The Lifesavers Conference on Roadway Safety is “the largest gathering of roadway safety professionals in the United States.” I’ve been a member of the planning committee for the Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Micromobility for over a decade, representing bicycle advocates and bringing the League of American Bicyclists’ perspective into the conference. This year was the third or fourth Lifesavers Conference that I’ve attended, with my last conference being in Seattle in 2023. If you’re interested in my stream of consciousness during the conference, please check out my Bluesky feed with #Lifesavers2026 — but in the meantime, here are my top three takeaways from this year’s Lifesavers Conference in Baltimore.
1. Pathways to Safer Streets
The Lifesavers Conference began with a keynote address by the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Jonathan Morrison. Administrator Morrison’s speech introduced and outlined “the most extensive and comprehensive behavioral traffic safety initiative in NHTSA’s history” called Pathways to Safer Streets. With eight core pathways, there is a lot that could be said about this initiative. There are some interesting points of emphasis, such as an embrace of “speed interlock technologies, specifically for chronic, excessive speeders” that align well conceptually with Families for Safer Streets’ Stop Super Speeders campaign. It will be interesting to see what actually happens through this initiative.
What I did hear clearly from Administrator Morrison’s speech is that “progress is not the same as success. Tens of thousands of lives are still lost every year. And as long as that number is anything other than zero, we cannot call this system safe, we can only call it improved.” This clear embrace of the goal of zero traffic deaths is a great foundation for traffic safety efforts. While deaths of people biking and walking were not mentioned in the Pathways to Safer Streets or Administrator Morrison’s remarks, those deaths are included in the goal of zero traffic deaths.
2. Lots of Interest in E-bikes
I was part of two sessions at this year’s Lifesavers Conference, one on e-bikes and one on bike helmets, and the session on e-bikes was by far better attended. A theme to my session, across all speakers, was the difficulty of classifying and regulating e-bikes, e-scooters, and other light electric vehicles such as one-wheels and e-mopeds. Whether due to incomplete crash reporting that masks the extent of crashes, inconsistent descriptions of devices to emergency departments that make appropriate care more difficult, or sales of illegal devices that put delivery riders at risk; each speaker had a reason that more efforts are needed to better incorporate these new vehicles into our transportation safety frameworks.
There was some overlap between the interest in e-bikes and the interest in bike helmets. Two themes that emerged from that overlap were that standard bike helmets may not be sufficient for e-bikes or their faster e-moto cousins, and that developing bike helmets that better meet the needs of bikeshare and scootershare users is a priority. Both of these themes pointed towards innovation in helmet design, which was the topic I was asked to speak about. If you’re interested in the innovative helmets that I featured, you can check out my presentation here.
3. The Role of Technology in Behavior Change
Compared to the last Lifesavers Conference that I attended, there was a much greater focus on technologies and that showed up in a few distinct ways:
There was a great emphasis on telematics – using technology to monitor driver behavior in near real-time – to inform real-time responses to crashes, to target enforcement efforts, and to plan for safety improvements based on observed behavior rather than waiting for crashes or deaths. Telematics was perhaps most prominently embraced by the Governors Highway Safety Association, which has published several reports about its use in traffic safety efforts.
Automated enforcement technology was prominent in sessions and in the exhibition hall. It was very interesting to see the breadth of applications of automated enforcement, with applications for behaviors such as distracted driving, which is easier to detect and validate today thanks to higher definition cameras and artificial intelligence that can better identify behaviors and validate that drivers are fulfilling the elements of a distracted driving law. There were also specialized applications, such as school bus stop arm enforcement, which is now easier due to the reduced cost and size of camera equipment. While some in Congress are attempting to stop DC’s automated speed enforcement efforts, the Pathways to Safer Streets initiative appears to embrace the value of automated enforcement “to augment traditional law enforcement.”
While NHTSA is our national vehicle regulator, and has the authority to implement safety technologies as required features in new cars, the Pathways to Safer Streets initiative instead chose to embrace in-vehicle technologies as part of enforcement. Technologies like intelligent speed assistance, which is required on new vehicles in Europe, was primarily discussed as a potential intervention against the “worst of the worst” speeders. Similarly, in-vehicle technology to prevent impaired driving, which Congress required NHTSA to develop standards for in the last transportation bill, is discussed as an intervention to reduce impaired driving recidivism much like interlock breathalyzers are today. While reducing distracted driving is one of the eight core pathways to safer streets, there was no mention of potential regulation to address the potential distraction due to ever-larger screens in new vehicles. It may be that NHTSA tailored its messaging to a behavior change audience, but it is frustrating to see lifesaving technology approached as a punishment for bad drivers rather than an aid for all drivers.