New Jersey Bill A2753 Would Put Farm Equipment Safety in Driver Ed

More than 80 percent of crashes involving farm machinery also involved a non-farm passenger or commercial vehicle, according to a 2007 study that reviewed ten years of roadway collision data. That figure anchors New Jersey's bipartisan bill A2753, now in the works, which would teach drivers how to share roads with tractors and other slow-moving farm equipment.

The bill directs the state departments of agriculture and transportation to develop educational materials, including safety videos, and post them online, at Motor Vehicle Commission locations, and in additional spaces. It goes further into the training pipeline itself.

"The bill would also incorporate farm equipment safety into classroom driver education and informational materials provided to parents of beginning drivers under 18," an Oct. 22 statement from the NJ Assembly GOP says.

The takeaway: New Jersey wants to reach drivers before they form habits, not after a collision.

What does the bill require beyond videos?

A2753 also tasks the department of agriculture with assessing roadway risks involving farm equipment and issuing safety recommendations. The bill text does not spell out how those assessments will be conducted, what data the department will use, or when the first recommendations would arrive — a gap worth watching as the measure moves forward.

What is clear is the legal context the bill leans on.

What rules already govern farm equipment on public roads?

State rules vary, and enforcement depends on drivers knowing them.

• Wisconsin makes it illegal to pass farm equipment in designated no-passing zones, marked by a double yellow line or other signage.
• New Jersey requires motorists approaching a slow-moving vehicle displaying the SMV triangle to reduce speed before passing, except on roads with at least two lanes traveling the same direction.

"How many drivers actually know that's the law? Or that farm equipment has a legal right to operate on public roads?" New Jersey Assemblywoman Dawn Fantasia said. "These machines are often wide, move at 25 miles per hour or less, and need additional room to turn. Impatience or a bad decision behind the wheel can have devastating consequences."

Her point is simple: the laws exist, but public awareness does not.

How serious is the collision problem?

The data, though dated in places, points one direction. The 2007 study — the most comprehensive figure cited by lawmakers — found that incidents involving farm equipment usually involve a passenger vehicle. Michigan State Police data shows more than 100 crashes involving farm equipment have already occurred in that state in 2026.

That Michigan count is a current-year tally, so the reporting window is still open and the final number will likely rise. No comparable statewide New Jersey crash count appears in the bill materials, which means the case for A2753 rests partly on other states' experience.

For growers, the stakes are operational as much as safety-related. Equipment moving between fields at 25 mph or less sits in traffic exposure every working day, and a collision means downtime, repair costs and insurance claims on top of the physical risk.

The takeaway: crash data is thin and unevenly reported, but what exists consistently shows the passenger vehicle is the second party.

What happens next?

A2753 must still move through committee and both chambers before the education mandates and the agriculture department's risk assessment take effect, and the bill's fiscal note — who pays for the videos and curriculum changes — has not surfaced publicly.