I was a little slow to react to the recently published USDOT 2026 National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS). Many people have already written about its shortcomings and compared it with the 2022 version. To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement, and I will explain why. First, however, it is important to acknowledge that the goal itself remains worthy: reducing fatalities on our roadways. I especially appreciate the strategy’s emphasis on commercial motor vehicle safety, rural and Tribal communities, and vehicle technology.
So why am I disappointed?
My work on speed management and vulnerable road user (like bicyclist) safety at NTSB remains the highlights of my career. I have also spent years advocating for the Safe System Approach. Against that backdrop, I was struck by what appears to be a significant shift in emphasis within the 2026 NRSS. The words “speed” or “speeding” appear only three times. “Pedestrian” and “Safe System” each appear once. References to bicyclists are absent altogether. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but it is difficult not to view these omissions as a signal that many issues I have dedicated my career to addressing are no longer priorities.
That impression is reinforced by the recent removal of bicycle infrastructure and speed management tools from FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures list. Thankfully, NACTO makes resources for these “removed” proven countermeasures available. Having recently retired from FHWA Safety, I am honestly relieved that I was no longer in the office when those decisions were made. To many practitioners, these actions suggest a retreat from proven, evidence-based safety strategies.
I have written and spoken extensively about the importance of speed management. At its most basic level, fatalities and serious injuries result from the transfer of kinetic energy in a crash, and vehicle speed is one of the most important factors determining crash severity. When excessive speed is combined with the inherent incompatibility between a motor vehicle and an unprotected human being, poor injury outcomes become almost inevitable.
The NRSS rightly emphasizes vehicle technology, particularly technologies that prevent crashes from occurring in the first place. However, excessive speed undermines the effectiveness of advanced driver assistance systems and reduces the benefits of modern vehicle crashworthiness. At the same time, the strategy focuses heavily on protecting vehicle occupants while also calling for the removal of “vestigial, design-forcing rules.” This raises an important question: should advancing lifesaving technologies that detect and protect vulnerable road users really be considered an unreasonable burden?
The NRSS also calls for leveraging “next-generation technology” to reduce preventable roadway deaths. Yet many proven technologies available today remain far from widespread deployment. Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA), for example, has demonstrated effectiveness and is among the most deployment-ready in-vehicle safety technologies. NTSB has recommended ISA for both commercial and passenger vehicles for years. Similarly, impairment-detection technologies have shown considerable promise. How much longer must we wait before these technologies are broadly implemented?
More broadly, the 2026 NRSS signals a shift toward placing driver behavior at the center of the safety discussion. On the surface, driver behavior causes crashes. Beneath the surface, however, are the conditions that influence that behavior. Consider four major contributors to roadway fatalities: excessive speed, impairment, distraction, and seat belt nonuse. Education, outreach, and enforcement all have important roles to play, but their effectiveness is often overstated.
Of these four behaviors, excessive speed is the one most directly influenced by roadway design. Drivers naturally respond to the environments around them. For example, narrower lanes typically encourage lower operating speeds. As a result, roadway reconfigurations in locations with documented speeding problems can be highly effective, especially where excess roadway capacity exists. Likewise, context-sensitive speed limit setting that considers all road users has proven successful in reducing risk.
Unfortunately, the NRSS appears to move away from these strategies while reintroducing a stronger emphasis on mobility objectives, often framed as improving traffic flow and reducing congestion. History has repeatedly shown that prioritizing speed and throughput can come at the expense of safety. More often than not, raising speed limits or removing well-designed, properly implemented speed management measures does not reduce congestion. A driver would need to travel consistently and dangerously above the speed limit—and either hit every green light or run red lights—just to save a few minutes crossing town. In reality, the primary causes of congestion are poor land-use planning and an overreliance on private cars as the main mode of transportation. And what disrupts traffic most? Car crashes.
To its credit, the NRSS reaffirms the importance of strong safety laws and effective enforcement, particularly in the commercial motor vehicle sector. One significant opportunity lies in implementing the many open NTSB recommendations issued to FMCSA, such as those regarding new entrant motor carriers. Closing these long-identified safety gaps would yield meaningful benefits for the traveling public.
However, enforcement alone cannot solve the problem. Law enforcement resources are limited, and officers cannot be everywhere at all times. Like all people, they are also subject to human error. This reality underscores the need for technology-based solutions that can supplement traditional enforcement. Speed safety cameras are one proven example. When implemented properly, they act as a force multiplier, operate consistently, and can produce lasting changes in driver behavior. Excluding proven tools such as speed safety cameras from the national conversation is both shortsighted and counterproductive.
I could continue describing my concerns with the 2026 NRSS, but the central issue is clear. The strategy appears to move away from a full commitment to the Safe System Approach as the guiding framework for reducing roadway deaths. The strength of the Safe System Approach lies in its recognition that humans make mistakes. Rather than relying primarily on education, enforcement, and individual responsibility, it creates multiple layers of protection that make errors less likely and less severe when they do occur.
Over the past several years, the transportation safety community has made hard-won progress toward reducing roadway deaths and serious injuries. Reversing course now—by once again placing undue faith in perfect (and entirely unrealistic) human behavior—would squander that momentum and weaken the protections that save lives. This retreat is not only unnecessary; it risks making our roadways more dangerous and leading to more preventable deaths.
