Tech Brief

Programs of the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

encompass a range of issues and 

disciplines, all related to motor carrier 

safety and security. FMCSA's Office of 

Analysis, Research and Technology 

defines a "research program" as any 

systematic study directed toward fuller 

scientific discovery, knowledge, or 

understanding that will improve safety, 

and reduce the number and severity of 

commercial motor vehicle crashes. 

Similarly, a "technology program" is a 

program that adopts, develops, tests, 

and/or deploys innovative driver and/or 

vehicle best safety practices and 

technologies that will improve safety 

and reduce the number and severity of 

commercial motor vehicle crashes. An 

"analysis program" is defined as 

economic and environmental analyses 

done for the agency's rulemakings, as 

well as program effectiveness studies, 

state-reported data quality initiatives, 

and special crash and other motor 

carrier safety performance-related 

analyses. A “large truck” is any truck 

with a Gross Vehicle Weight rating or 

Gross Combination Weight rating of 

10,001 pounds or greater. 

Currently, FMCSA’s Office of Analysis, 

Research and Technology is 

conducting programs in order to 

produce safer drivers, improve safety 

of commercial motor vehicles, produce 

safer carriers, advance safety through 

information-based initiatives, and 

improve security through safety 

initiatives. The analyses described in 

this Tech Brief were designed and 

developed to support the strategic 

objective to produce safer drivers. The 

primary goal is to provide an analysis 

of the economic benefits, expected 

costs, and industry returns on 

investment for the safety systems 

described herein 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

FMCSA Contact: Amy Houser (MC-RRT), 202-385-2382 

Benefit-Cost Analyses of 

Onboard Safety Systems 

Background 

The primary safety goal of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

is to reduce the number and severity of large truck crashes. Over the last several years, 

FMCSA has collaborated with the trucking industry to test, evaluate, and encourage 

the deployment of several promising onboard safety systems for commercial motor 

vehicles (CMV) in an effort to enhance the safety of all roadway users. 

As part of an ongoing FMCSA effort to accelerate voluntary adoption of onboard 

safety systems, this document summarizes the findings in three reports that analyzed 

the economic costs and benefits for three commercial motor vehicle onboard safety 

systems: 

• Forward Collision Warning Systems (FCWS) 

• Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS) 

• Roll Stability Control Systems (RSC) 

To be widely deployed, these systems must be beneficial, cost-effective investments 

that meet user needs. The purpose of the benefit-cost analysis (BCA) reports was to 

provide return on investment information for the motor carrier industry in support of 

future purchasing decisions of the onboard safety system. However, other industry 

stakeholders such as insurance companies, vendors, and risk managers can equally 

apply the calculations to their own internal assessments and programs. 

The three BCA reports defined and quantified key financial metrics, such as return 

on investment and payback periods, for commercial motor carriers. For these 

analyses, the potential benefits, in terms of crash cost avoidance, were measured 

against the purchase, installation, and operational costs of the technology. Five years 

of crash data from 2001 to 2005 in the General Estimates System (GES) were used 

to estimate the average annual numbers of crashes preventable by each of the three 

different systems. These data were the basis for estimating costs of the different 

types of crashes involving property damage only (PDO), injuries, and/or fatalities. 

The primary data source for benefits and crash costs typically paid by the motor 

carrier industry came from information provided by insurance companies, motor 

carriers, legal experts, and others. As a result, the assessments incorporated actual 

motor-carrier-based data on the costs of different crashes that may be avoided by the 

use of the three different onboard safety systems. These crash costs included: 

• Labor Costs 

• Worker’s Compensation Costs 

• Operational Costs 

• Property Damage and Auto-Liability Costs 

• Environmental Costs 

• Legal Costs 

To obtain a measure of crash cost avoidance, the number of incidents that each 

technology is estimated to prevent annually per vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was 

determined in the analyses. Crash avoidance costs based on VMT and expected 

crash reduction resulting from deployment of the three systems were calculated for 

annual VMT values of 80,000, 100,000, 120,000, 140,000, and 160,000 miles. 

Office of Analysis, Research and 

Technology 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington, DC 20590 
The following sections of this document provide information about each of the three onboard safety 

systems and a summary the report findings of their costs and benefits for motor carriers that purchase 

them. These results were based on the assumption that all of the crash costs in the categories listed above 

would be incurred by self-insured, large-sized motor carriers or those carriers with insurance deductibles at 

or above total crash costs. 

Forward Collision Warning Systems 

FCWS provide audible and/or visual warnings of vehicles or objects that come within a predefined 

interval in front of the vehicle equipped with FCWS. When a large truck equipped with the FCWS 

approaches a slower-moving vehicle or stationary object, progressively more urgent warnings are issued 

by the system according to pre-set thresholds. These warnings are designed to improve driver behavior 

through targeted feedback about safe following distances. 

FCWS may also be integrated with an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system, which automatically 

maintains a set following interval between the large truck and a vehicle in front of it. As a result, FCWS 

with ACC have the potential to prevent rear-end collisions in which the truck is striking another vehicle; 

however, they do not automatically decelerate or stop the truck. Next-generation systems now in 

development will use direct braking as an extended benefit of FCWS. 

Benefit-Cost Analysis Findings 

Using efficacy rates of 21 percent and 44 percent, it was estimated that between 8,597 and 18,013 rear-end 

crashes could be prevented through use of FCWS. Based on the average estimates of the crash cost elements, a 

PDO rear-end crash would cost $122,650, an injury rear-end crash would cost $239,063, and a fatal rear-end 

crash would cost $1,056,221. These avoided costs or potential benefits of the FCWS were based on a typical 

or median-cost incident; therefore, they should be interpreted as approximations of typical expected values. 

The technology and deployment cost estimates for FCWS included the technology purchase, maintenance 

costs, and cost of training drivers in the use of the technology. Purchasing the technology with or without 

financing was also considered in these costs, as well as Federal tax savings due to depreciation of the FCWS 

equipment. These total costs ranged from approximately $1,415 to $1,843 per vehicle. 

The net present values of FCWS were computed by discounting future benefits and costs for the values using 

discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. Discounting benefits and costs transforms gains and losses occurring in 

different time periods to a common unit of measurement. These values were calculated over the first five 

years of deployment, since estimates of product lifecycles are speculative beyond five years. When the 

anticipated present value costs and benefits of the FCWS were compared, the benefits of using the system 

over a period of five years outweighed the costs associated with purchasing the systems at each efficacy rate 

and for each VMT category. For every dollar spent, carriers would get more than a dollar back in benefits 

that could be quantified for the analysis, ranging from $1.33 to $7.22 based on different VMTs, system 

efficacies, and technology purchase prices. 

Payback periods were also calculated to estimate the length of time required to recover the initial investments 

made for the FCWS. Following the deployment of FCWS, the payback periods ranged from eight to 37 

months, depending on the different VMTs, system efficacy estimates, and technology purchase costs. 

Lane Departure Warning Systems 

LDWS warn drivers of a lane departure when the vehicle is traveling above a certain speed threshold and 

the vehicle’s turn signal is not used to make an intended lane change or departure. LDWS also notify 

drivers when lane markings are inadequate for detection, or if the system malfunctions. LDWS do not take 

any automatic action to avoid a lane departure or to control the vehicle; drivers remain responsible for the 

safe operation of their vehicles. Crashes that can be prevented through the use of LDWS include: 

• Single-vehicle roadway departures (SVRD): Crashes where a truck departed the 

roadway from its lane of travel, either to the left or the right 

• Same-direction lane departures (SDLD): Crashes where a truck departed its lane of 

travel and entered into a lane of traffic traveling in the same direction 

• Opposite-direction lane departures (ODLD): Crashes where a truck departed its lane of 

travel and entered into an oncoming lane 
These lane departure crash types can include different crash outcomes, such as rollovers, head-on 

collisions, and sideswipes. 

Benefit-Cost Analysis Findings 

Using low and high estimates of efficacy rates ranging from 23 percent to 53 percent, it was estimated that 

LDWS has the potential to reduce approximately 1,069–2,463 SVRD collisions, 627–1,307 SVRD rollovers, 

1,111–2,223 SDLD sideswipes, 997–1,992 ODLD sideswipes, and 59–118 ODLD head-ons. Based on the 

average estimates of the crash cost elements, PDO crashes range in cost from $100,150–$196,958; injury 

crashes are in the range of $135,096–$455,936; and fatal crashes are in the range of $885,150–$1,252,872. 

These avoided costs or potential benefits of the LDWS were based on a typical or average incident. 

The technology and deployment cost estimates for LDWS included the technology purchase, maintenance 

costs, and the cost of training drivers in the use of the technology. Purchasing the technology with or 

without financing was also considered in these costs, as well as Federal tax savings due to depreciation of 

the LDWS equipment. These total costs ranged from approximately $765.00 to $866.40 per vehicle. 

The net present values of the LDWS were computed by discounting future benefits and costs for the 

values using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent calculated over the first five years of deployment. When the 

anticipated present value costs and benefits of the LDWS were compared, the benefits of using the system 

over a period of five years outweighed the costs associated with purchasing the systems at each efficacy 

rate and for each VMT category. For every dollar spent, carriers get more than a dollar back in benefits 

that could be quantified for the analysis, ranging from $1.37 to $6.55 based on different VMTs, system 

efficacies, and technology purchase prices. Following the deployment of LDWS, payback periods ranged 

from 9 to 37 months, depending on the different VMTs, system efficacy estimates, and technology 

purchase costs. 

Roll Stability Control Systems 

RSC systems include sensors that monitor vehicle dynamics and estimate the stability of a large truck 

based on its mass and velocity. RSC systems address roll instability by actively reducing the vehicle’s 

throttle and applying its brakes to decelerate the vehicle if a high rollover risk or instability threshold is 

detected. Rollovers involving combination trucks (tractor trailers) with a pre-crash movement of 

negotiating a curve are the primary type of crash preventable by RSC systems. As a result, the benefits of 

RSC systems for combination vehicles versus all large trucks were the focus of this benefit cost analysis. 

Benefit-Cost Analysis Findings 

Using efficacy rates of 37 percent and 53 percent, it was estimated that between 1,422 and 2,037 

combination vehicle rollover crashes in curves could be prevented through use of the RSC. Based on the 

average estimates of the crash cost elements listed in the previous section, a PDO rollover crash would 

cost $196,958, an injury rollover crash would cost $462,470, and a fatal rollover crash would cost 

$1,143,018. These avoided costs or potential benefits of the RSC system were based on a typical or 

median-cost incident. 

The technology and deployment cost estimates for the RSC systems included the technology purchasing 

price (with and without the added cost of traction control), maintenance costs, and the cost of training 

drivers in the use of the technology. Purchasing the technology with or without financing was also 

considered in these costs, as well as Federal tax savings due to depreciation of the stability control system 

equipment. These total costs ranged from approximately $440 to $866 per vehicle. 

The net present values of the RSC systems were computed by discounting future benefits and costs for the 

values using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent calculated over the first five years of deployment. When the 

anticipated present value costs and benefits of the RSC systems were compared, the benefits of using the 

system over a period of five years outweighed the costs associated with purchasing the systems at each 

efficacy rate and for each VMT category. For every dollar spent, carriers get more than a dollar back in 

benefits that could be quantified for the analysis, ranging from $1.66 to $9.36 based on different VMTs, 

system efficacies, and technology purchase prices. Following the deployment of RSC systems, payback 

periods ranged from six to 30 months, depending on the different VMT, system efficacy estimates, and 

technology purchase costs. 
Sensitivity Analyses 

For a significant number of motor carriers that incur the entire costs of crashes 

preventable by onboard safety systems, the above findings revealed that the systems 

were cost beneficial investments. Yet, certain industry segments will experience 

different costs and benefits than those presented above due to differences in operating 

practices. As a result, the three benefit-cost analysis reports also included sensitivity 

analyses to determine some of these differences. The sensitivity analyses focused on 

small carriers. 

For the sensitivity analyses, it was important to consider small carriers separately from 

large carriers due to discrete differences in their financial and operating environments. 

For instance, small carriers are unlikely to be self-insured; therefore, out-of-pocket 

costs per crash will initially be much lower for small carriers. Since the median 

deductible for a motor carrier will fall in the $5,000 to $50,000 range, these low and 

high deductibles were considered as part of the sensitivity analyses of the costs and 

benefits. 

The sensitivity analyses revealed that based on the overall probability of involvement 

in crashes, small carriers that utilize lower deductibles, such as $5,000 per truck, may 

not achieve a break-even point—a dollar or more of benefits for each dollar spent on 

financing the technology—in the first five years. However, as the number of crashes 

and/or their severity increases, insurance premium costs typically increase until the 

carrier’s insurance costs equal or exceed the investment costs of onboard safety 

systems; or the carrier is altogether dropped by the insurance provider. For this reason, 

an investment in safety technology may still be considered judicious for added 

protection against rising insurance costs for carriers that are not self-insured. In 

addition, indirect costs of crashes, such as impacts on safety ratings, public image, and 

employee morale can add to the benefits of purchasing onboard safety systems. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, large truck crashes involve a complex series of critical events and 

factors, many of which can be prevented through the use of onboard safety systems. 

In addition to safe carrier operational practices and initiatives, onboard safety 

technologies can be cost effective investments for reducing injuries and fatalities in 

crashes involving large trucks. 

“Analysis of benefits and costs of 

roll stability control systems for the 

trucking industry,” by Murray D, 

Shackelford S, Houser A. 

(FMCSA-RRT-09-020) 

“Analysis of benefits and costs of 

forward collision warning systems 

for the trucking industry,” by Murray 

D, Shackelford S, Houser A. 

(FMCSA-RRT-09-021) 

“Analysis of benefits and costs of 

lane departure warning systems for 

the trucking Industry,” by Houser A, 

Murray D, Shackelford S, Kreeb R, 

Dunn T. (FMCSA-RRT-09-022) 

Conducted by 

American Transportation 

Research Institute 

950 North Glebe Road 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Key Words: Collision Warning 

Systems, Forward Collision 

Warning Systems, Adaptive Cruise 

Control, Lane Departure Warning 

Systems, Vehicle Stability Systems, 

Roll Stability Controller, Electronic 

Stability Control Systems, BenefitCost Analysis, Return on 

Investment, Payback Periods, 

Motor Carriers, Large Trucks, 

Crashes, Large-Truck Crashes, 

Rear-end Crashes. 

Notice: This Tech Brief is 

disseminated under the 

sponsorship of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation in the interest of 

information exchange., and 

provides a synopsis of the final 

publication for these studies. The 

Tech Brief does not establish 

policies or regulations, nor does it 

imply USDOT endorsement of the 

conclusions or recommendations. 

The U.S. Government assumes no 

liability for its contents or their use. 

Web Site: All FMCSA Tech Briefs 

may be accessed at 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov. 

Technical Writer/Editor: 

Karen Robin 

C2 Technologies, Inc. 

February 2009 

Publication No. FMCSA-RRT-09-023