Analysis of 

Benefits and Costs 

of 

Roll Stability Control Systems 

for the Trucking Industry 

February 2009

FOREWORD 

The goal of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to reduce the number 

and severity of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes. Over the last several years, FMCSA 

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

effective onboard safety systems for CMVs to enhance the safety of all roadway users. 

The purpose of this document is to provide economic benefits, expected costs, and industry 

returns on investment for roll stability control systems. Verification of the costs and benefits of 

safety systems is critical to facilitate voluntary acceptance of these systems in the motor carrier 

industry. To ensure deployment, systems must be cost-effective investments that meet user 

needs. Confidence in onboard safety systems’ ability to reduce CMV-involved fatalities and 

injuries is a necessary precondition for acceptance and adoption of these systems. 

The benefit-cost analysis presented in this document covers financial metrics, such as return on 

investment and payback periods, for the end users of the onboard safety systems—commercial 

motor carriers. This document intends to augment, rather than supersede, previous analyses that 

have focused on onboard safety systems. 

The development of this analysis required the solicitation and collection of data sets from 

multiple industry resources. This information collection is covered by the OMB and Paperwork 

Reduction Act exemption for ITS-related surveys, questionnaires, and interviews defined in 

Section 5305, Title V, Subtitle C, paragraph (i) (2) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users of 2005, which states that “Any survey, 

questionnaire, or interview that the Secretary considers necessary to carry out the evaluation of 

any test or program assessment activity under this subchapter shall not be subject to chapter 35 

of title 44.” 

NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the United States Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes 

no liability for its contents or use thereof. 

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or 

manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective 

of this document. 

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FMCSA-RRT-09-020 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

February 2009 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Analysis of Benefits and Costs of Roll Stability Control Systems for the 

Trucking Industry 6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Dan Murray (ATRI), Sandra Shackelford (ATRI), Amy Houser 

(FMCSA) 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

American Transportation Research Institute 

950 North Glebe Road 

Arlington, VA 22203 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DMTC75-04-F-00104 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

September 2004–December 2007 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Office of Analysis, Research and Technology 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

This program was administered through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). 

The FMCSA Program Manager is Ms. Amy Houser. 

16. Abstract 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) safety goal is to reduce the number and severity of 

commercial motor vehicle fatalities and crashes. During the last several years, FMCSA has collaborated with the 

trucking industry to test, evaluate, and facilitate the deployment of several onboard safety systems for commercial 

motor vehicles to increase the safety of all roadway users. 

The purpose of this report is to evaluate costs and benefits for industry associated with Roll Stability Control (RSC) 

systems that can reduce large-truck rollovers. 

The analysis described herein indicates that RSC systems on combination vehicles will help to prevent rollovers 

caused by excessive speed in a curve. Motor carriers purchasing this technology will likely see net positive returns on 

investments within a 5-year product lifecycle for the crash types and operating scenarios described in this report. 

17. Key Word 

Vehicle Stability Systems, Roll Stability Controller, 

Electronic Stability Control Systems, Benefit-Cost 

Analysis, Return on Investment, Payback Periods, 

Commercial Motor Vehicles, Crashes, Large-Truck 

Crashes, CMV 

18. Distribution Statement 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

69 

22. Price 

N/A 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. 
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By 

LENGTH LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 Millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 Inft feet 0.305 Meters m m meters 3.28 Feyd yards 0.914 Meters m m meters 1.09 Ymi miles 1.61 Kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 M

AREA AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 sqft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 square meters 10.764 sqyd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 square meters 1.195 sqac acres 0.405 Hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 Ami2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 square kilometers 0.386 sq

VOLUME VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 Milliliters ml ml milliliters 0.034 flugal gallons 3.785 Liters l l liters 0.264 Gft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.71 cuyd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cu

MASS MASS 

oz ounces 28.35 Grams g g grams 0.035 Olb pounds 0.454 Kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.202 PoT short tons (2000 lbs) 0.907 Megagrams Mg Mg megagrams 1.103 sh

TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact

°F Fahrenheit 5(F-32)/9 Celsius °C °C Celsius 1.8 C + 32 F

temperature or (F-32)/1.8 Temperature temperature T

ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 Lux lx lx lux 0.0929 fofl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 fo

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or ST

lbf pound-force 4.45 Newtons N N newtons 0.225 ppsi pound-force per square inch 6.89 Kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 p

p

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with section 4 of ASTM E380. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACRONYMS...............................................................................................................................IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................V

1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1.1 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS...............................................................................1 

1.2 FREIGHTLINER FIELD OPERATIONAL TEST.......................................................2 

1.3 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS..........................................................3 

2. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS STEPS .............................................................................5

2.1 BENEFITS IN TERMS OF CRASH AVOIDANCE....................................................5 

2.2 TECHNOLOGY AND DEPLOYMENT COSTS.........................................................6 

2.3 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS .......................................................6 

3. BENEFITS CALCULATIONS.........................................................................................7

3.1 STEP 1: ESTIMATE CRASHES PREVENTABLE BY THE RSC SYSTEMS..........7 

3.2

.........................................................................8 

STEP 2: ESTIMATE THE CRASH COSTS FOR THE CRASHES 

PREVENTABLE BY RSC SYSTEMS

3.3

...........................................16 

STEP 3: ESTIMATE CRASH COSTS BASED ON VEHICLE MILES 

TRAVELED AND EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION

4. COST CALCULATIONS ...............................................................................................18

4.1 STEP 4: ESTIMATE THE TECHNOLOGY AND DEPLOYMENT COSTS...........18 

5. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS .......................................................20

5.1 STEP 5: CALCULATE NET PRESENT VALUES OF BENEFITS AND COSTS...20 

5.2 STEP 6: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS..........................................................................25 

6. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................30

7. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................31

i 
LIST OF APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF DATA SETS ..................................................................33

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDE – MOTOR CARRIER AND VENDOR DATA 

ON STABILITY SYSTEM EFFICACY AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT .........35

APPENDIX C: SUPPORTING DATA .....................................................................................41

APPENDIX D: COST DATA – MOTOR CARRIER QUESTIONNAIRE AND 

RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS..............................................................................43

APPENDIX E: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................55

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Mean Annual Number of Combination Vehicle Rollovers in a Curve 

by Crash Severity, 2001–2005 .........................................................................................7 

Table 2. Estimated Mean Annual Number of Combination Vehicle Rollover Crashes in a 

Curve Preventable by RSC Systems by Crash Severity, 2001–2005...............................8 

Table 3. Median Driver Replacement Cost Elements Per Fatal or Injury Crash...........................10 

Table 4. Average Annual Numbers of Truck Driver Injuries and Fatalities per 

Rollover Crash, 2001–2005............................................................................................11 

Table 5. Average Labor and Workers’ Compensation Cost Elements per 

Rollover Injury or Fatal Crash .......................................................................................11 

Table 6. Median Operational Costs per Crash...............................................................................12 

Table 7. Median Property Damage Costs per Rollover Crash.......................................................13 

Table 8. Average Legal Fees and Court Costs per Rollover Crash ...............................................14 

Table 9. Average Annual Numbers of Injuries and Fatalities per Rollover Crash, 2001–2005....14 

Table 10. Average Settlement Costs per Injury and Fatal Rollover Crash....................................15 

Table 11. Cost Estimates per Rollover Crash by Crash Severity ..................................................15 

Table 12. RSC Systems: Average Annual Crash Costs per Crash Avoided for 

an Average Annual VMT at 37% Efficacy ....................................................................17 

Table 13. RSC Systems: Average Annual Crash Costs per Crash Avoided for 

an Average Annual VMT at 53% Efficacy ....................................................................17 

Table 14. Cost of RSC System, if Financed ..................................................................................18 

Table 15. Federal Tax Savings due to Depreciation of RSC System ............................................19 

Table 16. Total Costs of RSC System Deployment with and without Financing..........................19 

Table 17. Present Value of the Benefits of RSC Systems at 37% Efficacy...................................20 

Table 18. Present Value of the Benefits of RSC Systems at 53% Efficacy...................................20 

Table 19. Present Value of the Costs of RSC Systems, 3% and 7% Discount Rates....................21 

Table 20. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing RSC System, 

3% Discount Rate without Financing.............................................................................21 

ii 
iii 

Table 21. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing RSC System, 

7% Discount Rate without Financing.............................................................................21 

Table 22. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing RSC System, 

3% Discount Rate with Financing..................................................................................22 

Table 23. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing RSC System, 

7% Discount Rate with Financing..................................................................................22 

Table 24. Payback Period of RSC System in Months ...................................................................23 

Table 25. Motor Carrier Perceptions of Crash Cost Importance ...................................................24 

Table 26. Cost Estimates per Rollover Crash by Crash Severity with Insurance Deductible 

of $50,000.......................................................................................................................25 

Table 27. Cost Estimates per Rollover Crash by Crash Severity with Insurance Deductible 

of $5,000.........................................................................................................................26 

Table 28. RSC Systems: Average Annual Crash Costs per Crash Avoided for 

an Average Annual VMT of 100,000 VMT at 37% Efficacy........................................26 

Table 29. RSC Systems: Average Annual Crash Costs per Crash Avoided for 

an Average Annual VMT of 100,000 VMT at 53% Efficacy........................................26 

Table 30. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing RSC System per Crash Avoided 

for an Average Annual VMT of 100,000 VMT, 3% Discount Rate with Financing.....27 

Table 31. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing RSC System per Crash Avoided 

for an Average Annual VMT of 100,000 VMT, 7% Discount Rate with Financing.....27 

Table 32. Cost Estimates per Rollover Crash by Crash Severity with High-Value Cargo 

Damages of $50,000.......................................................................................................28 

Table 33. Cost Estimates per Rollover Crash by Crash Severity with High-Value Cargo 

Damages of $1,000,000..................................................................................................28 

Table 34. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing RSC System per Crash Avoided 

for an Average Annual VMT of 100,000 VMT, 3% Discount Rate with Financing.....29 

Table 35. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing RSC System per Crash Avoided 

for an Average Annual VMT of 100,000 VMT, 7% Discount Rate with Financing.....29 

Table 36. Name and Brief Description of GES Fields Relevant to this Study ..............................34 

Table 37. Average Annual VMT (millions of miles) for Combination Vehicles, 2001–2005......34 

Table 38. Annual Number of Combination Vehicle PDO, Injury, and Fatal Rollovers with 

Pre-Crash Movement Around a Curve, 2001–2005.......................................................41 

Table 39. Annual Number of Injuries and Fatalities for Rollovers with Pre-Crash Movement 

Around a Curve, 2001–2005 ..........................................................................................41 

Table 40. Truck Driver Injuries and Fatalities for Rollovers with Pre-Crash Movement 

Around a Curve, 2001–2005 ..........................................................................................41 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Forces on a Vehicle in a Steady-State Turn .....................................................................2 
ACRONYMS 

ABS Anti-Lock Braking System 

ATRI American Transportation Research Institute 

BCA Benefit-Cost Analysis 

BLS U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics 

COG Center of Gravity 

CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle 

ESC Electronic Stability Control 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

FOT Field Operational Test 

GES General Estimates System 

HAZMAT Hazardous Materials 

IVI Intelligent Vehicle Initiative 

MACRS Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System 

NASS National Sampling Automotive System 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

OSS Onboard Safety System 

PAR Police Accident Report 

PDO Property Damage Only 

RA&C Roll Stability Advisor and Controller 

RSA Roll Stability Advisor 

RSC Roll Stability Control 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled 

iv 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

The goal of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to reduce the number 

and severity of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes. Over the last several years, FMCSA 

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

several onboard safety systems (OSS) for CMVs in an effort to enhance the safety of all roadway 

users. 

As part of an ongoing FMCSA effort to encourage voluntary adoption of onboard safety systems, 

this analysis builds on previous field operational testing by refocusing benefit-cost assessments 

from more general societal impacts to targeted motor-carrier-industry outcomes, since motor 

carriers are the end-users responsible for investment and deployment of OSS. The purpose of this 

benefit-cost analysis (BCA) is to provide return on investment information to the motor carrier 

industry in support of future decisions to purchase stability control systems. According to the 

motor carrier industry, verifying associated costs and benefits of safety systems is critical for 

deployment, since these systems must prove to be beneficial, cost-effective investments that 

meet the users’ needs. 

This document presents the BCA for roll stability control (RSC) systems from a motor carrier’s 

perspective. However, other industry stakeholders such as insurance companies, vendors, and 

risk managers can equally apply the calculations to their own internal assessments and programs. 

TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS 

Stability control systems include sensors that monitor vehicle dynamics and estimate the stability 

of a vehicle based on its mass and velocity. RSC and electronic stability control (ESC) systems 

represent two different types of automated stability control systems that actively reduce the 

vehicle’s throttle and apply its brakes to decelerate the vehicle if a high rollover risk or instability 

threshold is detected. RSC systems address roll instability, while ESC systems address both roll 

and yaw instability (loss of vehicle directional control). The present analysis focuses on the costs 

and benefits of the RSC system. A future BCA will focus on the ESC systems, after further 

information about its added benefits and efficacy has been determined through ongoing analyses 

at the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).

BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 

For this BCA, the potential benefit, in terms of crash cost avoidance, was measured against the 

purchase, installation, and operational costs of RSC systems in motor carrier operations. The 

primary data source for benefits came from information provided by insurance companies and 

motor carriers on actual expenses incurred in a CMV crash. As a result, this assessment 

incorporates actual motor-carrier-based benefit-cost data. 

v 
The methodology for this analysis was based on estimates of crash cost avoidance for the 

primary types of crashes that can be addressed by the RSC systems on combination vehicles. 

RSC system benefits were based primarily on reducing the occurrence of large-truck rollovers 

caused by excessive speed in a curve. To obtain a measure of crash cost avoidance, the number 

of rollovers that the technology is estimated to prevent each year per vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) was determined. Next, using information provided by motor carriers, insurance 

companies, legal experts, and others, the actual crash costs paid by the motor carrier industry was 

determined for rollovers. As a result, trucking companies can use this cost information as a basis 

for juxtaposing and evaluating the potential crash avoidance benefits of RSC systems with the 

purchase and operational costs of these technologies. 

The motor carrier crash costs that may be fully or partially avoided by the use of RSC systems 

include: 

• Labor Costs 

– Recruitment 

– Training 

– Testing 

– Hiring and orientation 

• Workers’ Compensation Costs 

• Operational Costs 

– Cargo damage due to crash 

– Cargo delivery delays 

– Loading and unloading cargo 

– Towing, inventory, and storage 

• Property Damage and Auto-Liability Costs 

• Environmental Costs 

– Fines 

– Clean-up 

• Legal Costs 

– Court costs 

– Legal fees and costs 

– Out-of-pocket settlements for injuries and fatalities 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

In order to apply the costs specifically to motor carriers, this analysis was based on the 

assumption that these crash costs would be incurred by motor carriers with deductibles at or 

above total crash costs, or by self-insured motor carriers. However, other industry stakeholders 

such as insurance companies, vendors, and risk managers can equally apply the calculations to 

vi 
their own internal assessments and programs. The following findings and conclusions were 

derived from the benefit-cost analysis. 

Using efficacy rates of 37 percent and 53 percent derived from a simulations and industry input 

(see Section 3.1.2), 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 property-damage-only (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 benefits of the RSC system were based on a 

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

expected values that could be reasonably quantified.

Crash avoidance costs based on VMT and expected crash reductions resulting from deployment 

of RSC systems were calculated for annual VMT values of 80,000, 100,000, 120,000, 140,000, 

and 160,000 miles. However, the research relied heavily on documented annual average VMT of 

100,000 to 110,000 for class 6–8 trucks used in a variety of operational environments. 

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

purchase 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. 

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. 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 beyond 

five years, estimates of product lifecycles are speculative. 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 this analysis, ranging from $1.66 to $9.36 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 RSC systems. These payback periods ranged from six to 30 months, 

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

Since certain industry segments will experience different costs and benefits due to differences in 

operating practices, a sensitivity analysis was performed to show some of these differences for 

small carriers and high-value cargo carriers.

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 

vii 
viii 

$50,000 range, these low and high deductibles were considered as part of the benefit and cost 

analysis. 

Based on the overall probability of involvement in a rollover crash, small carriers that have 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 will increase until 

the carrier’s insurance costs equal or exceed the investment costs of the RSC system; or the 

carrier is dropped altogether by the insurance provider. For this reason, an investment in the 

technology may still be considered judicious for added protection against rising insurance costs. 

In addition, avoiding the indirect costs of crashes, such as impact on safety ratings, public image, 

and employee morale, can add to the benefits of purchasing onboard safety systems. 
1. INTRODUCTION 

The safety goal of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to reduce the 

number and severity of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes. Over the last several years, 

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

deployment of effective onboard safety systems (OSS) for CMVs in an effort to enhance the 

safety of all roadway users. 

FMCSA is now promoting voluntary adoption of these systems in trucking fleets by initiating 

steps to work closely with the trucking industry. Stability control systems are commercially 

available onboard safety technologies designed to prevent rollover and loss-of-control crashes. 

In 2003, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) published an independent evaluation 

of the Freightliner Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) Field Operational Test (FOT) (Battelle 

2003). The report included a societal-benefit-cost analysis over a 20-year period of deployment 

for a stability system designed to prevent rollovers caused by excessive speed in a curve. A wide 

range of societal costs were included, such as the lost productivity of commuters caught in traffic 

jams caused by truck crashes, or costs of police, fire, and emergency rescue responses to crashes. 

While succeeding in identifying the societal costs that could be linked to CMV crashes, the study 

did not focus on the direct costs incurred by commercial motor carriers. The avoidance of the 

societal costs indicated here does not immediately translate into bottom-line cost savings for 

motor carriers considering purchasing onboard safety systems. 

As part of an ongoing FMCSA effort to encourage voluntary adoption of stability control 

systems, this benefit-cost analysis builds on the previous FOT by changing the focus of the 

benefit-cost analysis from general societal costs to the costs incurred by the motor carrier 

industry—the end-users who are responsible for investment and deployment of the technology. 

The purpose of this benefit-cost analysis (BCA) is to provide critical cost and return-oninvestment information to the motor carrier industry in support of future decisions to purchase 

stability control systems. The motor carrier industry has confirmed that verifying associated 

costs and benefits of safety systems is critical to spur deployment, since these systems must 

prove to be beneficial, cost-effective investments that meet the users’ needs. 

1.1 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS 

Stability control systems include sensors that monitor vehicle dynamics and estimate the stability 

of a vehicle, based on its mass. Roll stability control (RSC) and electronic stability control (ESC) 

systems represent two different types of automated stability control systems that actively reduce 

the vehicle’s throttle and apply its brakes to decelerate the vehicle if a high rollover risk or 

instability threshold is detected. RSC systems address roll instability, while ESC systems address 

both roll and yaw instability. Crashes caused by excessive speed in curves and loss of vehicle 

control are typical instability situations that are addressed by both RSC and ESC technologies. 

This document provides the analytical framework and findings of the benefit-cost analysis for 

RSC systems from a motor carrier perspective. A future BCA will focus on the ESC systems, 

once further information about its added benefits and efficacy has been determined through 

ongoing analyses at the USDOT.

1 
1.1.1 Roll Stability Control Systems 

An RSC system includes wheel speed sensors and a lateral accelerometer to determine critical 

rollover thresholds, so that it can engage anti-lock braking system (ABS), traction control, and 

roll control to prevent rollovers due to lateral forces. As shown in Figure 1, most rollovers 

caused by excessive speed in a curve occur when the vehicle’s overturning moment due to lateral 

acceleration (Flat at COG) and outward displacement (G) of the center of gravity (COG), exceeds 

the vehicle’s tires’ opposing forces (Flat between the tires and road). A high load center of 

gravity height (hcog) is the primary factor leading to low rollover thresholds when vehicles are 

affected by lateral forces. 

Figure 1. Forces on a Vehicle in a Steady-State Turn 

Currently available RSC systems continuously monitor lateral forces while the vehicle is in 

operation. An electronic control unit within the RSC system processes the information received 

from the onboard sensors to detect the risk of a rollover. RSC systems automatically reduce the 

throttle and apply engine and foundation brakes to counteract the tendency of a vehicle to roll 

over because of excessive speed in a curve. This technology reduces the potential for rollovers 

due to excessive lateral acceleration. 

Other factors influencing a vehicle’s stability include the load offset, road friction, vehicle 

suspension stiffness, and vehicle track distance between tires. Also, the sloshing movement of 

liquid in a partially filled cargo tank can particularly affect its stability as the vehicle travels 

along a curve, since the liquid in the tank can move in a direction opposite to that in which the 

vehicle is steered. 

1.2 FREIGHTLINER FIELD OPERATIONAL TEST 

The 2003 Freightliner FOT evaluation showed that a previous version of a stability system, the 

roll stability advisor and controller (RA&C), could effectively reduce rollovers and roadway 

departure crashes. The tested RA&C included two major components: 

1. The roll stability advisor (RSA)—a passive system that communicates with the driver 

about recent rollover conditions after the events have occurred, with the objective of 

changing driver performance in future similar driving situations. 

2. The RSC system—an active system that interacts with the vehicle to prevent a rollover 

caused by excessive lateral acceleration. 

2 
In the FOT, the version of the RSC system that performed autonomous braking used only the 

engine retarder, often referred to as a “Jake Brake,” which uses engine compression to slow the 

vehicle. Meritor WABCO, the RSC system manufacturer involved in the FOT, recognized that 

greater safety benefits could be realized by engaging the service/foundation brakes instead of 

using only the engine retarder. The foundation brakes provide faster and more positive braking 

forces, potentially increasing the system’s effectiveness in reducing rollover crashes. As a result, 

Meritor WABCO subsequently developed an improved RSC system that uses foundation brakes 

to slow the vehicle in response to detected critical events. 

To estimate the effectiveness of the improved RSC system without conducting another FOT, a 

computer simulation tool was used to model how a tractor pulling a cargo tank semi-trailer, 

similar to the vehicles in the FOT, would behave if it were equipped with the improved RSC 

system in situations or driving conflicts similar to those observed in the FOT (FMCSA 2006b). 

Using the simulation, the currently available RSC system was estimated to prevent 

approximately 53 percent of the rollovers resulting from excessive speed in curve. 

1.3 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS 

Large-truck crashes often involve a complex series of critical events and factors, many of which 

hold the potential to be mitigated through the use of OSS. However, crash reduction is also 

dependent on motor carrier factors which may not be directly addressed by OSS, such as 

operational characteristics, back-room safety initiatives, motor carrier safety “culture,” and 

driver selection, training, and management practices (Short et al. 2007). As a result of varying 

degrees of success in addressing these motor carrier factors, the levels of crash reduction and 

cost savings from the implementation of RSC systems may deviate from the projected values in 

this analysis. 

The trucking industry is a broad collection of many industries, each with operating 

characteristics as diverse as the customers they serve. Segmentation of the trucking industry is 

often based on the size of fleets, vehicle configurations, geographic range of operations, and 

commodities hauled. Usually one characteristic is insufficient to describe a particular segment, 

and a combination of characteristics is necessary to accommodate the variety of operations. In an 

effort to address the tremendous diversity found within the trucking industry, real-world 

information and data for this study were provided by carriers operating in a wide range of 

industry segments, yet these data may not be representative of the unique characteristics of every 

motor carrier. Some specific areas of diversity among carriers—such as VMT, fleet size, and 

high-value cargo hauling—were given special attention in order to take account of factors that 

may have a disproportionately large impact on the costs associated with crashes. 

Lastly, the commercial vehicle population is comprised of a wide variety of vehicle types and 

uses. At a general level, two types of vehicles are predominant, combination vehicles (tractortrailers) and straight trucks. These two types of vehicles have very different operating 

characteristics. In general, straight trucks tend to be used in localized settings, generally 

providing pick-up and delivery services to customers within a 50–100-mile radius of their base 

of operations. Combination vehicles are more often used in regional and long-distance 

applications, accounting for approximately 30 percent of all commercial vehicles, and 65 percent 

3 
4 

of commercial VMT. Due to high mileage exposure and severity of crashes, combination trucks 

have the highest average crash costs per vehicle over the operational life of the vehicle (Wang et 

al. 1999). 

An analysis of the data in FMCSA’s Large-Truck Crash Causation Study (FMCSA 2006a) found 

that the predominant truck configuration (approximately 90 percent of cases) in rollover crashes 

addressed by RSC systems was the combination vehicle. In addition, the combination vehicle 

was the type of truck used in the Freightliner FOT and RSC system simulation. As a result of 

these findings, this analysis is focused on the benefits of RSC technologies for combination 

vehicles, which are typically less stable than single-unit straight trucks. While these and other 

OSS analyses sponsored by the USDOT to date indicate that combination trucks are likely to 

benefit most from RSC systems, other types of commercial motor vehicles, such as straight 

trucks, may also realize safety benefits from these stability systems. 
2. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS STEPS 

This section outlines the steps estimating costs and benefits of stability systems for motor 

carriers that are considering investing in OSS technologies. Appendix A provides details on all 

data sets used in the benefit-cost analysis. The total benefits of deploying stability systems 

include direct savings from preventable crashes and indirect benefits from the overall 

improvement in fleet safety. The costs of deploying stability systems include the initial capital 

investments required for technology purchases, as well as training and maintenance costs. 

2.1 BENEFITS IN TERMS OF CRASH AVOIDANCE 

Step 1: Estimate Crashes Preventable by the RSC Systems 

Crash data in the General Estimates System (GES) were used to estimate the number of 

combination vehicle rollovers with pre-crash movements on a curve that could be reduced using 

vehicle stability systems over a five-year period, from 2001 through 2005. These data were used 

to estimate the costs for rollovers in a curve involving property damage only (PDO), for crashes 

involving injuries, and for those involving fatalities. Then, using information from both motor 

carriers and the test simulations, efficacy rates were calculated and used to estimate the portion 

of these crash types that could be preventable by RSC systems. 

Step 2: Estimate the Crash Costs for the Crashes Preventable by RSC Systems 

Crash costs were derived from a combination of motor carriers, insurance companies, legal 

firms, a review of large-truck statistics; and expert opinion. In general, these costs related to the 

following six major areas: 

• Labor costs, including recruitment, training, testing, hiring, and orientation 

• Workers’ Compensation costs 

• Operational costs, including post-crash costs, cargo damage, towing, inventory, and 

storage costs 

• Property damage costs 

• Environmental costs 

• Legal costs, including attorney fees and settlement costs for injuries and fatalities 

Next, the total crash costs for the types of crashes preventable by RSC systems were determined. 

These costs were totaled to determine a per-crash cost estimate for crashes preventable by RSC 

systems of varying degrees of severity—PDO, injury, or fatality. 

Step 3: Estimate Crash Exposure and Costs Based on Vehicle Miles Traveled and Expected 

Crash Reduction 

While the analysis in Step 1 provides information on the numbers of truck crashes preventable 

by RSC systems, and Step 2 provides estimates for the costs of those crashes, motor carriers need 

to know the cost-reduction value for the avoided crashes that they can expect through the use of 

the RSC systems. As a result, this step involves estimating crash avoidance costs based on 

5 
6 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and expected crash reduction resulting from deployment of RSC 

systems. To address variance in the average vehicle miles traveled by carriers in different 

operating conditions, the crash costs were calculated for annual VMT values of 80,000, 100,000, 

120,000, 140,000, and 160,000 miles. The research relied heavily on documented annual average 

VMTs of 100,000 to 110,000 for class 6–8 trucks used in a variety of operational environments. 

2.2 TECHNOLOGY AND DEPLOYMENT COSTS 

Step 4: Estimate the Technology and Deployment Costs 

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

purchasing price, 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. 

As shown in the Vendor and Motor Carrier Interview Guide (Appendix B), vendors and motor 

carriers were asked to provide supporting data related to technology costs and return on 

investment information. 

2.3 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS 

Step 5: Calculate Net Present Values of Benefits and Costs and Estimate Payback Periods 

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

costs for the values in Steps 3 and 4 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 beyond 

five years, estimates of product lifecycles are speculative. Payback periods were also calculated 

to estimate the length of time required to recover the initial investments made in purchasing the 

RSC systems. 

Step 6: Sensitivity Analysis 

Certain industry segments will experience different costs and benefits due to differences in 

operating practices. The costs and benefits for these industry segments will fall outside of the 

normal scope of carrier operations used for the crash cost estimates in Step 5. Additional 

analyses were conducted for small carriers, as well as for carriers hauling high-value cargo. 
3. BENEFITS CALCULATIONS 

This section presents the first three steps in the BCA used to determine the benefits of avoiding 

crashes that could be prevented through the use of RSC systems. 

3.1 STEP 1: ESTIMATE CRASHES PREVENTABLE BY THE RSC SYSTEMS 

The first step in this benefit-cost analysis involved estimating the number of crashes annually 

that are potentially preventable using RSC systems. This estimate was based on crash data, 

simulation results, and motor carrier information. 

3.1.1 Crash Data 

Crash data in the GES were initially used to estimate the number of rollovers with pre-crash 

movement on a curve that could be prevented using vehicle stability systems on combination 

vehicles, over a five-year period, from 2001 through 2005 (NHTSA 2005). These data were used 

as the basis for estimating costs for rollover collisions involving PDO, injuries, and/or fatalities. 

Table 1 provides the crash data for the different rollover-crash severity types addressed by RSC 

systems. The GES Accident, Vehicle, Event, and Person files were used to determine the total 

number of crashes included in the analysis for a five-year period. The annual crash data are 

presented in Appendix C. Since GES is a probability-based, nationally representative sample of 

all police-reported fatal, injury, and property-damage-only crashes, the data from GES yield 

national estimates, calculated using a weighting procedure (NHTSA 2002). Within GES, the 

estimated number of crashes for the type described in a record is given by the “Weight” variable. 

The GES Vehicle and Person files were used to count the number of large-truck rollover crashes 

resulting in fatality, injury, or PDO. Next, the weighted numbers of crashes in each category 

were summed and divided by 5 (five years) to provide a mean annual number of crashes 

categorized by severity. 

Table 1. Mean Annual Number of Combination Vehicle Rollovers 

in a Curve by Crash Severity, 2001–2005 

PDO Crashes Injury Crashes Fatal Crashes Total 

1,626 2,079 137 3,842 

According to the GES data for 2001–2005, an average of 2,079 injury and 1,626 PDO rollovers 

occurred involving combination trucks with a pre-crash movement of negotiating a curve. 

Additionally, an average of 137 fatal rollover crashes occurred. It should be noted that RSC may 

also prevent other types of crashes involving excessive lateral acceleration in certain evasive 

maneuvers, such as double lane changes, but efficacy of the RSC in other situations was 

undetermined at the time of this analysis. 

3.1.2 Efficacy of RSC Systems 

While the crashes presented in Table 1 represent the average total number of the potential types 

of crashes preventable by RSC systems, these technologies are not likely to prevent all of these 

7 
crashes. For example, RSC systems do not typically prevent crashes that are initiated by major 

vehicle mechanical failures, such as faulty brakes, steering loss, or tire blowouts, which may 

have been included in this data set. Other types of crashes that would most likely not be 

preventable by these systems include those caused by precipitating events, such as when a truck 

impacts a barrier, trips over a curb, or falls over an overpass. If another vehicle struck the truck 

or suddenly cut in front of the truck so that a stability system would not have time to activate, the 

crash would likely not be prevented by an RSC system. Furthermore, if the truck was traveling at 

an excessively high speed for roadway conditions, the system might not decelerate the vehicle 

enough to prevent the rollover. Finally, these systems would have limited effectiveness in the 

type of rollover that occurs when a truck drifts off the roadway or strikes another vehicle because 

the truck driver is incapacitated, seriously ill, or unconscious. 

Efficacy rates or crash prevention rates represent the percentage of crashes that RSC systems 

would have a high probability of preventing. Using information from simulations and motor 

carrier feedback, a range of efficacy rates was determined and used to estimate the portion of 

these types of crashes that could be preventable by RSC systems. The simulation estimated the 

highest efficacy rate, with the RSC system preventing 53 percent of rollovers resulting from 

excessive speed in a curve (FMCSA 2002b). As a result, the efficacy rates of the RSC systems 

for preventing rollovers caused by excessive speed in curves were assumed to be a maximum 

rate of 53 percent from the simulation results and a minimum rate of 37 percent from the motor 

carrier information, showing 39 out of 106 rollovers estimated to be preventable by RSC 

systems. Multiplying the number of crashes in Table 1 by these efficacy rates provides the 

estimated numeric range of crashes preventable by RSC systems, as shown in Table 2. 

Table 2. Estimated Mean Annual Number of Combination Vehicle Rollover Crashes in a Curve 

Preventable by RSC Systems by Crash Severity, 2001–2005 

RSC Efficacy PDO Rollovers Injury Rollovers Fatal Rollovers Total 

37% Efficacy 602 769 51 1,422 

53% Efficacy 862 1,102 73 2,037 

3.2 STEP 2: ESTIMATE THE CRASH COSTS FOR THE CRASHES 

PREVENTABLE BY RSC SYSTEMS 

The second step in this benefit-cost analysis involved estimating the cost of crashes that are 

likely to be preventable by RSC systems. 

3.2.1 Cost Data Collection Process 

To develop a comprehensive estimate of rollover crash costs, the American Transportation 

Research Institute (ATRI) collected cost estimates from trucking industry insurers and 

representative motor carrier constituents within the trucking industry. As shown in the Carrier 

8 
Interview Guide (Appendix D), carriers and insurers were asked to estimate their costs with 

respect to the following data collection cost categories, including: 

• Labor costs related to replacement of drivers due to temporary and permanent driver 

injury, and additional labor costs incurred post-crash 

• Workers’ Compensation costs 

• Operational costs related to cargo damage towing, inventory, and storage 

• Property damage costs 

• Environmental costs 

• Legal costs, including attorney fees and settlement costs for injuries and fatalities 

The survey respondents described how the costs associated with these categories vary depending 

on type of crash preventable by RSC systems. Baseline data were also received from respondents 

on the quantity and severity of crashes, by type, which had occurred during the last year within 

their operations, as well as the number of drivers who had been injured and/or replaced during 

that period. In addition, the Interview Guide included questions on costs by type of vehicle, 

cargo, and insurance (e.g., deductible levels or whether the carrier is self-insured and at what 

levels). 

The Interview Guide design was guided by previous studies and their relevant findings—

specifically, average worker replacement costs from The Costs of Truckload Driver Turnover

(Rodriguez et al. 2000). All of the costs obtained from these interviews were assumed to be in 

2007-year dollars. 

As shown in Appendix D, a broad range of motor carrier fleet sizes, operational models, and 

characteristics were represented. In addition to motor carriers, four insurance companies, two 

environmental clean-up firms, four industry attorneys, and five technology vendors were 

interviewed in support of the crash cost data collection. 

After the results from initial interviews were synthesized, follow-up interviews with additional 

representatives of motor carriers, insurers, and legal firms were used to validate responses and 

address any gaps in the data. The motor carriers were asked about the cost factors related to areas 

in the previously listed data collection cost categories with respect to rollover crashes, although 

several cost categories associated with these specific crashes do not vary by crash type. 

After ranges were identified for the data collection cost categories, median costs were 

determined. While there was little deviation between mean and median cost calculations, 

occasional outliers were evident in certain categories; for instance, rare jury decisions have 

resulted in single-fatality settlements exceeding $10 million, but these are extremely infrequent 

occurrences. Since these outlying responses were not representative of the sample as a whole, 

and would have negatively influenced the calculation of a “typical” crash cost, median values 

were calculated instead. The interview respondents were also asked how the potential crash costs 

presented may be affected by the severity of the crash—questions such as whether the crash 

involved PDO, injuries, or fatalities. 

9 
3.2.2 Labor Costs 

In this analysis, labor cost estimates were assumed to be specific to the replacement of the truck 

drivers injured or killed in crashes. Since medical insurance is a basic operating cost that covers 

a broad array of on-the-job and off-the-job illnesses and injuries, and generally covers all 

personnel working for a motor carrier, these costs were not attributed as marginal costs for 

crashes. However, if a driver needs to be replaced because of a fatal or injury crash, a motor 

carrier would incur added labor costs. 

Driver replacement cost estimates related to the training, testing, hiring, and orientation activities 

when a new driver is brought into the organization. Training costs included any ancillary tuition, 

instructor costs, and team-driver costs. Testing costs included a driver background check, drug 

screening tests, and physicals (medical exams). Hiring costs included any bonuses and relocation 

costs provided to new hires. When provided by carriers, orientation costs included items such as 

meals and lodging expenses. Table 3 presents a breakout of these median costs per each new 

driver hired. These cost estimates were provided by the interviewed motor carriers and insurance 

companies. 

Table 3. Median Driver Replacement Cost Elements Per Fatal or Injury Crash 

Cost Category Injury- or Fatal-Crash Cost 

Training $3,350 

Testing $500 

Hiring $500 

Orientation $2,650 

Total $7,000 

3.2.3 Workers’ Compensation 

Workers’ Compensation is designed to protect workers and/or their dependents against hardships 

associated with injuries or death arising out of the work environment. These employees or 

dependents are provided with fixed monetary awards covered under Workers’ Compensation, 

thus eliminating the need for excessive litigation. 

Employers with a certain number of employees—often four or more, but the number varies by 

state—are legally required to furnish Workers’ Compensation coverage. Rather than purchase 

insurance, some employers choose to self-insure their Workers’ Compensation liabilities for 

reasons of cost effectiveness, maintaining greater control over their claims programs, and 

increasing safety and loss-control management. To receive self-insured status, the employer must 

qualify through an application process, meet specified financial requirements, and be approved 

by each state’s Workers’ Compensation agency. 

These specific costs were included in the benefit-cost analysis only when the crash resulted in a 

driver injury or fatality. Workers’ Compensation laws provide the following benefits to an 

employee: 

• Medical Expense—payment of cost for hospitals, doctors, medical treatment, etc. 

10 
• Disability Pay—either temporary pay while the employee is recovering, or permanent 

pay if the employee is unable to return to work. The amount varies, but can be as high as 

one-half to two-thirds of normal pay 

• Vocational Rehabilitation—if the injury renders the employee unable to perform the 

usual duties of his or her occupation, including physical therapy and re-training to enter a 

new trade or business 

The median Workers’ Compensation claims of $62,728 for motor vehicle crashes were 

determined from insurance industry data. According to insurance companies, approximately 10 

percent of the Workers’ Compensation costs can be borne by motor carriers if they are not selfinsured, and the remainder is covered by insurance, as required. In order to isolate the costs that 

are specific to a motor carrier, in this analysis the research assumption was made that the motor 

carrier is self-insured or maintains a per-crash deductible that exceeds total crash costs. 

However, insurers can use the same figures and outputs to understand OSS benefits and impacts 

from an insurer’s perspective. 

These labor and Workers’ Compensation costs apply only when the truck driver is the party 

injured or killed in a large-truck crash. To accurately account for the actual labor costs associated 

with truck crashes, as well as the cost savings that can be expected from the use of RSC systems, 

labor costs were multiplied by the average number of injuries and fatalities incurred by truck 

drivers on a per-crash basis. As shown in Table 4, on average, one truck driver is injured per 

rollover crash that involves an injury, and 70 percent of truck drivers are killed in rollover 

crashes that involve a fatality. 

Table 4. Average Annual Numbers of Truck Driver Injuries and Fatalities 

per Rollover Crash, 2001–2005 

Crash Type 

Number of 

Crashes 

Number of 

Injuries in 

Crashes 

Number of 

Injuries per 

Crash 

Number of 

Fatalities in 

Crashes 

Number of 

Fatalities per 

Crash 

Injury Crashes 2,079 2,025 1 N/A N/A 

Fatal Crashes 137 0 0 91 0.7 

Using these rates, the actual labor costs associated with injuries and fatalities per crash were 

calculated as shown in Table 5. 

Table 5. Average Labor and Workers’ Compensation Cost Elements 

per Rollover Injury or Fatal Crash 

Cost Category Labor Costs per 

Injury Crash 

Labor Costs per Fatal 

Crash 

Driver Replacement $7,000 $4,900 

Workers’ Compensation $62,728 $43,910 

Total $69,728 $48,810 

11 
3.2.4 Operational Costs 

Operational costs considered in this analysis included direct costs associated with cargo damage, 

delivery delays, loading and unloading costs, as well as towing, inventory, storage, and other 

miscellaneous costs. Categories of median operational costs typically paid by motor carriers in 

the event of a rollover are presented in Table 6. Cargo damage costs, which can include extreme 

ranges relating to cargo value, included direct median damage cargo claims that occurred as a 

result of the crash. Cargo delivery delay costs included any penalties or reimbursements paid by 

the carrier as a result of late delivery. Cargo loading and unloading costs were direct expenses to 

the company for moving the cargo from the crash scene. Towing costs included costs for both 

the tractor and the trailer being towed from the crash site, in addition to inventory and cargo 

storage costs. Miscellaneous costs included a summation of smaller crash-related costs, such as 

additional communication expenses associated with shipper crash communications and any 

public relations costs. Additional motor carrier operational costs that could be associated with 

crashes such as costs for emergency supplies (cones, flares, etc.) or sending staff to the crash site 

were described by the interviewed carriers as typical fixed “costs of doing business” and were 

not included in this analysis. 

Median operational costs were calculated to be approximately $28,625 for rollovers, but these 

total costs could vary substantially, depending primarily upon the value of damaged cargo. 

Table 6. Median Operational Costs per Crash 

Cost Category PDO, Injury, or Fatal 

Crash Cost 

Cargo damage $15,000 

Cargo delivery delays $2,875 

Loading and unloading cargo $1,850 

Towing, inventory, and storage $8,500 

Miscellaneous $400 

Total $28,625 

Additional operational costs that were considered for inclusion in this analysis were citations and 

penalties resulting from crashes. Rollovers crashes may involve fines for citations, such as 

driving too fast for conditions. A collection of information from state and local authorities from 

10 states and seven cities indicated that the average penalty for these types of fines is 

approximately $140. Since violation citations are not issued in all crashes and the fines are a 

relatively small expense, they were not included as a cost in the analysis. 

3.2.5 Environmental Costs 

According to an analysis of crashes in FMCSA’s Large-Truck Crash Causation Study, (FMCSA 

2006a) more than 70 percent of trucks in rollover crashes that could have been addressed by 

stability control systems spilled cargo. These types of crashes may involve costly environmental 

clean-up. 

12 
According to environmental remediation companies, environmental clean-up costs tend to vary, 

depending on whether or not a body of water was impacted and required clean-up. Based on 

average invoices, the costs for a water-clean-up ranged from $500 to over $100,000 per crash, 

depending on the type of waterway affected. If no body of water was affected, the clean-up costs 

ranged from $300 to over $20,000 per crash. The variability in both ranges—water-impacted and 

no water-impacted—depends on what type of substance is leaked or spilled, and the amount 

involved. 

When estimated by the carriers, out-of-pocket costs for environmental clean-up depended on the 

crash type, but represented actual costs to the carrier. For rollover crashes, the interviewed 

carriers estimated a median cost of $78,500 per crash, including fees paid to an environmental 

clean-up company. 

In addition to these costs, a carrier may be required to pay fines for any environmental damage 

caused. The costs of these fines also vary based on negligence, the severity of the crash, and/or 

whether water was impacted. Carriers reported that the average environmental fine for a crash 

where no water is impacted is $4,000; the average environmental fine for a crash where water is 

impacted is $7,500. For this analysis, the conservative figure of $4,000 was used as the 

environmental fine per crash. The total environmental clean-up cost used in this analysis was 

$82,500 for a rollover crash. 

3.2.6 Property Damage Costs 

Median costs for property damage in crashes that were provided by the interviewed insurers and 

carriers for rollovers crashes are presented in Table 7. Infrastructure and surrounding structural 

damage refers to the damage from the crash to structures other than the truck, such as any repair 

to the environment in which the crash took place and damages to other vehicles. However, in this 

research, the term PDO refers specifically to the damage to the truck. These median costs were 

provided by the interviewed insurers and carriers for rollovers. 

Table 7. Median Property Damage Costs per Rollover Crash 

Cost Category PDO, Injury, or Fatal 

Crash Cost 

PDO to truck $53,333 

Damages caused to structures 

other than the truck 

$2,500 

Total $55,833 

3.2.7 Legal Costs 

According to initial information collected from attorney, insurer, and carrier interviews, and 

separately verified by three transportation attorneys interviewed as part of this analysis, legal 

costs relating to court costs, attorney fees, and out-of-pocket settlements vary considerably, 

depending on negligence, crash type, and crash severity. 

The legal fees cost category included crash reconstruction costs, expert witness fees, and fees 

paid to attorneys. The court costs include legal filing fees, court reporter fees, deposition fees, 

13 
and other miscellaneous costs relating to filing or completing litigation. These average costs are 

shown in Table 8 for each type of rollover crash. 

Table 8. Average Legal Fees and Court Costs per Rollover Crash 

Cost Category PDO Injury Fatal 

Legal Fees $20,000 $25,000 $100,000 

Court Costs $10,000 $10,000 $ 10,000 

Total $30,000 $35,000 $110,000 

The out-of-pocket settlement costs are expenses paid to claimants, including punitive and 

compensatory damages. The median settlement cost per fatality is $700,000. The average 

settlement cost per injury was calculated by a weighted average of the percentage of the 

incapacitating injuries multiplied by the highest settlement cost of $500,000 for injuries in a 

range of settlement costs for rollovers, added to the percentage of non-incapacitating injuries 

multiplied by the lowest settlement cost of $25,000 for injuries in a range of settlement costs for 

injuries. According to the GES data, approximately 30 percent of the rollovers estimated to be 

preventable by RSC systems involved incapacitating injuries, while 70 percent involved nonincapacitating injuries. As a result, the weighted average cost of an injury in a rollover crash 

preventable by an RSC system is $167,500. 

For this analysis, the costs per injury or fatality depended on the average number of injuries and 

fatalities in crashes preventable by the RSC systems. GES data provided the numbers of injuries 

and fatalities in the crashes preventable by the stability control systems, which were used to 

calculate the average number of injuries in injury crashes and the average number of injuries and 

fatalities in fatal crashes. Table 9 presents these results. A detailed summary of the numbers of 

injuries and fatalities per year in rollovers is provided in Appendix C. 

Table 9. Average Annual Numbers of Injuries and Fatalities per Rollover Crash, 2001–2005 

Crash Type 

Number of 

Crashes 

Number of 

Injuries in 

Crashes 

Number of 

Injuries per 

Crash 

Number of 

Fatalities in 

Crashes 

Number of 

Fatalities per 

Crash 

Injury Crashes 2,079 2,368 1.1 N/A N/A 

Fatal Crashes 137 89 0.7 137 1.0 

Table 10 shows the median cost per injury crash and per fatal crash involving a rollover 

preventable by the stability systems. These results were obtained by multiplying the annual 

average numbers of fatalities and/or injuries per crash type in Table 9 by the respective 

settlement costs of $700,000 for one fatality and $167,500 for one injury. 

14 
Table 10. Average Settlement Costs per Injury and Fatal Rollover Crash 

Cost Category Injury Fatal 

Out-of-Pocket Costs per Injury $190,784 $117,250 

Out-of-Pocket per Fatality N/A $700,000 

Total $190,784 $817,250 

3.2.8 Summary of Total PDO Crash, Injury Crash, and Fatal Crash Costs for 

Rollovers 

Based on the average cost estimates from the previous subsections, Table 11 summarizes the 

major crash costs for rollovers which could be avoided through the use of RSC systems. These 

costs are based on a typical or average incident; therefore, they should be interpreted as 

approximations of typical expected values. 

Table 11. Cost Estimates per Rollover Crash by Crash Severity 

Cost Category PDO Injury Fatal 

Labor and Workers’ Compensation N/A $69,728 $48,810 

Operational $28,625 $28,625 $28,625 

Environmental $82,500 $82,500 $82,500 

Property Damage $55,833 $55,833 $55,833 

Legal Settlement $0 $190,784 $817,250 

Court Costs and Other Legal Fees $30,000 $35,000 $110,000 

Total $196,958 $462,470 $1,143,018 

This analysis is based on the assumption that these crash costs would be incurred by motor 

carriers with deductibles at the total crash cost level or motor carriers which are self-insured. By 

Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 387) requirements, all motor carriers must, at minimum, 

either insure their equipment for crash liability and cargo damage or demonstrate the financial 

capacity to cover liability and cargo damage costs for all of their trucks (USDOT 2001). FMCSA 

will consider and approve, subject to appropriate and reasonable conditions, the application of a 

motor carrier to qualify as a self–insurer, if the carrier furnishes a true and accurate statement of 

its financial condition and other evidence that establishes to the satisfaction of the FMCSA the 

ability of the motor carrier to satisfy its obligation for coverage of bodily injury liability, 

property damage liability, or cargo liability. In the case of a crash, it is likely that a self-insured 

carrier would assume all of the costs summarized in Table 11. 

For a carrier that is insured through an insurance company, the carrier would pay its deductible, 

and the insurance company would then cover most of these costs up to the policy limit. The 

median deductible provided by the insurance industry representatives for a liability and cargo 

damage insurance policy for medium-sized to large fleets was $50,000. Within the trucking 

industry, larger carriers typically have larger insurance deductibles. As a result, many large 

carriers choose to become self-insured at high values ranging from $150,000 to $5 million. 

15 
Generally, smaller carriers have lower deductibles, typically lower than the estimated median 

value of $50,000. In addition, new carriers often have a deductible of less than $10,000 and pay 

higher insurance premiums, because the insurance companies do not have the standard three to 

five years’ worth of historic safety and operating information to determine experience ratings 

and appropriate premium rates. 

Due to the high cost of truck crashes, major truck insurance providers and various truck fleets 

indicated that premiums are a significant business expense that most fleets would like to reduce. 

Yet, it should be noted that it is difficult to directly attribute a standardized premium increase to 

a single crash, since insurance calculations are based on sophisticated insurance metrics, such as 

“experience rating” and “loss-pick” formulas, which consider multiple factors, including safety 

history, crash severity, convictions, carrier size, and safety culture. Some interviewed carriers 

stated that they have experienced increases of approximately 8 to 15 percent in premiums 

annually—independent of crash history. 

3.3 STEP 3: ESTIMATE CRASH COSTS BASED ON VEHICLE MILES 

TRAVELED AND EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION 

While the information in Step 1 provides information on the numbers of truck crashes 

preventable by RSC systems, and Step 2 provides estimations of the costs of those crashes, 

motor carriers need to know what they can expect to save on the costs of these avoided crashes 

through the use of the RSC systems. As a result, Step 3 involves estimating crash avoidance 

costs based on VMT and expected reduction in crashes achieved by deploying the RSC systems. 

The average annual truck VMT can vary dramatically, depending on the motor carrier’s 

operations. As the average VMT per truck increase, the likelihood of a truck’s being involved in 

a crash will increase as well: the more time on the road, the greater the exposure to risk of crash. 

To address the variances in the average VMT traveled by carriers in different operating 

conditions, the crash costs were calculated for annual VMT values of 80,000, 100,000, 120,000, 

140,000, and 160,000 miles. 

In determining the costs of crashes preventable by RSC systems for the various annual VMT 

values shown in Table 12 and Table 13, the first step involved dividing the estimated mean 

annual number of crashes preventable by RSC systems from Table 2 by the mean annual total 

number of VMT for combination trucks in the United States, averaged across years 2001–2005 

of 140,285 million miles (Federal Highway Administration 2001–2005). The resulting values 

were multiplied by annual VMT values of 80,000, 100,000, 120,000, 140,000, and 160,000 

miles. The total values in Table 12 and Table 13 provide estimates of the expected value of crash 

costs that can be avoided through the use of RSC systems, at different efficacy rates and VMTs. 

The resulting expected total costs are the sum of the probability of each possible outcome (PDO, 

injury, or fatal) of the crashes preventable by RSC systems multiplied by its estimated cost. Each 

total cost value represents the average annual amount one “expects” for the cost of each crash per 

vehicle at a different average VMT, with identical odds repeated many times for each VMT 

category. 

16 
17 

Table 12. RSC Systems: Average Annual Crash Costs per Crash Avoided 

for an Average Annual VMT at 37% Efficacy 

Average VMT PDO Injury Fatal Total Cost* 

80,000 $68 $203 $33 $304 

100,000 $85 $254 $42 $380 

120,000 $101 $304 $50 $456 

140,000 $118 $355 $58 $531 

160,000 $135 $406 $66 $607 

*Total Cost may not be equal to the summation of numbers shown for PDO, 

Injury, and Fatal, due to independent rounding. 

Table 13. RSC Systems: Average Annual Crash Costs per Crash Avoided 

for an Average Annual VMT at 53% Efficacy 

Average VMT PDO Injury Fatal Total Cost* 

80,000 $97 $291 $48 $435 

100,000 $121 $363 $59 $544 

120,000 $145 $436 $71 $653 

140,000 $169 $509 $83 $761 

160,000 $194 $581 $95 $870 

*Total Cost may not be equal to the summation of numbers shown for PDO, 

Injury, and Fatal, due to independent rounding. 
4. COST CALCULATIONS 

This section presents Step 4 in the benefit-cost analysis which focuses on determining the costs 

of purchasing and deploying RSC systems. The technology and deployment cost estimates for 

the stability systems include the technology purchasing price, maintenance costs, and cost of 

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

financing, was considered in these costs. 

4.1 STEP 4: ESTIMATE THE TECHNOLOGY AND DEPLOYMENT COSTS 

In the United States, Meritor WABCO and Bendix are two leading market vendors of RSC 

systems for large trucks. The systems are original equipment manufacturer (OEM)-installed 

units. 

Typical RSC systems have an OEM option book price of approximately $500. Yet, ABS traction 

control is required for the system’s operation. For one cost estimate, it is assumed that a motor 

carrier would purchase the traction control on the truck, regardless of the decision to use an RSC 

system. For the other estimate, it is assumed that traction control, at an average estimated cost of 

$500, would be included in the purchase of the RSC. 

The costs are based on the assumption that the motor carrier has the capital available to pay the 

upfront cost of the technology. If a motor carrier finances the purchase of the technology, the 

costs will increase as shown in Table 14. These calculations are based on an average interest rate 

of 6.38 percent, as determined from motor carrier and banking industry interviews, and generally 

reflect a three-year loan period. 

Table 14. Cost of RSC System, if Financed 

Technology Book system 

purchases 

Price 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total 

RSC $500 $183.57 $183.57 $183.57 $550.71

RSC and Traction 

Control 

$1,000 $367.13 $367.13 $367.13 $1,101.39

It is noteworthy that motor carriers experience Federal tax savings due to depreciation of the 

stability control system equipment. To determine the tax savings, a tax rate of 35 percent was 

used (the approximate tax rate for the highest brackets for both C corporations∗

 and S 

corporations†

). 

∗

A C corporation is any major corporation that is taxed under Subchapter C of the Internal Revenue Code. The income of a C corporation is 

subject to Federal income tax. †

 An S corporation is any corporation that is taxed under Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code. An S corporation pays no Federal 

income taxes on profits, but instead each shareholder pays an income tax on his or her respective profits. 

RSC systems installed by the OEM are assumed to be part of the truck cab. 

Consequently, the technology is also subject to the Federal excise tax, and a depreciable life of 

three years was used to determine the tax savings as shown in Table 15 (Internal Revenue 

 

18 
19 

Service 2007). The Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) is the current 

method of accelerated asset depreciation required by the United States income tax code. Each 

MACRS class has a predetermined schedule, which determines the percentage of the asset’s cost 

which is depreciated each year. The General Depreciation Class for a three-year recovery period 

was used to determine the depreciation of the stability control systems. The cost of the system 

was multiplied by the MACRS rate for each year to determine the depreciation. Then, this value 

was multiplied by the tax rate of 35 percent to determine the Federal tax savings. 

Table 15. Federal Tax Savings due to Depreciation of RSC System 

Technology Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 

RSC -$58.33 -$77.79 -$25.92 -$12.97 $0.00 

RSC and Traction 

Control 

-$116.66 -$155.58 -$51.84 -$25.94 $0.00 

Since these active systems temporarily take control of vehicles and do not require driver 

intervention, direct driver training was assumed to be the cost for a one-time training session (per 

driver) of one hour at a carrier cost of $23—an estimate of the average wage for a driver plus 

fringe benefits. It was estimated that the training will be provided annually, because of the high 

driver turnover rate in the trucking industry. Interviews with motor carriers have confirmed that 

one hour is typically the amount of time that will be spent to train drivers. The costs of trainers, 

manuals, and other training materials were excluded, since they are part of a carrier’s existing 

training budget—or may be provided by the system vendors. 

Motor carriers reported in interviews that maintenance of stability control systems was minimal, 

and that any maintenance was considered a normal operating expense. As a result, maintenance 

costs for the RSC system were considered to be negligible. In Table 16, the total costs of the 

technology, plus the added training costs, less the Federal tax savings, are provided for both the 

financed and non-financed options. 

Table 16. Total Costs of RSC System Deployment with and without Financing 

Technology Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total* 

RSC $464.67 -$54.79 -$2.92 $10.03 $23.00 $439.99 

RSC (financed) $148.24 $128.78 $180.65 $10.03 $23.00 $490.70 

RSC and Traction 

Control 

$906.35 -$132.58 -$28.84 -$2.94 $23.00 $765.00 

RSC and Traction 

Control (financed) 

$273.48 $234.56 $338.30 -$2.94 $23.00 $866.40 

 *Total may not be equal to the summation of numbers shown for each year due to independent rounding. 
5. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS 

This section presents an overview of the benefit-cost analysis calculations. Specifically, the 

benefits in terms of crash cost avoidance were compared to the costs in terms of total technology 

costs. 

5.1 STEP 5: CALCULATE NET PRESENT VALUES OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 

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

costs for the values in Steps 3 and 4 using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent over a five-year 

period. Discounting benefits and costs transforms gains and losses occurring in different time 

periods to a common unit of measurement. Economic conditions and externalities dictate which 

rate is most appropriate for calculating benefits. The higher the discount rate, the lower is the 

present value of future cash flows. For typical investments, with costs concentrated in early 

periods and benefits following in later periods, raising the discount rate tends to reduce the net 

present value. The discounted benefits of the RSC system are shown in Table 17 and Table 18 at 

the low-and high-efficacy rates. Table 19 shows the discounted costs of the RSC systems. 

Table 17. Present Value of the Benefits 

of RSC Systems at 37% Efficacy 

Average 

Annual VMT 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

80,000 $1,390.71 $1,245.10 

100,000 $1,738.39 $1,556.38 

120,000 $2,086.07 $1,867.65 

140,000 $2,433.75 $2,178.93 

160,000 $2,781.43 $2,490.20 

Table 18. Present Value of the Benefits 

of RSC Systems at 53% Efficacy. 

Average 

Annual VMT 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

80,000 $1,992.33 $1,783.73 

100,000 $2,490.41 $2,229.66 

120,000 $2,988.50 $2,675.59 

140,000 $3,486.58 $3,121.52 

160,000 $3,984.66 $3,567.45 

20 
Table 19. Present Value of the Costs of RSC Systems, 3% and 7% Discount Rates 

Technology 

No 

Financing 

3% 

No 

Financing 

7% 

Financing 

3% 

Financing 

7% 

RSC $425.58 $408.09 $459.38 $422.54

RSC and Traction Control $745.83 $721.88 $813.43 $750.77

When the anticipated costs and benefits of the RSC systems are compared, the benefits of using 

the system over a period of five years outweigh the costs associated with purchasing the systems 

at each efficacy rate and for the VMT categories used, starting at 80,000 VMT. For every dollar 

spent, carriers received more than a dollar back in benefits that could be quantified for this 

analysis. To demonstrate this effect, Table 20, Table 21, Table 22, and Table 23 present the 

average benefits a motor carrier could expect to receive for each dollar invested in stability 

systems. 

Table 20. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing 

RSC System, 3% Discount Rate without Financing 

Average 

Annual VMT 

RSC 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC 

53% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

53% 

Efficacy 

80,000 $3.27 $4.68 $1.87 $2.67 

100,000 $4.08 $5.85 $2.33 $3.34 

120,000 $4.90 $7.02 $2.80 $4.01 

140,000 $5.72 $8.19 $3.27 $4.67 

160,000 $6.54 $9.36 $3.73 $5.34 

Table 21. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing 

RSC System, 7% Discount Rate without Financing 

Average 

Annual 

VMT 

RSC 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC 

53% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

53% 

Efficacy 

80,000 $3.05 $4.37 $1.72 $2.47 

100,000 $3.81 $5.46 $2.16 $3.09 

120,000 $4.58 $6.56 $2.59 $3.71 

140,000 $5.34 $7.65 $3.02 $4.32 

160,000 $6.10 $8.74 $3.45 $4.94 

21 
Table 22. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing 

RSC System, 3% Discount Rate with Financing 

Average 

Annual 

VMT 

RSC 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC 

53% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

53% 

Efficacy 

80,000 $3.03 $4.34 $1.71 $2.45 

100,000 $3.78 $5.42 $2.14 $3.06 

120,000 $4.54 $6.51 $2.56 $3.67 

140,000 $5.30 $7.59 $2.99 $4.29 

160,000 $6.05 $8.67 $3.73 $4.90 

Table 23. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing 

RSC System, 7% Discount Rate with Financing 

Average 

Annual 

VMT 

RSC 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC 

53% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

53% 

Efficacy 

80,000 $2.95 $4.22 $1.66 $2.38 

100,000 $3.68 $5.28 $2.07 $2.97 

120,000 $4.42 $6.33 $2.49 $3.56 

140,000 $5.16 $7.39 $2.90 $4.16 

160,000 $5.89 $8.44 $3.32 $4.75 

5.1.1 Payback Periods 

Payback periods were also calculated to determine the length of time required to recover the 

initial investments made for the stability systems. Although the motor carrier can expect a 

positive return on investment by purchasing the technology, the amount of time it will take for a 

motor carrier to realize positive benefits after purchasing the system varies by the average VMT 

per truck and the type of the technology. Shorter payback periods reflect less funding risk. Yet 

the payback period does not address the time value of money, nor does it go beyond the initial 

recovery of the investment. The formula is: 

PaybackPeriod

AnnualCashInflow = SystemCost

For example, with the cost of $440 for the RSC and the expected return of $435 annually for a 

VMT of 80,000 at the maximum efficacy of 53 percent, the payback period would be $440 

divided by $435, which roughly equals one year or 12 months. 

22 
The payback periods are shown in Table 24. In all cases, motor carriers with costs similar to 

those assumed for this analysis can expect to experience a payback period well within the 

anticipated lifetime of the technology. 

Table 24. Payback Period of RSC System in Months 

Average 

Annual 

VMT 

RSC 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC 

53% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

53% 

Efficacy 

80,000 17 12 30 21 

100,000 14 10 24 17 

120,000 12 8 20 14 

140,000 10 7 17 12 

160,000 9 6 15 11 

5.1.2 Indirect Costs 

The previous sections provide information about the direct costs of preventable crashes that 

could be reasonably quantified; however, decisions relating to the purchase of these systems 

should also involve the consideration of indirect costs. 

To gain a broader understanding of the importance of all crash costs to motor carriers, a 

convenience survey was delivered to motor carriers associated with the Commercial Vehicle 

Safety Alliance, the American Trucking Associations, and select affiliate state trucking 

associations. In all, 56 motor carriers responded to the questionnaire. The respondents 

represented a broad range of motor carrier fleet sizes, operational types, and characteristics. 

Although the distribution of respondents by demographic factors did not necessarily mimic the 

statistical distributions of the motor carrier industry, the respondents represented a distribution of 

carrier types adequate to infer motor carrier perceptions. 

The motor carriers were asked to rate the importance to their companies of each of 21 crash 

impacts presented in a list using a Likert scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not Very Significant” and 

5 being “Very Significant.” Table 25 presents the ranking of crash cost importance based on the 

value of the responses. 

These results showed that the first 12 top-ranked crash cost areas included indirect costs, such as 

impacts on insurance costs, safety ratings, public image, and employee morale, as true impacts to 

carriers. Stability control systems have the potential to address these important indirect costs 

which can add to the benefits of purchasing these systems. 

23 
Table 25. Motor Carrier Perceptions of Crash Cost Importance 

Crash Impact 

Rank Based 

on Mean 

Importance 

Mean Perception of 

Crash Cost 

Importance 

Impact on liability insurance rates 1 4.59 

Equipment and property damage 2 4.50 

Cost of replacing drivers 3 4.45 

Impact on Federal safety rating 4 4.37 

Crash-related legal expenses 5 4.29 

Impact on Workers’ Compensation 

rates 6 4.25 

Impact on medical insurance costs 7 4.21 

Loss of customer goodwill and/or 

business 8 4.15 

Impact on public image 9 4.13 

Environmental clean-up costs 10 4.06 

Cargo damage/loss 11 4.04 

Impact on employee morale 12 4.04 

Reimbursement of emergency 

response costs 13 3.85 

Cost of management time spent on 

crash settlement 14 3.74 

Liability from automated data collection 

via technology 16 3.73 

Cost of off-loading cargo and transport 

by relief vehicle 15 3.73 

Cost of towing/recovering damaged 

vehicle 17 3.70 

Cost of accident investigation 18 3.66 

Crash-related fines 19 3.64 

Crash-related administrative costs 20 3.42 

Shipping penalties 21 3.12 

24 
5.2 STEP 6: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 

Certain industry segments will experience different costs and benefits due to differences in 

operating practices. The costs and benefits for these industry segments may fall outside the 

normal scope of carrier operations and assumptions used for the crash cost estimates in Step 2. 

This sensitivity analysis was included to provide some context for small carriers, since this BCA 

overall assessment uses economic assumptions that may be more pertinent to medium-sized and 

large carriers. However, FMCSA and ATRI are presently undertaking a separate OSS assessment 

focusing on the unique issues and economics of small carriers. Lastly, this Step 6 sensitivity 

analysis can also be applied for high-value cargo carriers.

5.2.1 Small Carriers 

It is 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 selfinsured; therefore, out-of-pocket costs per crash will initially be much lower for small carriers. 

The median deductible for a motor carrier will fall near the low end of the $5,000 to $50,000 

range. Assuming that the probability that a small carrier will be involved in a crash is the same as 

in the original analysis, the estimated costs of a rollover crash with the insurance deductibles of 

$50,000 and $5,000 are shown in Table 26 and Table 27, respectively. Also, this cost estimate 

uses the approximately 10 percent of the Workers’ Compensation costs that may be borne by 

typical insured motor carriers. Other costs that were assumed to be directly covered by a small 

carriers (not covered by insurance policies) included driver replacement costs and the operational 

costs for cargo delivery delays; loading and unloading cargo; towing, inventory, and storage; and 

miscellaneous costs. Environmental costs were also assumed to be carrier out-of-pocket costs not 

covered by insurance. 

Table 26. Cost Estimates per Rollover Crash by Crash Severity 

with Insurance Deductible of $50,000 

Cost Category PDO Injury Fatal 

Driver Replacement $0 $7,000 $4,900 

Workers’ Compensation $0 $6,273 $4,391 

Operational—Cargo delivery delays $2,875 $2,875 $2,875 

Operational—Loading and unloading cargo $1,850 $1,850 $1,850 

Operational—Towing, inventory, and storage $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 

Operational—Miscellaneous $400 $400 $400 

Environmental $82,500 $82,500 $82,500 

Insurance Deductible $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 

Total $146,125 $159,398 $155,416 

25 
Table 27. Cost Estimates per Rollover Crash by Crash Severity 

with Insurance Deductible of $5,000 

Cost Category PDO Injury Fatal 

Driver Replacement $0 $7,000 $4,900 

Workers’ Compensation $0 $6,273 $4,391 

Operational—Cargo delivery delays $2,875 $2,875 $2,875 

Operational—Loading and unloading cargo $1,850 $1,850 $1,850 

Operational—Towing, inventory, and storage $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 

Operational—Miscellaneous $400 $400 $400 

Environmental $82,500 $82,500 $82,500 

Insurance Deductible $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

Total $101,125 $114,398 $110,416 

The total values in Table 28 and Table 29 provide an estimate of the expected value of crash 

costs that can be avoided through the use of RSC systems at different efficacy rates and a typical 

VMT of 100,000 VMT. The resulting expected total costs are the sum of the probability of each 

possible outcome of the crashes preventable by RSC systems multiplied by its estimated cost. 

Each total cost value represents the average annual amount one could “expect” as the cost of the 

crash per vehicle at a common 100,000 annual VMT. 

Table 28. RSC Systems: Average Annual Crash Costs per Crash Avoided 

for an Average Annual VMT of 100,000 VMT at 37% Efficacy 

Deductible PDO Injury Fatal Total 

Cost* 

$5,000 $43 $63 $4 $110 

$50,000 $85 $87 $6 $178 

*Total Cost may not be equal to the summation of numbers shown for PDO, 

Injury, and Fatal due to independent rounding. 

Table 29. RSC Systems: Average Annual Crash Costs per Crash Avoided 

for an Average Annual VMT of 100,000 VMT at 53% Efficacy 

Deductible PDO Injury Fatal Total 

Cost* 

$5,000 $62 $90 $6 $158 

$50,000 $90 $125 $8 $223 

*Total Cost may not be equal to the summation of numbers shown for PDO, 

Injury, and Fatal due to independent rounding. 

After determining the net present values of the costs and benefits of the RSC systems, the

anticipated benefits per dollar spent for purchasing the RSC system were calculated for 100,000 

VMT and shown below in Table 30 and Table 31. It was assumed that most small carriers would 

26 
finance the purchase of the technology; therefore, the present value of the financed costs of the 

RSC system both without and with the added traction control at 3 percent and 7 percent from 

Table 19 were used to determine the results. 

Table 30. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing RSC System 

per Crash Avoided for an Average Annual VMT of 100,000 VMT, 

3% Discount Rate with Financing 

Deductible 

RSC 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC 

53% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

53% 

Efficacy 

$5,000 $1.10 $1.57 $0.62 $0.89 

$50,000 $1.77 $2.22 $1.00 $1.26 

Table 31. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing RSC System 

per Crash Avoided for an Average Annual VMT of 100,000 VMT, 

7% Discount Rate with Financing 

Deductible 

RSC 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC 

53% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

53% 

Efficacy 

$5,000 $1.07 $1.53 $0.60 $0.86 

$50,000 $1.72 $2.16 $0.97 $1.22 

Based on the overall probability of involvement in a rollover crash, a small carrier may not 

achieve a dollar or more of benefits for each dollar spent on financing the technology over five 

years. However, an excessive number of crashes in a short time period can seriously affect a 

small carrier’s insurance premiums and deductible levels. As the number of crashes increases, so 

will the insurance costs, until the insurance costs equal or exceed the original RSC investment 

requirement, or until the carrier is dropped by the insurance provider. The formula for such a 

consequence varies by number of crashes, severity, and timeline. For this reason, an investment 

in the technology may still be considered judicious for added protection against rising insurance 

costs. 

When the risk of involvement in a rollover crash is spread over the entire population of motor 

carriers, the benefits may not always exceed the costs for small carriers. However, benefits may 

still exist for small carriers. The overall probability of being involved in a rollover crash is low, 

but once it occurs, the costs to the small carrier can increase dramatically. According to 

insurance industry data, for a deductible level of $5,000 per crash, the annual premium payment 

will be approximately $4,000 per power unit. Estimates suggest that as long as the average loss 

per power unit does not exceed 50–65 percent of the total premium payment, the annual 

premium for the motor carrier may not increase. At the $4,000 premium used in this discussion, 

the average loss per power unit cannot exceed approximately $2,600 to prevent a rate increase. 

27 
Insurance companies consider many factors when determining motor carrier premium payments. 

However, if the insurance provider is not able to generate its required return, or experiences a 

loss by covering a carrier, it is highly likely that the insurance provider will increase the motor 

carrier’s annual premiums. For example, increasing the $4,000 premium by 10 percent because 

of a rollover crash, results in a new annual premium per truck of $4,400, an increase of $400 per 

truck. Over a five-year period without any further premium increases above the $400 per truck, 

this is an additional cost in premium payments of $2,000 per power unit. In contrast, the 

expected cost associated with financing an RSC unit is $490.70. If the purchase of this unit 

prevents a crash that would result in higher insurance premiums, it will save the motor carrier 

nearly $1,509 per power unit. Nevertheless, it is recognized that small carriers do not always 

have the front-end liquidity or financial borrowing capacity to invest in such systems, even 

though they generate a positive return on investment. 

5.2.2 High-Value Cargo Carriers 

For high-value cargo carriers, the costs associated with the damage will be greater than the 

average carrier’s costs. If the cargo damage costs range from $50,000 to $1,000,000, instead of 

an average of $15,000, the total estimated crash costs for rollovers increase by $35,000 to 

$985,000, respectively, due to operational cost changes. The total crash costs accounting for 

these differences are shown in Table 32 and Table 33. 

Table 32. Cost Estimates per Rollover Crash by Crash Severity 

with High-Value Cargo Damages of $50,000 

Cost Category PDO Injury Fatal 

Labor and Workers’ Compensation N/A $69,728 $48,810 

Operational $63,625 $63,625 $63,625 

Environmental $82,500 $82,500 $82,500 

Property Damage $55,833 $55,833 $55,833 

Legal Settlement $0 $190,784 $817,250 

Court Costs and Other Legal Fees $30,000 $35,000 $110,000 

Total $231,958 $497,470 $1,178,018 

Table 33. Cost Estimates per Rollover Crash by Crash Severity 

with High-Value Cargo Damages of $1,000,000 

Cost Category PDO Injury Fatal 

Labor and Workers’ Compensation N/A $69,728 $48,810 

Operational $1,013,625 $1,013,625 $1,013,625 

Environmental $82,500 $82,500 $82,500 

Property Damage $55,833 $55,833 $55,833 

Legal Settlement $0 $190,784 $817,250 

Court Costs and Other Legal Fees $30,000 $35,000 $110,000 

Total $1,181,958 $1,447,470 $2,128,018 

28 
29 

Following the same methodology described in the previous sections, the anticipated benefits for 

RSC systems high-value cargo carriers are presented below in Table 34 and Table 35. 

Table 34. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing RSC System 

per Crash Avoided for an Average Annual VMT of 100,000 VMT, 

3% Discount Rate with Financing 

High-Value 

Cargo 

Damages 

RSC 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC 

53% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

53% 

Efficacy 

$50,000 $4.14 $5.93 $2.34 $3.35 

$1,000,000 $13.74 $19.68 $7.76 $11.11 

Table 35. Anticipated Benefits per Dollar Spent for Purchasing RSC System 

per Crash Avoided for an Average Annual VMT of 100,000 VMT, 

7% Discount Rate with Financing 

High-Value 

Cargo 

Damages 

RSC 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC 

53% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

37% 

Efficacy 

RSC and 

Traction 

Control 

53% 

Efficacy 

$50,000 $4.03 $5.77 $2.27 $3.25 

$1,000,000 $13.37 $19.16 $7.53 $10.78 

Since the crash costs are greater for high-value cargo carriers, the benefits that accrue from the 

technology are greater as well. 
6. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The following findings and conclusions were derived from this economic analysis of RSC 

systems for large combination trucks. 

The average costs of rollover crashes are approximately $197,000, $462,000, and $1,143,000 for 

PDO crashes, injury crashes, and fatal crashes, respectively. These costs reflect the direct “outof-pocket” costs for motor carriers that have deductibles at or above crash costs or are selfinsured. However, any trucking industry stakeholder that is a party to crash cost calculations or 

liability—such as insurers, legal defense firms, and industry suppliers—can use the figures to 

understand the safety impacts of onboard safety systems. 

The cost estimates are based upon currently available motor carrier, insurance, and supplier 

information on the actual expenses incurred by the motor carrier industry in crashes that could be 

preventable through the use of RSC systems. 

Regardless of the average VMTs, medium-sized to large motor carriers with an average 

likelihood of being involved in a rollover crash will achieve positive returns on investment by 

purchasing and using RSC systems. Based on the cost and crash scenarios used herein, many 

carriers investing in the RSC systems will achieve a higher return on investment than those that 

do not invest in the system. 

The sensitivity analysis further demonstrates that even small carriers, which will generally not 

incur the same per-truck crash costs as larger carriers, can realize added benefits due to insurance 

implications if one or more crashes are prevented using RSC systems. 

30 
7. REFERENCES 

Battelle. (2003). Evaluation of the freightliner intelligent vehicle initiative: Field operational 

test. U.S. Department of Transportation [cited 1 June 2008]. Available online: 

http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13871/13871.pdf

Federal Highway Administration. (2001–2005). Federal highway statistics publications. Section 

V: Roadway extent, characteristics, and performance, Table VM-1: Vehicle miles of travel 

and related data, by highway category and vehicle type. U.S. Department of Transportation 

[cited 1 June 2008]. Available online: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/hsspubs.htm 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). (2006a). Large truck crash causation 

study [report online]. U.S. Department of Transportation [cited 1 June 2008]. Available 

online: http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/ltccs/default.asp

FMCSA. (2006b). A simulation approach to estimate the efficacy of Meritor WABCO’s improved 

roll [report online]. Report No. FMCSA-MCRR-06-006. U.S. Department of Transportation 

[cited 1 June 2008]. Available online: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/researchtechnology/report/Task-5-4-Roll-Stability-Control.pdf 

Internal Revenue Service. (2007). How to depreciate property. Publication 946. Appendix A. 

MACRS percentage table guide, general depreciation system (GDS), Table A-1. U.S. 

Department of the Treasury [cited 1 June 2008]. Available online: 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p946.pdf 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2005). National automotive 

sampling system: General Estimates System analytical user’s manual, 1988–2005 [report 

online]. U.S. Department of Transportation [cited 1 June 2008]. Available online: 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/AUM05.pdf 

NHTSA. (2002). The economic impact of motor vehicle crashes 2000 [report online]. Report No. 

DOT HS 809 446. U.S. Department of Transportation [cited 1 June 2008]. Available online: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20&%20Consumer%20

Information/Articles/Associated%20Files/EconomicImpact2000.pdf

Office of Management and Budget. (1992). Guidelines and discount rates for benefit-cost 

analysis of federal programs. OMB Circular A-94. Executive Office of the President [cited 1 

June 2008]. Available online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a094.html

Rodriguez ,J., Kosir, M., Lantz, B., Griffin, G., & Glatt, J. (2000). The costs of truckload driver 

turnover. Fargo, North Dakota State University, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute 

[cited 1 June 2008]. Available online: http://www.ugpti.org/pubs/pdf/SP146.pdf

Short, J., Boyle, L., Shackelford, S., Inderbitzen, B., & Bergoffen, G. (2007). The role of safety 

culture in preventing commercial motor vehicle crashes. CTBSSP Synthesis of Safety 

Practice No. 14 [cited 1 June 2008]. Available online: 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ctbssp/ctbssp_syn_14.pdf 

31 
32 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2001). Minimum levels of financial responsibility 

for motor carriers. Code of Federal Regulations 49 CFR, Part 387 [cited 1 June 2008]. 

Available online: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rulesregulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrguidedetails.asp?rule_toc=756§ion_toc=756

Wang, J.S., Knipling, R.R., & Blincoe, L.J. (1999). The dimensions of motor vehicle crash risk. 

Journal of Transportation and Statistics 2(1):19–43. 
APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF DATA SETS 

National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS/GES) 

SOURCES: 

GES Data Files from: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.0efe59a360fbaad24ec86e10dba046a0/

GES Analytical Users Manual, 1988–2005 from: 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/AUM05.PDF

The GES is directed by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, which is a research and 

development arm of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA is 

an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible for reducing injuries and 

fatalities on America’s roadways through education and research on safety standards and 

enforcement activity. The GES sample collects data from GES data collectors in 60 different 

geographic sites across the United States. These data collectors work with approximately 400 

police agencies within these sites; during each visit, the data collectors collect all police traffic 

accident reports (PARs) and then select a sample of these reports. A NHTSA contractor codes 

these reports into data files, while checking for quality, validity, and consistency. According to 

the NASS-GES Analytical User’s Manual, “GES is used to identify highway safety problem 

areas, provide a basis for regulatory and consumer information initiatives, and form the basis for 

cost and benefit analyses of highway safety initiatives” (NHTSA 2005). 

The PARs that GES data files are coded from represent a probability sample of all policereported crashes in the United States. Therefore, once the records of interest within GES are 

isolated, a weight must be applied to calculate estimates of national crash characteristics, 

including items such as the number of crashes of a specific type, or the number of injuries within 

that accident type. This weight is indicated by the “Weight” variable in each GES data file; this 

weight is “the product of the inverse of the probabilities of selection at each of the three stages in 

the sampling process” (NHTSA 2005). 

The main limitation of using GES as a data source is that when looking at extremely specific 

crash types, as this analysis does, there is a possibility that a query will return a small number of 

records. The actual number of crashes that each record represents is given by the weight, as 

discussed in the previous paragraph. The more specific the query—i.e., the more variables that 

are constrained—the more limited the number of records returned. The data fields and variables 

in them that were used in this analysis are presented in Table 36. 

33 
34 

Table 36. Name and Brief Description of GES Fields Relevant to this Study 

Field Name Variables for Rollovers 

Body Type 

BODY_TYP (V05) 

66—Truck Tractor 

Movement Prior to Critical 

Event 

P_CRASH1 (V21) 

14—Negotiating a Curve 

Rollover Type 

ROLLOVER (V30N) 

All types except 0—No rollover 

Injury Severity 

INJ_SEV (P09) 

0—No Injury 

1—Possible Injury 

2—Non-Incapacitating Injury 

3—Incapacitating Injury 

4—Fatal Injury 

5—Injured Severity Unknown 

9—Unknown—[assumed as no injury] 

Person Type 

PER_TYPE (P3Z) 

1—Driver of a Motor Vehicle 

2—Passenger of a Motor Vehicle 

9—Unknown Occupant 

Federal Highway Statistics 

Federal Highway Statistics publications are managed by the Federal Highway Administration’s 

Office of Highway Policy Information. The Highway Statistics Series contains statistical 

information on a variety of highway usage topics including vehicle mileage. The highway data 

analyzed in the Highway Statistics Series are submitted by individual states and analyzed against 

previously submitted data to ensure accuracy. 

The total number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for combination trucks in the United States, 

averaged across years (Federal Highway Administration 2001–2005)—namely, 140,285 million 

miles—is shown in Table 37. 

Table 37. Average Annual VMT (millions of miles) for Combination Vehicles, 2001–2005 

Truck Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average 

Combination 

Trucks 

135,400 138,643 138,322 145,398 143,662 140,285 
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDE – 

MOTOR CARRIER AND VENDOR DATA ON STABILITY 

SYSTEM EFFICACY AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT 

VENDOR INTERVIEW GUIDE 

All responses will be kept confidential. We will not report any identifying information. 

Name/Company: 

Title: 

Phone/E-mail: 

1. Which rollover stability system(s) does your company provide? 

 Rollover Stability Control∗

∗

 Rollover Stability Control systems are active systems that automatically intervene if a high rollover risk is detected because of excessive speed 

in a curve. 

†

 Electronic Stability Control systems are active systems that automatically intervene when there is either a high risk of rollover or yaw 

instability. 

 Electronic Stability Control†

2. Which types of crashes does the rollover stability system likely prevent? 

 Rollovers 

 Jackknifes 

 Other: 

 Other: 

 Other: 

3. Recognizing that price information is sensitive, please indicate a price range for the rollover 

stability systems you provide. 

$ to $ 

4. What is the average per-unit installation cost for the technology? 

$ 

 

35 
5. What are the average annual per-unit ongoing costs for the technology? 

$ 

a. What do these ongoing costs include?

 Maintenance 

 Inspection 

 Other: 

6. How many hours are suggested to train a driver to use the technology? 

 Hours 

7. What is the estimated payback period (breakeven point) for the technology? 

 Years 

8. Please complete the table below to indicate how effective the technology is at preventing 

each crash type for each vehicle configuration/trailer type. 

Crash Type Single 

Units 

5-Axle, 

Single 

Trailers 

5-Axle, 

Single 

Tank 

Trailers 

5-Axle, 

Single 

Flat-Bed 

Trailers 

5-Axle, 

Double 

Trailers 

(Vans) 

Longer 

Combination 

Vehicles 

Jackknife 

Rollover 

Other: 

Other: 

Other: 

9. Could you please provide a list of companies that currently use your product? 

36 
MOTOR CARRIER INTERVIEW GUIDE 

All responses will be kept confidential. We will not report any identifying information. 

Name/Company: 

Title: 

Phone/E-mail: 

1. How is your fleet best described? 

 Private fleet 

 Truckload carrier 

 Less than truckload carrier 

 Owner/operator 

 Other, please specify: 

2. Please complete the following table for your company fleet. 

Truck Category Number 

Percent with Rollover 

Stability Control Systems 

Currently Installed∗

Year Expected 100% 

Installation 

Straight Trucks 

Tractors 

Trailers—Dry Vans 

Trailers—Tank Trailers 

Trailers—Flatbed 

∗

 Although it is not typical, some carriers install stability control systems separately on trailers. Please complete this column for the trailers only if 

you are one of these carriers. 

3. What is your average length of haul? 

 100 miles or less (local) 

 Between 100 and 500 miles (regional) 

 500 miles or more (national) 

4. Which rollover stability system(s) does your company use? 

 Rollover Stability Control†

†

 Rollover Stability Control systems are active systems that automatically intervene if a high rollover risk is detected because of excessive speed 

in a curve. 

 

 Electronic Stability Control‡

‡

 Electronic Stability Control systems are active systems that automatically intervene when there is either a high risk of rollover or yaw 

instability. 

37 
5. Which types of crashes does the rollover stability system likely prevent? 

 Rollovers 

 Jackknifes 

 Other: 

 Other: 

 Other: 

6. For which vehicle configurations have you experienced safety benefits (from the 

technology)? 

 Single unit (how many axles? ) 

 Five-axle tractor, single trailer combinations 

 Five-axle tractor, double trailer (vans) combination 

 Longer combination vehicles 

 Tank trucks 

 Flat-bed trucks 

7. Recent industry data have identified the following human capital costs associated with largetruck crashes. Please complete the table below to indicate how your company’s data 

compares to the current estimates. 

Cost Category 

Short-term 

staff 

disruption 

Cost of 

driver 

recruitment 

marketing 

Training 

costs (i.e., 

school costs, 

instructor 

costs) 

Testing costs 

(i.e., background 

checks, 

physicals) 

Hiring costs 

(i.e., bonuses, 

training, and 

relocation) 

Orientation 

costs 

Total 

costs 

Current 

Estimate No data No data $3350 $500 $500 $2650 $7000 

Your 

Estimate 

8. Including inflation, please estimate the average annual percent increase in crash costs you 

experience (per crash). 

 % 

9. Recognizing that price information is sensitive, please indicate a price range for the rollover 

stability systems you use. 

$ to $ 

10. What is the average per-unit installation cost for the technology? 

$ 

38 
39 

11. What are the average annual per-unit ongoing costs for the technology? 

$ 

a. What do these ongoing costs include? 

 Maintenance 

 Inspection 

 Other: 

 Other: 

 Other: 

12. How many hours do you provide to train a driver to use the technology? 

a. How are drivers compensated for this time? 

$ per hour OR $ total 

13. What is the estimated payback period (breakeven point) for the technology? 

 years 

14. Had your company not invested in the safety technology, what would you have done with 

that money instead? 

 Invested in other technologies 

 Paid off debt or other liabilities 

 Invested the cash into some type of savings account 

 Other: 

15. What is the average interest you pay on debt? % 

(This information will be used to determine the proper discount rate for calculating the 

present value cost of future crashes.) 

16. Please complete the following chart for trucks that are equipped with rollover stability 

technologies. 

Technology Type: 

Average Annual VMT per Truck: 

Average Number of Total Crashes Per Year: 

Crash Type 

Average Number 

of Crashes Per 

Year 

Estimated Number of 

Crashes Avoided with 

Technology Per Year 

Average Cost 

per Crash 

Rollovers 

Jackknifes 

Other∗: 

Other*: 

Other*: 

 

∗

 Please complete this only for other crashes that may be mitigated by the technology. 

41 

APPENDIX C: SUPPORTING DATA 

This appendix contains the annual number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities for rollovers in the 

years 2001–2005, as presented in Table 38, Table 39, and Table 40. A note on all figures: Within 

GES, the weight is often a seven-digit figure, with three numbers after the decimal; therefore, the 

following numbers are rounded. 

Table 38. Annual Number of Combination Vehicle PDO, Injury, and Fatal Rollovers 

with Pre-Crash Movement Around a Curve, 2001–2005 

Crash Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average 

Number of PDO Crashes 1,732 1,603 1,114 1,553 2,130 1,626 

Number of Injury Crashes 1,995 2,414 2,082 2,089 1,815 2,079 

Number of Fatal Crashes 191 20 286 52 135 137 

Table 39. Annual Number of Injuries and Fatalities for Rollovers 

with Pre-Crash Movement Around a Curve, 2001–2005 

Crash Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average 

Injuries in Injury Crashes 2,210 2,555 2,216 2,864 1,996 2,368 

Fatalities in Fatal Crashes 191 20 286 52 135 137 

Injuries in Fatal Crashes 74 0 372 0 0 89 

Table 40. Truck Driver Injuries and Fatalities for Rollovers 

with Pre-Crash Movement Around a Curve, 2001–2005 

Crash Statistic 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average 

Number Total Injury Crashes 1,995 2,414 2,082 2,089 1,815 2079 

Number Truck Driver Injuries 1,897 2,187 2,204 2,089 1,746 2025 

Number Drivers Injured per 

Injury Crash 

0.96 0.93 1.06 1.00 0.96 0.98 

Number Total Fatality Crashes 191 20 286 52 135 137 

Number Truck Driver Fatalities 123 20 124 52 135 91 

Number Drivers Killed per 

Fatality Crash 

0.64 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 0.66 

43 

APPENDIX D: COST DATA – 

MOTOR CARRIER QUESTIONNAIRE AND 

RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS 

Part 1: Interview Guide is shown on the next page. 

Part 2: Survey Respondent Demographics follows. 

45 

PART 1: INTERVIEW GUIDE 

ATRI is currently working on a trucking industry research initiative to develop a comprehensive 

cost-benefit analysis of select safety technologies, including rollover stability control, forwardlooking radar, and lane-departure warning systems. The purpose of this interview is to gather 

real-world information about the costs associated with collisions that could be prevented or 

reduced by these types of technologies.∗

The overall goal is to determine a company’s approximate costs associated with different types 

of accidents—in particular, rollovers, side-swipes, run-off-road, rear-end accidents, and, to a 

lesser extent, jackknife crashes. 

Thank you in advance for your time and support on this important industry research project! 

For each of the following tables, please consider an average accident of each type. Then 

provide the number or extent of incidents, injuries, and average cost(s) for each crash type 

for each metric.†

 

∗

 This information collection is covered by the OMB and Paperwork Reduction Act exemption for ITS-related surveys, questionnaires, and 

interviews defined in Section 5305, Title V, Subtitle C, paragraph (i) (2) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: 

A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005, which states that “Any survey, questionnaire, or interview that the Secretary considers necessary to 

carry out the evaluation of any test or program assessment activity under this subchapter shall not be subject to chapter 35 of title 44.” †

 For this Appendix content, the term “accident” is maintained to preserve the integrity of the actual survey content rendered by ATRI. 

47 

Labor Costs by Collision Type: 

Cost Factors Rollovers Side-Swipes Run-Off-Road RearNumber of accidents. Number of drivers injured (per 100 accidents).Costs Associated with Permanent Injuries to DriverNumber of accidents involving permanent injury. Number of drivers replaced (per 100 accidents). Costs of driver recruitment marketing. Training Costs (i.e., school costs, instructor costs). Testing Costs (i.e., background checks, physicals). Hiring Costs (i.e., bonuses, training, and relocation). Orientation Costs. Costs Associated with Temporary Injuries to DriverNumber of accidents involving temporary injury. Number of drivers temporarily replaced (per 100 accidents). Costs of recruitment marketing. Training Costs (i.e., school costs, instructor costs). Testing Costs (i.e., background checks, physicals). Recruitment Costs (i.e., bonuses, training, and relocation). Orientation Costs. 
1. A recent study placed the average worker replacement costs for all companies at $8,234. 

Do you consider this number reasonable? Yes No 

1a. If no, what estimate would you consider reasonable? 

2. Are there additional labor costs we have not considered? Yes No 

2a. If yes, will you please describe those costs and give estimates? 

Costs Estimates 

3. Do you budget or estimate the cost of driver replacement for the upcoming fiscal or 

calendar year? Yes No 

3a. If yes, can you describe your process and give an estimate? 

4. Can you estimate the wages for relief drivers? Yes No 

4a. If yes, please give an estimate: 

4b. If yes, are they hourly, salary, or paid by the mile? 

Hourly Salary By the mile 

48 
Operational Costs by Collision Type (Indicate “N/A” if not available or applicable): 

Cost Factors Rollovers SideSwipes 

Run-OffRoad Rear-End Jackknife 

Number of accidents involving 

cargo damage (per 100 accidents)

Average cost of cargo damage 

due to accident. 

Avg. cost of secondary cargo 

damage (i.e., rain, exposure to 

weather).

Avg. cost associated with cargo 

delay (i.e., penalties and/or 

reimbursements for late delivery). 

Additional inventory costs for 

storing cargo. 

Any costs associated with 

guarding cargo after accident. 

Avg. cost associated with 

unloading or loading cargo 

(do not include labor costs). 

Miscellaneous operational costs 

(i.e., communications expenses, 

press releases, etc.). 

Emergency supplies relating to 

accident (i.e., flares, fire 

extinguishers, etc.). 

Towing Costs: Tractor 

 Trailer 

5. What are the primary commodity types your company hauls? 

6. How do accident costs vary by the commodity type? 

7. Does your company calculate loss of “goodwill” when considering the costs of an 

accident (including employee goodwill, customer goodwill, and public goodwill)? 

Yes No 

7a. If yes, can you give an estimate and describe how you calculate goodwill costs? 

Estimate: 

Calculation: 

 

49 
Environmental Costs by Collision Type: 

Cost Factors Rollovers SideSwipes 

Run-OffRoad Rear-End Jackknife 

Number of accidents involving 

environmental impact costs (per 

100 accidents) 

Average cost of fines 

Average out-of-pocket costs for 

cleanup 

8. Does your company incur any other environmental costs other than the ones mentioned 

above? Yes No 

8a. If yes, please estimate and describe the type of costs you incur. 

Costs Estimates 

50 
Insurance Costs by Collision Type: 

Cost Factors Rollovers SideSwipes 

Run-OffRoad Rear-End Jackknife 

Estimates of increased per-truck 

premiums due to each reportable 

accident. 

Estimate of per-accident out-ofpocket. 

Estimate of per accident out-ofpocket costs relating to property 

damage (tractor and trailer). 

9. What is your average deductible per vehicle/accident? 

10. Does the deductible vary by type of truck? Yes No 

10a. If yes, can you please describe and give a range for your deductibles by truck type? 

11. Does the deductible vary by driver history? Yes No 

11a. If yes, can you please describe and give a range for your deductibles? 

51 
Legal Costs by Collision Type (per accident): 

Cost Factors Rollovers SideSwipes 

Run-OffRoad Rear-End Jackknife 

Average court costs. 

Legal fees. 

Average out-of-pocket 

settlement costs. 

12. Are there additional legal expenses we have not considered? Yes No 

12a. If yes, please estimate and describe the type of costs you incur. 

Costs Estimates 

13. Will you please list the average cost of all crashes assuming self-insured? 

52 
PART 2: SURVEY RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS 

Carriers: 

Carrier A: This is a large (1,000+ power units) national tank truck carrier that handles 

bulk commodity shipping operations, providing services to the entire continental United 

States. The fleet primarily consists of tank trailers and a smaller fleet of flat-bed trailers. 

Primary commodities are chemicals and petroleum products. 

Carrier B: This is a mid-sized (100–500 power units) regional truckload carrier that 

operates in the eastern United States and primarily utilizes van trailers. The carrier’s 

principal commodities include general freight and limited HAZMAT. 

Carrier C: This is a small (<100 power units) specialty carrier that provides expedited 

freight services for customers that require high levels of safety and security, with cargo 

types that are extremely hazardous or sensitive in nature. 

Carrier D: This is a large (1,500+ power units) refrigerated carrier with both truckload 

and less-than-truckload operations. Typical commodities hauled include food products, 

medical supplies, and consumer goods. 

Carrier E: This is a very large (8,000+ power unit) transportation company that provides 

truckload services for shippers in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The carrier 

hauls general commodities with dry vans, and also utilizes flatbeds, specialty, and unsided trailers. The operation is both long- and short-haul. The company relies heavily on 

the use of independent drivers. 

Carrier F: This is a large (1,200+ power units) refrigerated carrier that operates 

throughout the United States, Mexico, and Canada. This carrier primarily hauls food 

products and consumer goods. 

Insurance Companies: 

Insurance Carrier A: This is a large, national insurance company with an emphasis on 

commercial transportation accounts, and is one of the top five trucking industry insurers. 

Insurance Carrier B: This is a large, national insurance company with a large 

diversified portfolio of coverage, which includes many larger trucking industry accounts. 

53 
54 

Law Firms: 

Law Firm A: This is a regional law firm with multiple locations throughout the Midwest 

employing more than 80 attorneys. The firm specializes in transportation, litigation 

defense, collection services, and intellectual property. 

Law Firm B: This is a law firm located in the Southeast employing more than 20 

attorneys who specialize in litigation and insurance law. 

Law Firm C: This is a national law firm with multiple locations in the Midwest and 

throughout the world employing more than 100 attorneys. The firm specializes in 

litigation, environmental, intellectual property and real estate law. 

Environmental Clean-Up Firms: 

Environmental Cleanup Company A: This is an environmental clean-up firm located 

in the Southeast that specializes in waste removal, roll-off services, and industrial 

cleaning. This firm performs planned and emergency services. 

Environmental Cleanup Company B: This is an environmental clean-up firm with 

multiple locations along the Eastern Seaboard. The firm’s clean-up services range from 

disaster response to spill management. 
APPENDIX E: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The Roll Stability Control Systems Benefit-Cost Analysis for Large Trucks was managed by Ms. 

Amy Houser of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The project supports 

FMCSA’s safety goal to reduce the number and severity of large-truck fatalities and crashes by 

encouraging voluntary adoption of promising onboard safety technologies by motor carriers. 

FMCSA’s efforts include an evaluation of the costs and benefits to the motor carrier community 

of adopting the technologies. 

This report provides the analytical framework and findings of the benefit-cost and return-oninvestment analyses for the vehicle stability systems discussed herein. A number of subject 

matter experts (SMEs) and industry representatives have provided input to the research process 

as well as comments on study findings. We would like to thank and recognize the support 

provided by the following individuals.

Ronald R. Knipling, Ph.D. 

Virginia Tech Transportation Center 

Scott Claffey 

Great West Insurance Company 

Dave Melton 

Liberty Mutual Research Institute for 

Safety 

Anne McCartt, Ph.D. 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

Rick Craig 

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 

Association 

Bill Gouse 

American Trucking Associations 

Tom Moses 

The Spill Center 

Bob Interbitzen 

National Private Truck Council 

In addition, the expanded analysis was supported by the following individuals, who provided 

considerable assistance in the form of data, analysis, and review:

Steve Olson 

Great West Casualty Corporation 

John Culp 

Maverick Transportation 

Mark Ramsdell 

Larson Allen 

Tracy McDonald 

Praxair 

Skip Yeakel 

Volvo 

Dean Newell 

Maverick 

Don Lacy 

Prime, Inc. 

Don Osterberg 

Schneider National 

Bill Elscholtz 

Overnite Express 

Charles Pursley 

Tennessee Express 

Ron Szapacs 

Air Products 

Andrew Boyle 

Boyle Transportation 

Rick Romer 

Arvin Meritor 

Jerry Waddell 

Cargo Transporters 

John Dickerson 

Hill Bros. 

55