<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.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>BTSCRP Research Report 5: Tracking Traffic Records Data: Challenges and Strategies for Success</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2678772</link>
      <description><![CDATA[To compare safety outcomes across jurisdictions, data must be consistently structured. Yet, in many parts of the United States, traffic records are collected and stored inconsistently, even within the same state, making cross-jurisdiction comparisons difficult or impossible. The ability of state and local highway officials to track traffic citations through the judicial process is critical to identifying high-risk drivers and supporting systemic safety improvement. The Transportation Research Board's (TRB’s) Behavioral Traffic Safety Cooperative Research Program (BTSCRP) Project BTS-04, published as BTSCRP Research Report 5: Strategies to Improve State Traffic Citation and Adjudication Outcomes, was launched to identify challenges and potential solutions in traffic records management and to produce a practical toolkit for agencies and states. This article summarizes the project’s background, methods, and key findings including strategies for transitioning to digital traffic-records systems.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 15:16:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2678772</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Strategies to Improve State Traffic Citation and Adjudication Outcomes</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2104527</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report provides an evidence-based approach to help states improve the tracking, sharing, communication, and accessibility of traffic citation data. The research team conducted a systematic review of current practices regarding state citation tracking efforts; identified methods to potentially improve data tracking, sharing, communication, and accessibility; and developed a set of practical deliverables including an interactive toolkit and a series of fact sheets. This report and the interactive toolkit will be of interest to state highway safety offices, traffic records officials, and other stakeholders concerned with improving the tracking, sharing, communication, and accessibility of traffic citation data.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2023 18:31:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2104527</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Électrification du parc d'équipements roulants gouvernemental</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2071832</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Le projet consiste à électrifier le parc d'équipements roulants du gouvernement du Québec, qui compte maintenant plus de 1 500 véhicules électriques. Les acquisitions de véhicules électriques (VE) requièrent la mise en place d'une infrastructure de recharge importante. Également, le Centre de gestion de l'équipement roulant (CGER) du ministère des Transports du Québec participe à différentes évaluations dont : les véhicules à hydrogène, la conversion à l'électricité de camionnettes et de camions électriques. L'électrification du parc de véhicules légers et de camions diminue les émissions des gaz à effet de serre, responsables du réchauffement de la planète. Elle permet également l'utilisation d'une énergie renouvelable. Ce projet permet aux ministères et organismes de diminuer leur consommation énergétique, mais également de favoriser l'émergence de solutions et de compagnies innovantes. Par l'avancement de l'électrification de son parc de véhicules, le Québec est un leader nord-américain. Cette démarche nécessite une collaboration de plusieurs parties prenantes, notamment pour le déploiement d'infrastructures de recharge. Il est pionnier dans l'expérimentation de véhicules à hydrogène et collabore avec des chercheurs universitaires afin de maximiser les apprentissages. L'atteinte des cibles ambitieuses d'électrification du parc de véhicules du gouvernement du Québec montre l'exemple aux autres gestionnaires de parc de véhicules et entreprises. Cette démarche démontre aussi la faisabilité technique et opérationnelle d'un tel projet. Le CGER participe à différentes tribunes pour partager cette expérience et est souvent sollicité par différents gestionnaires de parc afin de bénéficier de conseils en la matière.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2022 14:16:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2071832</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Commercial Driver’s License Prosecution, Adjudication, and Data Transmission</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1841165</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Kentucky Transportation Center research team examined law enforcement and adjudication of traffic offenses committed by commercial driver’s license holders. The objectives were to identify states that would provide the data, collect information about their court systems, analyze enforcement and/or adjudication data, and make some general observations about trends. Many state agencies were not able to provide their traffic offense data and therefore, the team focused primarily on data from Kentucky and Washington State. The study focused on enforcement trends and adjudication of safety-related offenses. Overall, conviction rates remain higher than dismissal and amended rates. In recent years, dismissal and amended rates have increased faster than conviction rates. This concerning trend increases the chances that traffic safety could be negatively impacted from reduced CMV driver compliance. Among traffic violations, conviction rates remain higher for minor traffic infractions than criminal traffic violations. However, lagging conviction rates for both traffic infractions and criminal traffic violations continue to raise potential safety concerns.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:05:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1841165</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Properly and Effectively Adjudicating Drugged Drivers: The Development of Online Curricula</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1566026</link>
      <description><![CDATA[As law enforcement and prosecutors increasingly bring drugged driving cases to court, judges need to understand the current status of research in this field and to increase public safety by applying effective sentencing parameters and evidence-based sentencing practices. The availability of training in drugged driving adjudication has varied among states and some training, such as in-person courses, can be costly and require out-of-state travel, limiting judges’ participation. In order to expand access to such training, the National Judicial College (NJC) produced a six-week online blended learning course for judges across the country on the topic of drugged driving with financial support from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (AAAFTS). A “blended” program is one that combines live faculty-led sessions with corresponding periods of self-study. The AAAFTS also funded the tailoring of the judges’ curriculum for an online drugged driving course for prosecutors, which was produced by the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA). The current report describes the process through which the curriculum and related materials were developed for the judges’ course and tailored for the prosecutors’ course. An overview of a pilot for the judges’ course, along with the outcomes of a course evaluation, are also provided.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:21:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1566026</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Department of Homeland Security: Components Could Improve Monitoring of the Employee Misconduct Process</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1539555</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Department of Homeland Security (DHS) component agencies U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) are responsible for securing the nation’s borders, enforcing immigration laws, and overseeing the security of transportation systems. Recent studies of these components’ employee misconduct investigation and disciplinary processes have highlighted the importance of having appropriate internal controls. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to review CBP, ICE, and TSA employee misconduct investigation and adjudication processes. This report (1) summarizes data on misconduct cases that were opened from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 and closed by the time of GAO’s review; (2) examines the extent to which CBP, ICE, and TSA implement internal controls in their employee misconduct and discipline processes; and (3) assesses how CBP, ICE, and TSA monitor the performance of their employee misconduct processes. For each component, GAO reviewed policies, guidance, and timeliness performance reports; analyzed case management information system data; and interviewed officials involved in investigation and adjudication processes. GAO is making 18 recommendations for CBP, ICE, and TSA to strengthen their employee misconduct internal controls and improve monitoring of the timeliness of the employee misconduct process. DHS concurred with GAO’s recommendations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:16:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1539555</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Tracking State Traffic Citation and Adjudication Outcomes</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1492254</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this research was to develop a methodology that enables and facilitates tracking of cases from citation/arrest to final disposition. The research (1) examined and documented state traffic adjudication/disposition efforts that (a) identifies current practices in all states for tracking cases from citation/arrest to final disposition (including driver history); (b) identifies commonalities and differences in state practices; (c) describes current challenges and gaps in data collection, quality, tracking, and sharing; (2) suggested methods for data sharing, permissions, and accessibility; and (3) developed a toolkit of innovative strategies to facilitate communication between state highway safety offices and adjudication decision makers.
 
Completed. The final report is available here: 
https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/182903.aspx]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:27:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1492254</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Digest of Impaired Driving and Selected Beverage Control Laws. Thirtieth Edition. Current as of December 31, 2015</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1488603</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This digest reports the status of State laws concerned with impaired driving offenses and alcoholic beverage control for all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. It is designed to be an easily accessible reference to all States’ current laws on alcohol and other issues related to impaired driving. The digest contains a selection of the most important laws pertaining to impaired driving. Each State entry includes: Basis for a DWI Offense; Chemical Breath Tests for Alcohol; Adjudication of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Charges; Sanctions; Pre and Post DWI Conviction Administrative Licensing Actions; Ignition Interlock; Sobriety Checkpoints; Homicide by Vehicle; DWI Offenses and Commercial Motor Vehicles; Driving While License Suspended for DWI; Habitual Traffic Offender Law; Other State Laws Related to Alcohol Use, including Minimum Age Alcohol Laws; Dram Shop and Social Host Laws; Establishments Serving Alcohol; Happy Hour Laws; Open Container Laws; and Alcohol Exclusion Laws.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:31:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1488603</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ICAO Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Deepening the Current Framework in Lieu of a New One</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1483012</link>
      <description><![CDATA[For a number of reasons, member States of the International Civil Aviation Organization have been unwilling to use the dispute settlement mechanism established by the Chicago Convention.  However, this paper will propose improving the current framework by utilizing current tools offered by the Convention, thus avoiding the prolonged and costly process of amending the Convention or negotiating a new instrument.  By modifying its adjudicatory mechanism, ICAO will improve access to adjudication and introduce more transparency into the decision-making process.  The paper focuses on “deepening” the current legal framework, as opposed to creating a new one, allowing for more participants to weigh in on the final decisions of a dispute resolution process, and for trained jurists to produce judgments consistent with international law.  The primary goal of this improved mechanism is to induce more member States and third parties to litigate their disputes by using legal rather than diplomatic means of conflict resolution.  The paper first presents an overview of the current dispute mechanism and some of the building blocks that led to its adoption under the Chicago Convention.  Part II contains a discussion of how the international community currently deals with disputes that arise in the area of civil aviation.  Next, the paper argues how to use the current law to everyone’s advantage by creating an adjudicatory panel that will be responsible for both fact-finding and findings of law.  The paper concludes with a forecast that such a system will most closely resemble the adjudicatory process while retaining the sovereignty of individual members of ICAO.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:20:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1483012</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Liability Aspects of Pedestrian Facilities</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1473027</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In this article, the authors aim to assist state and local transportation agencies responsible for the construction and maintenance of sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities by addressing legal claims that relate to the these facilities. They also seek to address allegations of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and lawsuits related to noncompliant facility maintenance by government agencies. The article offers an analysis of legal issues in relation to ADA claims and an analysis of numerous tort claims. Additionally, the authors describe types of defenses to sidewalk claims frequently noted in plaintiffs' survey responses and in verdicts and settlements.They offer an analysis and summary of data from the formal survey conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute and recommend several risk management strategies as a result of their data and research.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:09:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1473027</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Program Derailed: The Inefficiencies of the Federal Railbanking Process, and How to Get It Back on Track</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1421366</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article describes railbanking, a process that allows inactive railroad corridors to be converted to recreational use (Rails-to-Trails) while preserving the railroads’ right to reactivate the rail corridors should the need arise in the future.  The author contends that the current system of rail-trail conversion is inefficient and that landowners may be penalized when the rights to their property do not revert to them after the railroad is done with the property.  The author synthesizes theories of law and economics, describes rail-train trends, and provides anecdotal highlights of particular projects, with the goal of pointing out flaws in the rail-trail conversion process.  Specific problems addressed include the current system of adjudicating landowners’ claims for rail-trail takings and inefficiencies that arise from cost externalization of takings liability. The author also offers recommendations for potential solutions to these problems.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:29:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1421366</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Universal jurisdiction as obligation to prosecute or extradite</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1411815</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Before searching for new legal solutions to manage maritime piracy problems, especially those related to jurisdiction, it is essential to examine and analyse the existing international legal framework to determine whether current international legal instruments are already appropriate to face off this threat. One such principle is the “Aut dedere aut iudicare” principle, which has been also codified into SUA Convention, at art. 6 par. 4. This obligation comes from an international treaty, so it cannot be disregarded by any state (short of becoming susceptible to international liability), neither can it be amended by a national law. If a state party has inadequate law resources to establish its jurisdiction, or if unable or unwilling to prosecute the pirate, then such state party has no choice but extradite the pirate. If we consider the above principle as a conventional obligation, then it should be limited only to state parties, and it should be applied only under conditions stated by SUA Convention. Instead, if we consider it as a customary law principle, because piracy—as crimen iuris gentium—offends international community as a whole, then such principle shall be binding without any limit or condition.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:48:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1411815</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The jurisdictional challenges to the prosecution of piracy cases in Kenya: mixed fortunes for a perfect model in the global war against piracy</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1411819</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Since 2008 Kenya has distinguished itself in the global war against piracy by undertaking prosecutions in the national courts of suspected pirates arrested in the high seas and handed over by navies of leading maritime nations under bilateral agreements (MOUs) entered into between Kenya and these leading maritime nations. As of July 2011, Kenya had over 20 convicted pirates serving jail terms ranging between 7 and 20 years and over 100 suspected pirates awaiting trial in national courts. This is the largest number of suspected pirates held and tried in any one state at any given time in modern history. To achieve this, Kenya had to effect far reaching changes in the law. In the initial stages, suspected pirates were charged under Kenya’s Penal Code (Cap 63 Laws of Kenya). However, the high court in the case of Re Mohamud Mohamed Dashi and eight others [2010] eKLR, ruled that Kenya had no jurisdiction to try suspected pirates under that law. In September 2009, Kenya passed a new law (the Merchant Shipping Act), which not only defined more comprehensively and extensively the offence of piracy, but also extended the jurisdiction of Kenyan courts to try piracy committed by non-nationals. Though the law gives Kenya a very broad jurisdiction to try suspected pirates, the process is still fraught with challenges due to lack of financial and human resources. In the case of Republic vs Hassan Jama Haleys Alias Hassan Jamal and five others [2010] eKLR, the court commented thus: “… I must note that the ‘piracy trials’ have presented a unique challenge to the Kenyan legal system. We cannot ignore the fact that these are suspects who having been arrested by foreign naval forces on the High Seas are brought to Kenya for trial. They are strangers in the country, do not understand the legal system, may not know what their rights are and do not understand the language… the Kenyan Government and the International partners supporting these trials put in place a system to provide free legal representation for the suspects…” This paper discusses Kenya’s new model legislation and argues that while the model faces challenges, it should be replicated by all member states of International Maritime Organization as it not only grants extra territorial jurisdiction to national courts but also domesticates comprehensively the relevant key provisions in the fight against piracy found in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Maritime Navigation (the SUA Convention), the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (the SOLAS Convention 1974), Code of Conduct Concerning the Repression of Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in the Western Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden (The Djibouti Code of Conduct), and the International Ship and Port Security Code (the ISPS Code). “In the 21st century more than ever before, no state can stand wholly alone. Collective strategies, collective institutions and a sense of collective responsibility are indispensable. The case of collective security today rests on three basic pillars. Today’s threats recognize no national boundaries are connected, and must be addressed at the global and regional as well as national levels” (UN 2005, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility—Report of the United Nations Secretary General High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. New York UN Publications).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:48:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1411819</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Digest of Impaired Driving and Selected Beverage Control Laws. Twenty-Eighth Edition. Current as of December 21, 2013.</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1409638</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This digest reports the status of State laws concerned with impaired driving offenses and alcoholic beverage control for all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. It is designed to be an easily accessible reference to all States’ current laws on alcohol and other issues related to impaired driving. The digest contains a selection of the most important laws pertaining to impaired driving. Each State entry includes: Basis for a DWI Offense; Chemical Breath Tests for Alcohol Concentration; Adjudication of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Charges; Sanctions; Administrative Licensing Actions; Ignition Interlock; Sobriety Checkpoints; Other Criminal Actions Related to DWI; DWI Offenses and Commercial Motor Vehicles; Driving While License Suspended or Revoked Where the Basis Was a DWI Offense; Minimum Age Alcohol Laws; Dram Shop Laws and Related Actions; Open Container Laws; and others.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:41:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1409638</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Digest of Impaired Driving and Selected Beverage Control Laws. Twenty-Ninth Edition. Current as of December 31, 2014.</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1409637</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This digest reports the status of State laws concerned with impaired driving offenses and alcoholic beverage control for all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. It is designed to be an easily accessible reference to all States’ current laws on alcohol and other issues related to impaired driving. The digest contains a selection of the most important laws pertaining to impaired driving. Each State entry includes: Basis for a DWI Offense; Chemical Breath Tests for Alcohol; Adjudication of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Charges; Sanctions; Pre and Post DWI Conviction Administrative Licensing Actions; Ignition Interlock; Sobriety Checkpoints; Homicide by Vehicle; DWI Offenses and Commercial Motor Vehicles; Driving While License Suspended for DWI; Habitual Traffic Offender Law; Other State Laws Related to Alcohol Use, including Minimum Age Alcohol Laws; Dram Shop and Social Host Laws; Establishments Serving Alcohol; Happy Hour Laws; Open Container Laws; and Alcohol Exclusion Laws.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:41:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1409637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>