<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>Optimal scheduling of random breath and mobile drug testing</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2441518</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper proposes a strategic day-to-day RBT and MDT scheduling method to improve drink driving and DUI general deterrence. The RBT and MDT scheduling is formulated as a constrained optimisation program that addresses where and when the tests should start and end. The objective goal reflects the perceived omnipresence of RBT and MDT and improvement in road safety. The constraints account for location capacity and equipment workforce requirements. In addition, the method ensures the tests are unpredictable, unavoidable and ubiquitous. The method results in a cost- effective deployment of RBT and MDT tailored for different locations and times. The paper draws out the implications for operations guidelines of RBT and MDT in Australia. The paper contributes to the data-driven development of a unified and systematic framework that efficiently connects high- level road safety goals to operations of RBT and MDT with limited enforcement resources to reduce road trauma and DUI-related accidents on roads.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:32:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2441518</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A qualitative study of the first COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: The impact on alcohol consumption and driving behaviours</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2399368</link>
      <description><![CDATA[COVID-19 influenced life in a multitude of ways beyond immediate health impacts. This included driving behaviors. People drove less often during the early months of the pandemic, yet crash rates increased. There were reports of increased alcohol consumption during this same time which was considered to impact on driving behaviors such as drink driving. This study explores the thoughts and opinions of Queensland, Australian drivers (n = 798) concerning driving behaviors, alcohol consumption, and drink driving behaviors during the early phases of the pandemic (April – August 2020). Participants responded to qualitative questions in online questionnaires over three phases that prompted thoughts in these domains. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model was found to explain participants’ comments with the six layers seeming to impact driving, alcohol consumption, and drink driving behaviors. That is, these behaviors were influenced at an individual level (e.g., coping mechanisms), the microsystem level (e.g., reduced opportunities for socialization), the mesosystem (e.g., work demands impacting family), the exosystem (e.g., large scale random breath testing was suspended and road police deployed to border control), the macrosystem (e.g., Australian drinking culture), and the chronosystem (the pandemic). Understanding the perspectives of individuals during a sudden shift in life caused by COVID-19 highlights the broader impact of the pandemic on people’s behaviors. In addition, this study also provides important insights into the intricacies of driving, drinking and drink driving behaviors. These understandings can inform future research and countermeasures to prevent these risky behaviors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:27:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2399368</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How do perceptions of procedural justice, police legitimacy, and legitimacy of laws influence intentions to drug drive?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2395903</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There is a need for improved drug driving enforcement to promote greater driver compliance with drug driving laws. In Australia, Roadside Drug Testing (RDT) suffers from operational challenges that undermine its effectiveness in reducing drug driving. Objective: To identify potential improvements to RDT, this study investigated the extent to which drivers perceive RDT to be procedurally just and that the policing of drug driving and the associated laws are legitimate. These perceptions were then compared with those applying to Random Breath Testing (RBT) and examined in relation to their respective influence on intentions to drug and drink drive in the future.  A sample of 1,483 licensed drivers from three Australian states completed an online survey.  Those participants who reported engaging in drug driving perceived RDT to be less procedurally just than non-drug drivers. Similarly, drug drivers perceived the police and associated drug driving laws to be less legitimate than non-drug drivers. Furthermore, drug drivers who had been tested at an RDT operation in the past perceived RDT to be less procedurally just and considered drug driving policing and laws to be less legitimate, compared with the corresponding perceptions of drink drivers who had been tested at an RBT operation. A regression analysis indicated that stronger intentions to drug drive in the future were associated with lower perceptions of police legitimacy and the legitimacy of drug driving laws, but not with the elements of procedural justice. However, follow-up analyses indicated that the influence of procedural justice on intentions was mediated by the two legitimacy variables, thus weakening its direct impact on intentions.  The results highlight the need for road safety authorities to enhance the perceived legitimacy of drug driving enforcement and associated laws. Changes to current police practices and/or drug-driving laws may also be needed to enhance the effectiveness of RDT.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:27:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2395903</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Scheduling optimisation of alcohol test sites</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2387425</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Drink driving is an infamous factor in road crashes and fatalities. Alcohol testing is a major countermeasure, and random breath tests (RBTs) deter tested drivers and passersby (observers who are not tested). The authors propose a genetic algorithm (GA)-based RBT scheduling optimization method to achieve maximal deterrence of drink driving. The RBT schedule denotes the daily plan of where, when, and for how long tests should occur in the road network. The test results (positive and negative) and observing drivers are considered in the fitness function. The limited testing resource capacity is modeled by a number of constraints that consider the total duration of tests, the minimum and maximum duration of a single test site, and the total number of test sites during the day. Clustering of the alcohol-related crash data is used to estimate the matrix for drink driving on the scheduled day. The crash data and traffic flow data from Victoria, Australia are analyzed and used to describe sober/drink driving. A detailed synthetic example is developed and a significant improvement with 150% more positive results and 59% more overall tests is observed using the proposed scheduling optimization method.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:16:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2387425</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The self-reported psychosocial and legal factors contributing to drink and drug driving</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2256411</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Drug driving is recognized as a major road safety problem in many countries. In Australia, the primary response to this problem involved the adoption of roadside drug testing (RDT), which was modelled on the policies and practices used to conduct random breath testing (RBT) for alcohol. However, there remain important differences in the way that RDT and RBT are conducted, which might produce differential effects on drug and drink driving behavior. In addition, various psychosocial factors are known to influence the two behaviors. Thus, there is a need to investigate the relative influence of legal and psychosocial factors on drug driving and explore how they may be similar or different to drink driving. Accordingly, this study utilized Deterrence Theory and Akers' Social Learning Theory, augmented by measures of dependence and a range of psychosocial factors, to examine the factors associated with self-reported drink and drug driving. An online survey was completed by 1394 licensed drivers from the three most populous states in Australia: Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Self-reported drink and drug driving became more likely as level of dependence increased. In relation to legal factors, direct experience of avoiding detection was the strongest predictor of self-reported drink and drug driving. Among the psychosocial factors, a significant positive relationship was found between holding favorable attitudes toward both drink driving and drug driving and self-reported behaviors. The findings suggest that applying legal sanctions in isolation without addressing the psychosocial rewards and punishments for the behaviors is not sufficient to reduce drug or drink driving. Future research should identify countermeasures that integrate deterrence and psychosocial principles in order to reduce these risky driving behaviors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2023 16:26:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2256411</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Optimising random breath and drug tests scheduling in networks</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2259792</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper presents a genetic algorithm (GA)-based approach to optimise the scheduling of breath and drug tests to maximise general deterrence and positive test results. Driving under influence is a major cause of road tolls, and roadside testing is a crucial countermeasure. The roadside tests deter potential offenders from further driving under influence of alcohol and illicit drugs and thus reduce related traffic accidents. First, we introduce the mathematical equations to formulate test scheduling as an integer programming problem, which is subject to constraints on working hours and the number of test sites. Then, we resort to using Genetic Algorithm (GA) as a heuristic optimization procedure. Temporal and spatial segments of testing are defined as genes and permutation and mutation are used to produce new generations. A fitness function is defined to take previous positive test results and captured traffic flows (as a proxy of general deterrence) into account. A number of hypothetical driving-under-influence scenarios are designed. We use numerical examples to demonstrate how the optimised testing (test locations, time and duration) outperforms randomly generated test schedules.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2023 11:29:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2259792</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Effects of interventions for preventing road traffic crashes: An overview of systematic reviews</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1956117</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Road traffic crashes (RTCs) are among the eight-leading causes of death globally. Strategies and policies have been put in place by many countries to reduce RTCs and to prevent RTCs and related injuries/deaths. In this review, the authors searched the following databases Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, and LILACS for reviews matching the inclusion criteria between periods January 1950 and March 2020. The authors did not apply language or publication restrictions in the searches. The authors, however, excluded reviews that focused primarily on injury prevention and reviews that looked at crashes not involving a motor vehicle. The authors identified 35 systematic reviews matching the inclusion criteria and most of the reviews (33/35) included studies strictly from high-income countries. Most reviews were published before 2015, with only 5 published between 2015 and 2020. Methodological quality varied between reviews. Most reviews focused on enforcement intervention. There was strong evidence that random breath testing, selective breath testing, and sobriety checkpoints were effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes and associated fatal and nonfatal injuries. Other reviews found that sobriety checkpoints reduced the number of crashes by 17% [CI: (- 20, - 14)]. Road safety campaigns were found to reduce the numbers of RTCs by 9% [CI: (- 11, - 8%)]. Mass media campaigns indicated some median decrease in crashes across all studies and all levels of crash severity was 10% (IQR: 6 to 14%). Converting intersections to roundabouts was associated with a reduction of 30 to 50% in the number of RTCs resulting in injury and property damage. Electronic stability control measure was found to reduce single-vehicle crashes by - 49% [95% CI: (- 55, - 42%)]. No evidence was found to indicate that post-license driver education is effective in preventing road traffic injuries or crashes. There were many systematic reviews of varying quality available which included studies that were conducted in high-income settings. The overview has found that behavioral based interventions are very effective in reducing RTCs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:14:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1956117</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The effectiveness of alcohol monitoring as a treatment for driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) offenders: A literature review and synthesis</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1905633</link>
      <description><![CDATA[ObjectiveThe advent of continuous, passive, transdermal alcohol-monitoring devices and portable breath-testing devices with cameras provides a more efficient and reliable method for controlling the impaired driving of driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offenders. The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive literature review and synthesis of the strategies, the obstacles and the effectiveness of implementing alcohol monitoring as a component of treatment for DUI offenders.MethodA formalized review of the existing literature was conducted including both peer-reviewed and gray literature resources. Professional association websites were also searched in an effort to seek information on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of alcohol monitoring as a strategy to treat DUI offenders. The review was guided by pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria that identified the scope and key terms to use when searching.ResultsThe literature shows that there is promising to strong evidence that alcohol monitoring is an effective component in treating DUI offenders and reducing recidivism rates. Alcohol ignition interlocks had the most studies (71 of the 131 articles identified in this review) and research shows that recidivism rates can be reduced by 50 to 90 percent for offenders while the interlock is installed. However, most ignition interlock studies are subject to sampling issues where participants are not randomly assigned to experimental and comparison groups. There is also evidence that alcohol monitoring is a key measure in 24/7 Sobriety Programs, in enforcing abstinence, and in overall alcohol treatment programs.ConclusionsTransdermal monitoring is generally effective in deterring offenders from drinking alcohol. Offenders who drink or are otherwise noncompliant are likely to be identified. Transdermal monitoring helps enforce abstinence, which in turn helps offenders quit drinking and go into a recovery stage, potentially creating long-term safety benefits for the community. Continuous transdermal monitoring is a more effective means of monitoring drinking than other techniques and technologies (e.g., self-report, periodic or random breath tests, patches, or urinalysis).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:28:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1905633</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Drink driving during the COVID-19 pandemic</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1839815</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, static roadside random breath testing (RBT) was temporarily suspended between 16 March and 12 June 2020 in Queensland, Australia. In addition to restrictions on travel and social interactions, this provided a unique opportunity to examine changes in drink-driving behaviour during and after a reduction in RBT operations in the community. Three cross-sectional surveys were disseminated at different time points to examine these differences. Over three surveys, 1,193 Queensland licensed drivers aged 18 years and over (M = 36.9, SD = 16.7) responded. While overall drink driving decreased over the three survey periods, there were groups where drink driving, or the intention to drink drive, increased over the same period. This could be expected as a result of community restrictions on socialising and travel behaviours. In each of the surveys, prior engagement in drink driving was the strongest predictor of intention to increase future engagement and actual engagement. These drink drivers were more likely aged 18-24 years, male, and held restricted licensure. Notably, a small number of participants who reported drink driving, and/or intention to drink drive during the survey period, reported not having engaged in this behaviour previously. This suggested an increased likelihood of drink drivers experiencing punishment avoidance which may promote future engagement in this behaviour. Despite a decrease in social opportunities to drink, and the suspension of highly visible roadside breath testing sites, drink driving persisted. This research highlights the importance of RBTs as a general deterrent for drink driving.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:26:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1839815</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Differences in the risk profiles of drunk and drug drivers: Evidence from a mandatory roadside survey</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1760908</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The study assesses the prevalence rates of alcohol- and drug-involved driving in Catalonia (Spain). Drivers were randomly selected for roadside testing using a stratified random sampling procedure representative of all vehicles circulating on non-urban roads. Mandatory alcohol and drug tests were performed during autumn 2017. A sample of 6860 drivers were tested for alcohol use, of these 671 were also tested for drugs. Standard procedures were employed by traffic officers to detect alcohol and drug use. Alcohol breath tests were performed with breathalyzer devices and on-site drug screening systems were used to test for drugs. The prevalence of alcohol use above the legal limit and drug use were 1.2% (95% CI: 0.9–1.5%) and 8.3% (95% CI: 5.8–11.2%), respectively. The most frequent drugs detected were THC (5.6%, 95% CI: 3.7–8.0%), cocaine (3.5%, 95% CI: 2.0–5.5%) and amphetamines (1.6%, 95% CI: 0.6–3.4%). Alcohol use was detected more frequently on conventional roads, at weekends and during night-time hours. Drug use was detected more frequently in young males during daytime hours. Driver risk profiles associated with alcohol use and drug use differ. Positive alcohol use is not a predictor of drug use when controlling for all other factors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:17:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1760908</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Does seeing it make a difference? The self-reported deterrent impact of random breath testing</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1751352</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Random Breath Testing (RBT) remains a primary method to both deter and apprehend drink drivers, yet a large proportion of road fatalities continue to be caused by the offense. Outstanding questions remain regarding how much exposure to RBT operations is needed to influence deterrence-based perceptions and subsequent offending.  Given this, licensed motorists (N = 961) in Queensland were recruited to complete a questionnaire either in the community (N = 741) or on the side of the road after just being breath tested (N = 243). Survey items measured different types of exposure to RBT operations (e.g., “seen” vs. “being tested”) and subsequent perceptions of apprehension as well as self-reported drink driving behaviors.  The key findings that emerged were: motorists were regularly exposed to RBT operations (both viewing and being tested), such exposure was not significantly correlated with perceptions of apprehension certainty, and a sizable proportion reported engaging in drink driving behaviors (e.g., approx. 25%), although roadside participants naturally reported a lower percentage of offending behaviors. Importantly, it was revealed that current “observations” of RBT was sufficient, but not actual levels of active testing (which needed to be doubled). Nevertheless, higher levels of exposure to RBT operations was found to be predictive of a lack of intention to drink and drive again in the future.  This paper suggests that mere exposure to enforcement may not create the intended rule compliance, and that the frequency of exposure is also essential for the roadside.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2020 10:11:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1751352</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Past Behaviours and Future Intentions: An Examination of Perceptual Deterrence and Alcohol Consumption upon a Range of Drink Driving Events</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1683768</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The threat of application of legal sanctions remains the prominent approach to reduce the prevalence of drink driving in a vast array of motoring jurisdictions. However, ongoing questions remain regarding: (a) the extent that such mechanisms impact upon offending behaviors, (b) the deleterious effect alcohol consumption has on decisions to drink and drive and (c) how best to operationalize (and measure) the concept of drink driving to enhance the accurate measurement of the dependent variable. This paper reports on an examination of 773 Queensland motorists' (across nine local government areas) perceptions of both legal and non-legal drink driving sanctions (as well as alcohol consumption) in order to gauge the deterrent impact upon a range of measures of drink driving: the driver thinking they are over the limit, the driver knowing they are over the limit, attempts to evade random breath testing, and intentions to re-offend. The sample completed an online or paper version of the questionnaire. The majority of participants reported “never” engaging in “possible” (74.5 %) or “acknowledged” (83.4 %) drink driving events, although a considerable proportion of the sample reported engaging in “possible” (25.5 %) or “acknowledged” (16.6 %) drink driving and attempting to evade RBT (18 %) events, as well as possible intentions to drink and drive in the future (22 %). Males were more likely to report such events. Perceptions of both legal sanctions (certainty, severity and swiftness) as well as non-legal sanctions (fear of social, internal or physical harm) were relatively high and consistent with previous research. Interestingly, non-legal sanctions were reported as stronger deterrents than legal sanctions. However, multivariate analysis revealed that legal deterrents had limited utility predicting offending behaviors, but rather, demographic characteristics (e.g., younger motorists, males) as well as risky drinking behavior were better predictors. In regards to intentions to offend, a past conviction for drink driving was also a predictor of re-offending. These results highlight the ongoing challenges of addressing the problem of drink driving and that some motorists: (a) have entrenched behavior and/or (b) make the decision to drink and drive before they are under the influence of alcohol.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2020 10:51:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1683768</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Comparison of International Drunk-Driving Policies and the Role of Drinking Patterns</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1524233</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Effective drunk-driving policies are not adopted consistently in many countries. To understand how drinking behaviors influence national drunk-driving policymaking, the associations between drunk-driving policies and country-level drinking volumes and patterns were examined. Data for 194 countries were obtained from the WHO 2012 Global Information System on Alcohol and Health. Country-level drinking behaviors were measured using average drinking volumes and patterns of drinking scores based on six attributes of risky drinking. Drunk-driving policies were categorized into preemptive measures (random breath testing, breath alcohol concentration limits for driving a vehicle, and sobriety checkpoints), penalties (community service, short- or long-term detention, fines, suspension or revocation of license, and vehicle impoundment), mandatory treatment, and ignition interlock. Data analysis was conducted in 2017. The percentages of each policy adoption were examined in countries with different drinking behaviors. The internal consistencies of preemptive measures were calculated using Cronbach’s α. A structural equation model was established to examine the associations between drinking behaviors and drunk-driving policy categories, after adjusting for national income levels and general alcohol policies. Mandatory treatment and preemptive measures were less commonly adopted than penalties were. The adoption of preemptive measures had a low consistency level, and the consistency level decreased with drinking pattern riskiness. Risky drinking patterns were negatively associated with mandatory treatment policy. Drinking patterns are associated with national drunk-driving policymaking. Accessible medical treatment and comprehensive preemptive measures should be advocated in countries with risky drinking patterns.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 12:14:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1524233</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>‘Zero Tolerance’ Drug Driving Laws in Australia: A Gap Between Rationale and Form?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1528215</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Legislation in all Australian states and territories creates offences and provides for police roadside testing in relation to ‘drug driving’. Ostensibly motivated by the same road safety objectives and impairment paradigm as drink driving laws, drug driving laws adopt a significantly different approach. Whereas random breath testing tests for all forms of alcohol and is designed to determine whether there is a sufficient concentration of alcohol in the driver’s body that s/he should be deemed to be impaired, random drug testing typically tests for the presence of any quantity of only the three most widely used illicit drugs—cannabis, methamphetamine and ecstasy—in the driver’s oral fluids, without reference to what is known about the different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic qualities of different drugs. This article examines this idiosyncratic approach to the criminalisation of drug driving, highlighting its weak correlation with the important road safety objective of deterring substance-impaired driving, and the risks of both over- and under-criminalisation that it creates. It argues that public policy on the prohibition of certain drugs and the criminalisation of their use should be disentangled from public policy on impaired driving. It recommends that drug driving laws in all Australian jurisdictions should be brought back into line with drink driving laws, via legislation and testing practices that turn on substance-specific prescribed concentrations for all drugs (illicit and licit) that have the potential to impair drivers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:26:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1528215</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Modelling road safety in Australian states and territories</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1516994</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This Information Sheet describes modelling of road fatality rates for the eight Australian States and Territories, and fatality and injury rates for Australia as a whole. The models are constructed 1) to allow an understanding of the past forces underlying the fatality rates in each jurisdiction covered, and 2) to allow forecasts of future trends in road safety – or rather its obverse, death and injury. The major past influences lowering the road toll have been seat belt fitting and wearing, random breath testing, speed cameras, mobile drug testing, improvements in vehicles and infrastructure, and periods of economic uncertainty. In the future, the forecast is for flat fatality rates per vehicle kilometre (in the absence of new safety measures) and increasing vehicle kilometres, leading to increasing fatalities. This is especially so for States such as Western Australia and the Northern Territory, where traffic growth is expected to be greater than in the rest of Australia. Several measures that in the past have saved many lives each year (such as seatbelts) have limited capacity for expanded deployment. Improvements in vehicle and infrastructure safety are expected to be more than offset by increased car travel and distraction from mobile phones and other devices. New measures (such as photographic monitoring of mobile phone use, radical new vehicle safety technologies, enhanced speed, alcohol and drug enforcement, safety-targeted infrastructure improvements, etc.) will be required to offset the growth in fatalities associated with increased traffic volumes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:27:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1516994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>