<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>TESTING AGENCY VIEWS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488101</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Compliance testing by the criteria outlined in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 over the past three to four years has yielded experiences that are important to consider in evaluating the efficacy of the document.  Development and crash testing efforts at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's MidWest Roadside Safety facility have shown the need for both modification and clarification of current criteria.  This paper is primarily focused on the issues of construction practices and test evaluation, but considers these in terms of certification assessment of hardware during the approval process.  The discussion is divided into three topics:  (1) soil specification (with consideration of wood specification); (2) construction tolerance (compliance and installation); and (3) test evaluation and laboratory certification.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488101</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TESTING AGENCY VIEWS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488102</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The author reviews the history of guidelines for the testing of roadside appurtenances, concluding that, in general, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 is considered a very adequate document with specific requirements and detailed guidance which allows testing agencies to perform valid unbiased tests.  Attention is then given to the following topics:  tolerances and accuracy for test installations; documentation; soil conditions; test vehicles; occupant compartment deformation and intrusion; test article selection; and laboratory certification.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488102</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN ROADSIDE SAFETY TESTING PROCEDURES - HARDWARE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488103</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Testing procedures for roadside safety features is only one part of the integrated activities that result in a safety device being designed, developed, tested, evaluated, approved as acceptable highway hardware and implemented for use on the national highway system.  From the perspective of a hardware industry representative, addressing the concerns of the hardware industry requires looking at the whole design, development, testing, evaluation, approval, implementation and use process. The types of issues encountered by the hardware industry that reduce its ability to be successful include the following: developing products to pass new standards when the new standards are not enforced; developing products to standards that are vague or inconsistently interpreted; developing products that have short product lives due to further changes in the standards causing the products to become obsolete; and concerns that products will be misapplied and result in unacceptable performance, injuries, fatalities and product liability problems.  This presentation focuses on the key issues that affect these concerns and then breaks the issues down into specific categories.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488103</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HARDWARE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488104</link>
      <description><![CDATA[From the hardware industry perspective, since the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 has demonstrated that it is substantially more demanding in its safety requirements than its predecessor, NCHRP Report 230, no need is seen to make its requirements even more demanding than they are at present.  Also, since it has been adequately demonstrated during the past several years that "350" compliant products can be designed, successfully tested, certified and successfully used on our roadways, the hardware industry certainly does not favor any kind of reduction in safety requirements (or testing criteria) of NCHRP Report 350.  The industry does suggest that, in the interest of public safety, more stringent side impact protection in safety devices be developed and required for any modified "350" specification as it is considered for revision.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488104</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HARDWARE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488105</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In discussing the hardware industry perspective on roadside safety testing procedures, this presentation addresses the following questions:  What has National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 done for you?  Are the test criteria too severe?  Where are we deficient in our evaluation of current products?  At the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) discretion, manufacturers may and often are required to run non-standard tests before the "FHWA Approval Letter" will be issued - is this good practice?  And, in conclusion, are we headed in the right direction?]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488105</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN ROADSIDE SAFETY, WOODS HOLE, MASSACHUSETTS, JULY 27-30, 1997</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488088</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This workshop was intended to promote a dialogue on future directions in roadside safety among government officials, industry representatives, researchers, academics, and others. The strategies for improving roadside safety evolving from the efforts under National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 17-13, Strategic Plan for Improving Roadside Safety, were presented.  The need for improved standards for roadside safety features was the focus of the workshop. Workshop participants had the opportunity to raise questions about current standards, assess their relevancy, and propose improvements.  The results of this workshop will provide the basis for considering research efforts to be undertaken under NCHRP Project 22-14, Improvement of the Procedures for the Safety-Performance Evaluation of Roadside Features.  This circular is organized as follows:  Preface; Welcome, D.W. Dearasaugh, Transportation Research Board; seventeen presentations; Summary of Breakout Group Discussions; and Appendix A - Participant List.  The presentations are entered individually in the TRIS data base.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488088</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FORMULATING A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR IMPROVING ROADSIDE SAFETY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488089</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The process undertaken over the last two years that led to the strategic plan for improving roadside safety is summarized.  The five missions that are the basis of the plan are then described. Briefly stated, these five missions are:  (1) Increase the awareness of roadside safety and support for it; (2) Build and maintain the information resources and analysis to support routine improvement of roadside safety; (3) Keep vehicles from leaving the roadside; (4) Keep vehicles from overturning or striking objects on the roadside when they do leave the roadway; and (5) Minimize injuries and fatalities when overturns occur or objects are struck on the roadside.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488089</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TRANSLATING STRATEGIES INTO ACTIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488090</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A detailed example is provided to explain the process used to take a mission of the strategic plan for roadside safety improvement and narrow it down to specific actions.  The mission discussed is mission three - keep the vehicle on the roadway. The goals of mission three are:  (1) Improved highway designs that reduce the probability of vehicles leaving the roadway; (2) Improved traffic operating environment that reduces the occurrences of events contributing to loss of vehicle control and roadside encroachment; (3) Sufficient maintenance of highways and vehicles to reduce the probability of loss of vehicle control; (4) Improve vehicle-based systems to help keep drivers on the road; and (5) Improved driver performance and behavior.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488090</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IMPLEMENTATION AND RESEARCH NEEDS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488091</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In an effort to address the roadside safety problem, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program assembled a distinguished group of experts and charged them with the task of identifying ways to improve roadside safety.  In their deliberations, they formulated a vision, missions, goals, objectives, and actions for improving roadside safety.    The subdivision of the missions and goals into objectives, actions, and needs allows the roles of the various agents to be highlighted, action agendas formulated, and needs for research identified.  This presentation highlights some of the actions that can be effective, the implementation efforts that are necessary, and areas where research is needed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488091</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>UPDATING PROCEDURES FOR THE CRASHWORTHINESS EVALUATION OF HIGHWAY SAFETY FEATURES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488092</link>
      <description><![CDATA[An effort was recently initiated to update the procedures for the crashworthiness evaluation of highway safety features. Discussed here are the reasons this update was considered necessary, the concerns about the current procedures, other concerns of the state departments of transportation (e.g., costs), and the relevance issue.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488092</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WORK PLAN FOR UPDATING PROCEDURES FOR SAFETY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488093</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 22-14, Improvement of the Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Roadside Safety Features, research effort is divided into two phases and 10 tasks.  The project started in March 1997 and is proceeding as planned through the first phase of the work.  The task elements are described in this workshop presentation.  Briefly stated, the tasks are:  (1) literature review and contacts with safety professionals; (2) development of prototype methodology to assess the relevance of testing procedures; (3) assessment of updating needs and preparation of first interim report; (4) meeting with the project panel; (5) development of more detailed procedures for determining relevance; (6) preparation of "white papers"; (7) presentation of strategies for updating; (8) preparation of second interim report summarizing the findings of Tasks 5 through 7; (9) an outside review to solicit feedback on the proposed updates; and (10) preparation of a final report.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488093</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TESTING PROCEDURES: DEFINING AND MEASURING THE RELEVANCY OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488094</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In order to define and measure the relevancy of crash-testing procedures, we basically need to know three things about those procedures:  Are the procedures reliable?  Are they valid?  What are the consequences (marginal benefits and marginal costs) that flow from the procedures?  This workshop paper addresses these three questions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488094</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>REVIEW OF TEST MATRICES AND CONDITIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488095</link>
      <description><![CDATA[National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 contains recommended test matrices and impact conditions for evaluating the impact performance of roadside safety features. This paper focuses on related issues that may warrant consideration in future updates of these guidelines.  Specific areas discussed are, for impact conditions, impact speed, impact angle, energy considerations, accident data, and lateral offset relationship, and for test matrices, terminals/crash cushions (tests 30, 32, 33, and 39), terminals/crash cushions transition, truck mounted attenuators (tests 3-50, 52 and 53), optional tests, and side impact testing.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488095</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>OTHER SAFETY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488096</link>
      <description><![CDATA[With the publication of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 230 in 1981, an objective occupant risk criteria with processed vehicle acceleration values directly measured during crash test experiments became the primary evaluation criteria for pass-fail judgment.  The current NCHRP Report 350 (1993) retained essentially the same criteria in metric format.  Other evaluation criteria were included in these documents and are the focus of this paper.  There is some question about the relative importance and the priority for these many other criteria.  These criteria include structural adequacy; risk to vehicle occupants, following or adjacent traffic, pedestrians and construction workers from debris; passenger compartment deformation; and vehicle trajectory.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488096</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES FOR EVALUATING ROADSIDE SAFETY SYSTEMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/488097</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The performance of roadside safety devices has traditionally been evaluated through full-scale crash testing.  Although full-scale crash testing has proven to be an effective method of evaluating the impact performance of roadside safety systems, the associated high costs of research have severely limited development of new systems.  A number of alternative evaluation procedures have been developed in an effort to reduce costs. The alternate procedures include using scale models, surrogate vehicle (pendulum or bogie) testing, and computer simulation. Each of these techniques is described in this paper and examples showing successful applications are included.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/488097</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>