including in employment, public accommodations, and transportation. The ACAA addresses the rights of passengers with disabilities in air travel and requires airlines to accommodate the needs of these individuals.    

Airlines and airports play critical roles in implementing these laws. Airlines are responsible for ensuring that their services, from booking to boarding, are accessible, while airports must provide accessible facilities. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) also have regulatory authority over air travel, including consumer protections, safety, and operational standards. While FAA's primary focus is on safety and efficiency of the national airspace system, it plays a supporting role in ensuring compliance with accessibility standards through various policies and guidance. It includes collaboration with the DOT, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and other agencies to ensure that regulations and guidance related to disability accommodations are upheld. However, the intersection of the ADA and ACAA can create challenges, as the ADA covers public spaces such as airport terminals, and the ACAA governs the treatment of passengers by airlines within the airport terminal.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to examine the legal obligations for airports and airlines arising out of the ADA and the ACAA, including accommodations for visible and invisible physical and mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:04:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625813</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Aspects of Airport Programs. Topic 18-02. Role of Legal Counsel During an Airport Emergency</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625812</link>
      <description><![CDATA[All airports face risks from emergencies, whether man-made, mechanical, or natural. While 14 C.F.R. Part 139 Airports are required to establish an Airport Emergency Plan to address at least nine types of emergencies, some airports also create emergency plans to manage and plan for their response. The role of the Airport’s legal counsel in the AEP should be examined at various airports, considering steps airport legal counsel can take preparing, responding, recovering from major emergencies to support prompt emergency response and mitigate liability and risk to the airport.  

OBJECTIVE: The report will provide analysis to explain the legal requirements for an Airport Emergency Plan (AEP) under 14 C.F.R. Part 139, identify other statutes and regulations that create responsibilities for emergency response outside of 14 C.F.R. Part 139, as well as other emergency plans airports implement. Additionally, it should evaluate tools an airport legal counsel can utilize, both in terms of emergency planning and conducting typical airport business to help manage potential risks during an emergency. It should discuss the roles of legal counsel and resources they can utilize during and immediately following the initial response and examine the benefits and drawbacks to these approaches. The report should include two or three case studies that explore whether and how legal counsel supports the Airport in responding to and recovering from an emergency.

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 15:52:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625812</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Aspects of Airport Programs, Topic 18-04. The Changing Landscape of Environmental Reviews under NEPA for Airports</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625811</link>
      <description><![CDATA[ACRP Legal Research Digest 22: The Role of the Airport Sponsor in Airport Planning and Environmental Reviews of Proposed Development Projects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Mini-NEPA Laws (2014) explored legal issues in fulfilling requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Over the last decade, significant changes to NEPA have affected these practices. 
Prior to 2025, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and airports utilized the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations to review projects subject to NEPA. In 2024 in Marin Audubon Society v. FAA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the CEQ regulations ultra vires, and in 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the U.S. Supreme Court held that agencies’ determinations related to the boundaries of environmental review are entitled to substantial deference, and clarified that reasonably foreseeable effects close in time and space to the project being reviewed are subject to the agency’s regulatory authorities. 
In February 2025, the CEQ regulations were fully rescinded. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued Order 5610.1D, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, and the FAA issued Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures. Additionally, the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act amendments to NEPA and the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act resulted in significant changes to agencies’ historical NEPA practices.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this research include the following: Provide an overview of how Section 743 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 intersects with FAA’s NEPA obligations (e.g., segmentation, connected actions); Summarize the major changes in statutory and regulatory requirements, and address how these changes interplay with state and local environmental laws; and Provide strategies for integrating local, state, and federal planning and environmental and permitting requirements to facilitate expedited project delivery. 
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 15:14:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625811</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Implications for Permitting Airport Service Providers</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625810</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Airlines and other airport aeronautical tenants often contract with airport service providers, or third party contractors, for a variety of services that are integral to their operations, including ground handling (above and below the wing,) aircraft cabin cleaning, catering, etc. Many of these third party contractors do not have a direct contractual relationship with the airport operator, but serve one or more of the airport’s aeronautical tenants. Airport operators take varying approaches to addressing risk associated with the activities of these service providers, which can range from hands-off to complex permitting programs and everything in between. Whether the airport relies on agreements with the aeronautical tenants receiving the third-party services by issuing permits to third party contractors, imposing rules and regulations, etc., each approach poses different legal issues and potential liability.

OBJECTIVE: The report will discuss the different approaches for addressing risk to the airport operator when permitting airport aeronautical tenants to contract with airport service providers, and the legal implications related to indeminifciation, insurance rquirements, operating standards, and other approaches for managing risk. While the legal implications of permitting airport aeronautical tenants to contract with airport service providers, or third-party contractors, are multifaceted, and the report will focus on the relationship between the airport service proivder and the airport operator. The report should include examples  of the different approaches used in the industry, with sample language from contracts, permits, rules & regulations, etc.

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 14:57:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625810</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>Model as a Legal Deliverable: Exploring the Technological, Implementation, and Legislative Pathways for ODOT
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2617997</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) currently has no process in place to allow for the delivery of Building Information Modelling (BIM)  models as part of the project contract, nor does ODOT have a full grasp of all the regulations or codes that exist in Ohio that may prevent or support this process. While ODOT develops 2D/3D models for design, that data is used to create traditional (2D) plan sheets and supplemented with extensive documentation before being provided as reference information on a construction contract. The contractor then uses the design information from the plan sheets which are the contract document and will generate a new 2D/3D model to be used to understand construction needs and for their due diligence, usually at a cost to ODOT. With new technology and the implementation of BIM for Infrastructure strategies, there is an opportunity to streamline processes, enhance collaboration, and improve design/construction accuracy through the development and delivery of model-based deliverables. Other states have already begun adopting BIM models as legal deliverables and have demonstrated the benefits of native model-based and advanced digital delivery processes.

There is a pressing need to modernize ODOT's approach to model deliverables to keep pace with technological advancements and industry standard practices. Research is needed to provide a comprehensive analysis of benefits and challenges associated with adopting a model-based approach.  The goal of this study is to determine the feasibility and implications of adopting a model as a legal deliverable approach for transportation projects in Ohio. 
                       ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2025 14:22:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2617997</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Laws, Ordinances, and Practices Related to All-Terrain Vehicles and Utility Task Vehicles</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2593923</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Researchers will examine on-road allowances of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and utility task vehicles (UTVs) in Illinois per county as well as analyze other state’s practices. They will develop a report that may be presented to legislators that provides the risks and potential benefits of allowing ATVs and UTVs on roadways. The research will allow Illinois Department of Transportation to make better policy decisions as well as reduce fatalities and injury crashes associated with ATVs and UTVs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 10:08:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2593923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>