Roadway Safety Modernization Act Pushes States to Use Predictive Tech to Find Dangerous Roads

The Roadway Safety Modernization Act of 2025 is trying to drag federal highway safety programs into the 21st century. Essentially, this legislation mandates that state transportation departments start using modern data tools—things like predictive analytics and telematics (fancy terms for using data science and GPS/sensor data to predict crashes before they happen)—when planning and funding road safety improvements.

This bill updates several existing programs, most notably the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and the National Highway Freight Program. For the HSIP, states are now required to incorporate these data systems into their safety planning, risk modeling, and annual reports. The goal is to move from reacting to crash data (fixing the road after people get hurt) to proactively identifying and addressing high-risk segments before the worst happens. This means your state DOT can now use federal dollars for the software and systems needed to spot that dangerous intersection before it earns its reputation.

The New Rules for Safer Roads

For the average commuter, this shift is huge. Right now, safety projects often rely on historical crash data—meaning someone had to get hurt there first. Under this Act, states must use these new tools to proactively model risk. Think of it like this: If you drive a truck for a living, this means the state should be able to use data from other commercial vehicles (telematics) to figure out that the curve on I-80 is particularly dangerous in the rain, even if a fatal crash hasn't happened there yet. The bill specifically allows federal funds to be used for the development, acquisition, and deployment of these safety data systems.

Crucially, the Act also introduces a new level of accountability. States must now evaluate their safety projects to assess their effectiveness at reducing crashes and compare the benefits of different safety strategies. This means they can't just throw money at a problem; they have to prove which fixes (like a new traffic light versus a roundabout) yield the greatest safety improvements. This is a solid win for taxpayers and road users, demanding proof of concept for every dollar spent.

Data, Freight, and Privacy

On the freight side, the bill integrates these data tools into the National Highway Freight Program, aiming to improve safety and planning for the movement of goods. It also directs the Federal Highway Administration to study the need for operating standards for “intelligent freight transportation systems”—a broad term that covers innovative tech and infrastructure like elevated freight facilities. This suggests a future where freight logistics are heavily reliant on real-time data to improve efficiency and safety, which could eventually mean less congestion for everyone else.

However, gathering all this data—from telematics, sensors, and other systems—raises the obvious question: what about privacy? The Act addresses this by directing the Secretary of Transportation to issue guidance within one year on best practices for anonymizing and securing data collected for highway safety purposes and protecting personally identifiable information. This is a critical provision because, without clear rules, the data collected from your car or truck could easily be misused or exposed. The guidance must also promote transparency and ensure that all these safety tools are based on “validated methodologies,” meaning they actually work and aren't just expensive guesswork.

The Fine Print: What Could Trip Up the System

While the intent is modernization, the bill relies heavily on vague terms that could cause implementation headaches for state governments. For example, states are only required to incorporate new data tools “to the extent practicable.” This wide-open language gives states significant wiggle room to delay or avoid implementing expensive new systems if they choose to. Furthermore, the effectiveness relies entirely on the DOT’s guidance on data security and the definition of a “validated methodology.” If that guidance is weak or inconsistent, we could end up with unreliable safety models and potential privacy risks, even with the best intentions.

Ultimately, this is a positive step toward using technology to make roads safer, but it places a significant new burden on state DOTs to upgrade their systems and reporting. For tech companies specializing in data analytics and telematics, this bill opens up a massive new market. For the rest of us, it means our tax dollars are supposed to be spent more intelligently on fixing the roads that kill or injure the most people—a welcome change if the states actually follow through.