ROAD RULES REFRESH: Forgot how to drive? Let Uncle Josh bring you up to speed.



Over the past 15 years, America has abandoned just about every social rule, every kind of etiquette, and every normative behavior that used to make public interaction bearable. I’ve decided it’s time to open Uncle Josh’s Finishing School. Unlike the establishments of yore that taught society girls the finer and fussier points of manners, my school will concentrate on remedial education.

Today, we will be reviewing the rules of the road. Matriculants, open your desks and take out your copy of the Uniform Vehicle Code and your state Department of Motor Vehicles’ manual for new drivers. We will be referring to these texts.

I call this a 'box-in,' and drivers do it every time I’m on I-89. It’s not just annoying and inconsiderate to camp in the passing lane, it’s illegal in half the country.

Learn to 'Code'

The Uniform Vehicle Code is a model law. It’s not an actual state or federal law. It’s a universal template on which every state bases its rules of the road.

Your state has a driver’s handbook through its Department of Motor Vehicles. These are nearly identical from state to state. The only exceptions will be local idiosyncrasies, such as New York City’s ban on turning right on red.

For this article, we’ll use the Vermont manual. Your state’s manual will have nearly identical laws and rules.

This lesson is for all of you. Whether you’re my Boomer grandmother, my Gen X peer, a Millennial, or Gen Z, many of you have forgotten the basic rules of the road.

Road rules are not just about being nice. They’re the difference between life and death. While it’s true that millions of foreigners and illegal aliens have flooded our roads with dangerous, unskilled driving, we Americans are barely better.

Automotive anarchy

Here’s how it looks from a big picture perspective. Over the past 10 years, but much more rapidly since “COVID,” I’ve noticed that American drivers are acting as though all the road rules they knew their whole life just disappeared.

All of a sudden, no one knows who has the right-of-way at a four-way stop with a sign. All of a sudden, no one understands that a red light means “stop” — they sail through a solid red light not looking in either direction. All of a sudden, no one remembers that the left lane on an interstate is not a travel lane but a lane for passing.

I don’t think Americans have actually forgotten these things. Instead, I suspect our culture’s lurch toward selfish narcissism, accelerated by the psychosis of our response to “COVID,” has led to people just not caring about anyone but themselves.

Trouble is, that selfish attitude won’t protect the selfish driver. It’s not just the other guy in the other car who could get hurt — the selfish driver could die too.

Let’s review the most neglected rules of the road.

RELATED: Crash course: How cars work

Matt Himes

Right-of-way at 4-way stops

Imagine an intersection with cars at all four corners. They’re all stopped at a stop sign. Who goes first? Let me tell you what this is like in Vermont. This is a blue/progressive state, and that mindset infects everything, including how people walk in stores or drive on streets. It’s a baffling mixture of people trying to be “nice” to other drivers in a way that seems more about showing off “being nice” than it is about making driving safer and more predictable.

At that four-way stop in Vermont, you will see all four cars inching/stopping/inching for up to 10 seconds. Then, someone at one of the four forks will start waving another driver through. That’s the “being nice” part. But it’s a trap. No one else at the intersection remembers that right-of-way passes to the right, so you can’t predict if you’ll get T-boned.

This isn’t “nice.” It’s dangerous. The reason for having road laws is to give universal predictability. Ignoring road laws means that no driver can predict what another driver will do. This is begging for a wreck.

Here’s how you know who goes first. This is taken from the Vermont DMV manual. It is the same right-of-way in every state in America:

  1. The first driver to arrive at the four-way stop has the right-of-way. If there is confusion, then:
  2. The driver on the right has the right-of-way when there are two drivers at the intersection.
  3. If there are more than two drivers, you will have to make eye contact with someone and “negotiate” who is the first to go.
  4. After the first person goes, the right-of-way goes clockwise, to the right.

Right-of-way at T-intersections

  1. The driver on the “through road,” the road that does not terminate at a stop, has the right-of-way.
  2. That means if you’re on a road that ends at a T, the traffic on the other road, the “through” road, has the right-of-way. You must stop, even if there is no stop sign.

Right-of-way at unmarked intersections

When two roads merge, either with a T, or by curving together and becoming one road, the “through” traffic on the main road has the right-of-way. If you are on the access road approaching the main road, you do not have the right-of-way. You must yield to traffic on the through road.

Left-lane 'camping' on the interstate

This is a particular annoyance to me as a Vermont driver. We have only one major interstate, Eisenhower Interstate, I-89. This means I-89 gets, for us, “a lot” of traffic. It’s the only efficient way to get through much of the state. I have to drive 40 miles to get to a home improvement store, for example, and I must take I-89 if I don’t want to have to go 30 miles an hour through villages if I take Route 2.

But I-89 only has two lanes in each direction. That means that if driver Gloria is “camping” in the left/passing lane, driver Gloria has arrogated the entire interstate to herself. She forces every driver behind her to be unable to pass her as she does five miles below the speed limit, matching her speed to the truck in the right-hand travel lane.

I call this a “box-in,” and drivers do it every time I’m on I-89. It’s not just annoying and inconsiderate to camp in the passing lane, it’s illegal in half the country.

That's right. It is illegal to use the left lane as a travel lane in at least half of U.S. states. Do you know the law in your state?

Even if it’s legal in your state to use the left lane as a travel lane, it’s a poor choice. It’s rude and inconsiderate to other drivers. Put yourself in their shoes. Remember how it’s frustrating to you to be prevented from passing because driver Gloria feels like camping in front of you and a line of cars. Don’t do that to other drivers.

Inconsiderate behavior like this is a major cause of the breakdown in civility, and it also provokes dangerous road-rage incidents.

A plea to the police

The good will of people willing to be responsible for themselves only goes so far. We need active law enforcement too.

To my eye as a driver, local and state police are doing a poor job. Despite the fact that cellphone use (not just calls, but texting and reading on the phone) has skyrocketed, most police I notice spend most or all of their traffic enforcement time doing the old-school “pull over and hide on the highway and nab speeders.”

I don’t see any evidence that police are taking the other, growing dangers more seriously. Have you seen cops enforcing traffic infractions like left-lane camping, stealing right-of-way at intersections, or pulling over Jayden who’s piloting a Nissan Armada while looking down at his iPhone?

Sure, it’s harder to detect and enforce against distracted driving than it is to nab someone on the radar. But there has to be a way to do it better.

America’s newest jail has no walls



Americans are looking for safety in an increasingly chaotic country. Mass immigration, collapsing social trust, and weakening civic bonds have transformed many communities from places where neighbors knew one another into anonymous zones governed by suspicion.

Technology promises an escape from the consequences of those political and cultural failures. Flock Safety cameras appear to offer law and order at the push of a button. In the hands of the ruling class that manufactured the crisis, however, they are more likely to produce tyranny for citizens.

Today’s stolen-car database can become tomorrow’s political enforcement system.

Municipalities are buying Flock’s automated license plate readers. The company did not invent plate cameras, but its artificial intelligence radically expands their reach.

Flock cameras photograph passing vehicles and record license plates, makes, colors, damage, bumper stickers, and identifiers. A single camera means little. A citywide network collecting thousands of images every day creates something powerful.

The cameras send their information to an AI database in real time. Police and other municipal employees can search for vehicles nearby. They can place cars on “hot lists” and receive alerts whenever those vehicles appear.

The system effectively places a GPS tracker on every moving car. Police ordinarily need a warrant to attach a tracker to your vehicle. Flock can reproduce the same surveillance through a network of cameras, often without probable cause, due process, or meaningful legal restraint.

The benefits are obvious. Perfect information about every vehicle makes suspects easier to find. Police can recover stolen cars, locate fleeing murderers, and respond faster to crimes.

In a high-trust town, every grandmother on the porch once knew which cars belonged and which did not. Flock offers a technological imitation of that lost social awareness.

But imitation carries a price. Grandma knew her neighbors and exercised human judgment. The database knows everyone and answers to government employees.

Flock is not alone in selling technological substitutes for social order. Cities have used gunshot-detection systems. Networks of acoustic sensors identify gunfire and triangulate its location, allowing police to respond faster.

The engineering may be impressive. The governing theory is primitive: If authorities watch and listen to everyone constantly, they can prevent more crimes and solve more cases.

RELATED: We’re winning the fight against Flock — but the surveillance isn’t going away that easily

Andrii Yalanskyi/iStock/Getty Images

A surveillance panopticon may work. People who know they are always being watched behave differently. Americans have resisted that bargain for good reason.

The Fourth Amendment exists because efficient policing is not the highest political good. Government must possess evidence and follow procedures before invading the privacy of citizens. New technology should not erase old constitutional limits.

Britain offers a warning. Closed-circuit television cameras have become ubiquitous across the United Kingdom. Some estimates suggest that the average British resident appears on camera dozens of times each day.

Britain has no written equivalent of the Fourth Amendment, and its political culture places fewer obstacles before constant public surveillance. Yet cameras did not prevent the Rotherham grooming-gang scandal or protect thousands of vulnerable girls from organized abuse.

Officials ignored or concealed the crimes for years because confronting them threatened the ruling class’s multicultural ideology. When public anger finally erupted, the surveillance state proved far more competent at identifying and punishing citizens who protested the cover-up.

That is the anarcho-tyranny trap.

Conservative thinker Samuel Francis used the term to describe a regime that tolerates disorder while imposing suffocating control on peaceful citizens. Authorities fail to punish criminals, then use the chaos created by that failure to justify new powers over everyone else.

Americans have already seen the pattern.

The government possessed enormous amounts of video from the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020. Businesses burned, neighborhoods were looted, and citizens were assaulted. The system showed little appetite for using every available image to identify and prosecute everyone involved.

After January 6, the same government used surveillance footage, facial recognition, financial records, and digital communications to pursue participants with extraordinary intensity. Officials punished many who entered the Capitol and investigated people who merely stood nearby.

RELATED: Flock Safety CEO: It’s ‘terroristic’ to want to know where we put our spy cameras

Antranik Tavitian/Bloomberg/Getty Images

During the pandemic, technology companies yielded to government pressure, censored disfavored speech, and turned over user information. Neither the administrative state nor its corporate partners have earned the benefit of the doubt. They have repeatedly demonstrated that enforcement depends on the target.

I am less hostile to state power than many conservatives. A government that cannot control its borders, remove violent criminals, or maintain public order is not a serious government.

But power must be directed toward the common good. The officials asking for universal surveillance are the same officials who refuse to use ordinary authority against illegal immigration, organized crime, urban disorder, and politically favored mobs.

Giving them a database that tracks every American driver will not correct their priorities. It will magnify them.

Supporters will insist that only criminals need to worry. That argument assumes surveillance will remain limited to serious crime and that government will apply its powers impartially. Recent history destroys both assumptions.

Today’s stolen-car database can become tomorrow’s political enforcement system. A hot list can identify a murder suspect, an immigration protester, a gun owner, a church attendee, or anyone traveling to a disfavored rally.

The danger does not require a secret conspiracy. Bureaucracies naturally expand their missions. Politicians redefine threats. Private vendors seek new contracts. Once the infrastructure exists, every crisis supplies another justification for using it.

America’s disorder has obvious political causes. Elites imported cheap labor, weakened borders, excused criminality, and dissolved the social bonds that once allowed communities to police themselves informally. Citizens now feel like strangers in their own homeland.

Technology cannot repair that betrayal.

The difficult answers remain immigration restriction, deportation, competent policing, equal enforcement, and the restoration of families, neighborhoods, and civic trust. Cameras may assist legitimate police work, but they cannot substitute for political courage.

Flock promises safety without social repair. The bargain is tempting because rebuilding order is difficult.

Americans should refuse it.

Rewarding the people who created the crisis with the power to monitor every movement will not restore a high-trust society. It will lock law-abiding citizens inside an open-air prison while the disorder continues beyond the cameras’ reach.

Dems launch new push to control more of what you do in your car



More than half of all states in the USA have distracted driving laws that either prohibit texting while driving or limit smartphone usage to hands-free mode when behind the wheel. With smart glasses on the rise, some states are looking to lump these wearable gadgets in with the same handset restrictions, and Democrat stronghold Illinois is poised to be the first to limit smart glasses on the road under House Bill 4843.

Distracted driving is a notable problem in the United States. According to the latest stats from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 315,167 people were injured in distracted driving cases and 3,208 were killed in 2024. These numbers are in spite of distracted driving laws that already exist in most states today.

The bill is waiting to be signed by Gov. Pritzker.

Still, Democrats love to add laws to the books, and this one is no different. Sponsored by Illinois state Reps. Michael J. Kelly (D) and Angelica Guerrero-Cuellar (D) and Illinois state Sen. Ram Villivalam (D), House Bill 4843 serves as an amendment to the Illinois Vehicle Code.

The bill includes a number of various changes; chief among them, however, is the addition of two new device categories that fall on the distracted driving list.

The longer arm of the law

The first is AI pins. While these aren’t widely popular yet, AI pins are wearable gadgets — which are usually clipped to a shirt or worn around the neck on a pendant or on a band around the wrist — that come packed with generative AI built in. These devices are typically used to record, save, and analyze conversations, such as work meetings, phone calls, or conversations with friends.

These devices are almost always display-free, making them a dubious choice for a distracted driving bill. I’m finding a hard time seeing how AI pins could divert a driver’s attention from the road or why drivers would use one in their car in the first place, but perhaps Illinois is just covering its bases in case AI pins suddenly gain new distraction-worthy features in the future. For now, these aren’t that big of a problem for anyone on the road.

RELATED: Google wants your health data. Here's how to choose wisely

Zach Laidlaw

The second device category in the bill includes smart glasses. This is a tricky segment, because there are several different types of smart glasses, some of which pose a bigger threat to drivers than others:

  • AI smart glasses, like the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2, are equipped with cameras for the glasses to see what you see and record footage, as well as a microphone and speakers for audio and voice commands. These do not have a heads-up display that could block the driver’s view or divert their attention while operating a vehicle.
  • Heads-up-display smart glasses, like the Meta Ray-Ban Display, do come with a display embedded directly in the lenses. HUD glasses can display different types of information directly in your line of sight, such as messages and notifications, potentially causing all kinds of distractions that could get drivers into trouble on the road. While these glasses pose a bigger driver threat and could possibly warrant a ticket if caught using them behind the wheel, they aren’t as widely available for purchase quite yet.
  • Finally, AR/VR glasses and goggles use embedded displays to change the world you see in front of you or put you into a different digital world entirely. These types of glasses obviously have the largest distraction potential, and they shouldn’t be used inside a motor vehicle.

According to the bill, smart glasses of all kinds (it doesn’t call out any specific type, so we can assume that all fall into this category) and AI pins will be restricted to hands-free usage while driving. These devices can also be used when the vehicle is stopped and in neutral or park. Otherwise, drivers are prohibited from engaging with these gadgets, just like their smartphones.

House Bill 4843 is currently waiting to be signed by Illinois Democrat Gov. JB Pritzker. Illinois is the first state to pursue this legislation, but other state lawmakers will likely hop on board if and when smart glasses grow in popularity.

Let Your Kids Grow Up Without A Homing Signal

By constant monitoring, we’re not just giving up freedom for temporary safety, we’re raising kids to think the surveillance state is normal.

Thugs ages 11 to 14 gang up on, mercilessly beat up victim on sidewalk — and adults are done: 'I'm very fearful for my life'



A gang of youths ages 11 to 14 were caught on cellphone video last week mercilessly pummeling a lone victim on a street corner in Towson, Maryland.

Nine juveniles have been identified, and second-degree assault charges are pending against five of them after Baltimore County police officers responded to the incident, WBFF-TV reported.

'You can see the kids are laughing. ... They just don't care, because no one is going to hold them accountable.'

Police said officers were called around 3:40 p.m. April 20 to the unit block of Lambourne Road for a “physical disturbance," the station reported.

Police said it's believed the incident stems from a verbal altercation in school and that the juveniles involved — who range in age from 11 to 14 — know each other, WBFF said.

Two juveniles under the age of 13 will not be charged, police told the station, which added that none of the juveniles are in custody as officers are trying to notify their parents.

The incident drew attention after video recorded outside the Towson Promenade appeared to show a group of juveniles surrounding and beating one victim. You can view unredacted video of the broad-daylight beatdown here, which shows a gang of youths repeatedly punching, kicking, and stomping the victim.

More from WBFF:

A second incident happened Tuesday involving some of the same students inside Dumbarton Middle School during a meeting with the School Resource Officer, police said. During the meeting, a student and their parent left the office and got involved in a physical fight with another student in a hallway. The parent was later trespassed from the school, authorities said.

Police are working with Baltimore County Public Schools, which is conducting its own administrative investigation.

RELATED: 14-year-old thug body-slams, head-stomps girl on Harlem street — reportedly after she wouldn't give him her phone number

The April 20 incident occurred across the street from Towson Diner, and owner Nick Kourtsounis told WBFF in a separate story he's frustrated by what he sees as ongoing juvenile violence in the area.

"This looks like nine on one, is what it looks like," Kourtsounis told the station while viewing video presumably showing the attack. "I don't see how that's just middle schoolers being middle schoolers. That is a learned behavior, and I don't know how you unlearn that, but something has to be done."

He added to WBFF, "Where's the accountability? That's what we want. We want accountability, we want action, and this stuff about, 'Oh, it's just kids being kids' — no, it's not."

Baltimore County resident Mary Shanahan told the station, "I'm very fearful for my life because you never know what they have in their backpacks, what they have in their pockets, what they're going to say to you."

A retired Baltimore County Police sergeant told WBFF in another story that the youths involved simply don't care about consequences.

"You can see the kids are laughing. They're looking at the camera, they're looking around, but they're committing the crime," Mickey Hoppert, who retired from the Baltimore County Police Department after 20 years of service as an officer, told the station. "They just don't care, because no one is going to hold them accountable. And unfortunately, somebody has to hold them accountable."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Would-Be Trump Assassin Wasn’t Only One Encountering ‘Insane’ Security Arrangement At Glitzy Dinner

'If I had hidden an explosive in my shoe'

One crash, one derailment — and Congress still can’t follow the data



After a midair collision and a train derailment, Congress faces a simple test: Will it follow the evidence?

In aviation, the Senate’s ROTOR Act would mandate improved aircraft surveillance technology after last year’s deadly midair collision involving a military helicopter and a passenger jet. Yet earlier this month, the House failed to advance the bill after Pentagon opposition — sidelining broader use of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, a system that likely would have prevented that tragedy.

Rail risks being locked into prescriptive labor mandates, while aviation safety is undermined by incomplete adoption of proven technology. Neither sector is getting what it needs.

At the same time, a group of senators reintroduced the Railway Safety Act, branding it “data-driven” while again pushing minimum crew mandates — despite no empirical evidence that larger crews reduce accident rates — in response to the 2023 East Palestine derailment.

The impulse is understandable. When tragedy strikes, Washington acts. But acting quickly is not the same as acting on evidence.

If safety is truly the goal, Congress needs to ask a harder question: What actually reduces risk?

The data point in a clear direction. Human error dominates transportation accidents. And the most consistent safety gains in modern transport have come not from adding more people into systems but from improving system design, automation, and structured safety management.

Human error is the core problem

In 2024, roughly 40,000 Americans died in motor vehicle crashes — far outpacing most developed countries on a per-capita basis, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

By contrast, aviation and rail — sectors that have embraced automation and safety management systems — post dramatically lower fatality rates. Commercial aviation in developed countries now experiences fatal accidents at rates below 0.1 per million departures. Federal Railroad Administration data show train accident rates have fallen 33% since 2005, with derailments down significantly and human-factor incidents continuing to decline.

The lesson is straightforward: When systems are designed to reduce human error, safety improves.

RELATED: Female Black Hawk pilot didn't follow orders before horrific crash: Report

Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Automation works — with caveats

Fully autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle systems have posted lower crash rates in controlled environments. These results require continued scrutiny and larger data sets, but the direction is clear: Reducing reliance on human reaction time reduces collisions.

The same logic applies in aviation and rail.

Automation now governs the vast majority of routine commercial flight operations. Positive train control has sharply reduced train-on-train collisions and overspeed derailments.

Consider last year’s midair collision. Broader, uninterrupted use of ADS-B In and Out would have provided precise real-time traffic awareness to pilots and controllers. The technology exists to prevent exactly this type of conflict, a point highlighted in the BlazeTV documentary “Countdown to the Next Aviation Disaster,” which presaged the January 2025 Reagan National Airport tragedy. Yet expanded deployment has failed to advance despite bipartisan Senate support.

In rail, meanwhile, some lawmakers are moving in the opposite direction — toward mandates for more personnel.

Symbolic safety vs. structural safety

The East Palestine derailment stemmed from a mechanical failure — an overheated bearing — not a shortage of crew members. There were three crew members on board.

Adding personnel would not have prevented a bearing from overheating. Predictive maintenance systems, sensor networks, and better data integration are the tools designed to catch precisely that kind of failure.

Yet the RSA would codify minimum crew requirements across freight rail operations, regardless of route, cargo type, or level of automation.

This isn’t primarily about risk analysis. It reflects political incentives.

Organized interests exert concentrated influence. Diffuse beneficiaries — consumers, shippers, taxpayers — do not.

Labor interests can organize to protect jobs. The Pentagon can block safety rules it opposes. But the public — which wants safer transportation — is too diffuse to mobilize around specific, technical policy choices. The result is a grab bag of special-interest “safety” measures rather than coherent, risk-targeted reform.

RELATED: Trucks destroy roads, but railroads — yes, rail! — can save taxpayers billions

Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Focus on what works

Freight railroads in the United States are privately funded and capital intensive, investing billions annually in track upgrades, advanced detection systems, and predictive maintenance. Rail remains one of the safest ways to move goods over land because sustained technological improvement compounds over time.

By contrast, the Federal Aviation Administration — a government-run system — has struggled to modernize needed surveillance and air-traffic technologies at speed and at scale. In civil aviation, the FAA has deployed ADS-B across controlled airspace, dramatically improving traffic surveillance and situational awareness. But gaps remain where some defense aviation actors are not required to fully transmit or receive ADS-B data.

Rail now risks being locked into prescriptive labor mandates, while aviation safety is undermined by incomplete adoption of proven collision-avoidance technology. Neither sector is getting the policy it needs.

As Congress considers the RSA, lawmakers should prioritize provisions that directly reduce accident probability. Decades of transportation data point to a consistent lesson: Safety improves when systems are engineered to anticipate and correct human limitations — not when policymakers assume more humans automatically mean more safety. One-size-fits-all crew mandates don’t meet that test.

Nor should Washington abandon expansion of ADS-B and other proven collision-avoidance technologies. The system exists to prevent the very type of tragedy we witnessed. It shouldn’t take another collision for Congress to act.

The evidence isn’t ambiguous. Technology-driven risk reduction works. Symbolic mandates do not. If lawmakers are serious about safety, they need to focus on what demonstrably prevents accidents — and have the discipline to follow the data.

Trump Can Fulfill 3 Campaign Promises At Once By Reinstating Safety Guardrails On Abortion Pill

Everyone who claims to be concerned about women’s health and safety should favor a return to the earlier FDA safety regulations.

Trump is getting the job done for American truckers



The Trump administration recently demonstrated once again its commitment to truckers by tightening commercial driver licensing standards, securing critical investments in truck parking, and advancing a practical environmental regulatory approach that doesn’t undermine the supply chain.

These actions reflect the White House's continued commitment to making our roads safer and promoting a healthier, more successful trucking industry. President Trump, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator Derek Barrs should be commended for advancing policies that enhance safety and keep freight moving.

We need strong, uniform standards to ensure that drivers of 80,000-pound vehicles are legally authorized, properly trained, and proficient in English.

A new rule from FMCSA cracks down on the issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses — often given to foreign nationals working under temporary U.S. work authorization. This rule plugs the gaps that allow unqualified drivers to operate commercial motor vehicles, putting American motorists at risk.

Just look at the tragic crash in Indiana earlier this month, when a semi-truck driven by a Kyrgyz national failed to brake for slowing traffic, veered into oncoming lanes, and smashed into a passenger van, killing four people. It is just one example of the devastating consequences of allowing unvetted drivers on our roads. To that end, the Transportation Department has identified significant gaps in oversight and inconsistencies in how some states issue commercial credentials, and continued scrutiny is essential.

The overwhelming majority of trucking companies operate responsibly, invest heavily in compliance and training, and prioritize safety. They deserve a regulatory framework that rewards professionalism — not one that tolerates fraud, sham training operations, or unsafe practices.

We need strong, uniform standards to ensure that drivers of 80,000-pound vehicles are legally authorized, properly trained, and proficient in English so they can communicate effectively. Secretary Duffy has shown a commitment to making that a reality.

RELATED: Foreigners want to drive a big rig? They’ll need more than work authorization papers, Duffy says.

Ryan Collerd/Bloomberg via Getty Images

After years of our industry sounding the alarm, Congress this month secured $200 million in dedicated federal funding for truck parking, the first time in history such funding has been specifically allocated. The White House signing this funding allocation into law is a transformational win for highway safety and for America’s professional drivers.

Truck parking may seem like a niche issue, but for professional drivers, it is a matter of safety, health, and dignity. Every day, drivers struggle to find legal, secure spaces to take federally mandated rest breaks, often losing hours of productivity and risking unsafe parking on shoulders or ramps. Expanding truck parking capacity will ensure a better quality of life for the drivers who keep our economy moving.

At the same time, the White House rightly rescinded the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, a disastrous Biden administration de facto electric truck mandate that threatened the viability of our industry. Zero-emission technology simply isn’t a reality right now. The trucks are too expensive, charging infrastructure is inadequate, and grid capacity remains a serious constraint. Forcing premature mandates would have disrupted supply chains without delivering any real results.

America depends on trucking. The Trump administration’s decisive leadership and unwavering enforcement of safety standards will ensure we continue delivering for this country safely and reliably for generations to come.

Here’s The Real Reason Gen Z Doesn’t Want Kids (And It’s Not The Economy)

For a generation raised to be safe rather than strong, the thought of children can be terrifying.