Page 1 GAO-14-408R Federal Vehicle Collisions

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 24, 2014

The Honorable John Mica

Chairman

Subcommittee on Government Operations

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Mark R. Warner

United States Senate

The Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart

The Honorable Lois Frankel

House of Representatives

Federal Vehicle Collisions and Aftermarket Collision Avoidance Technologies

The federal government can be liable for vehicular damages and the costs of injuries resulting 

from accidents involving vehicles that are owned or leased by federal agencies. The General 

Services Administration (GSA) plays a key role in helping agencies manage their vehicle fleets,

and agencies can purchase and lease vehicles from GSA. However, federal agencies are 

ultimately responsible for acquiring, maintaining, and managing those vehicles in a costeffective manner, and in fiscal year 2012, federal agencies—civilian, defense, and the U.S. 

Postal Service—reported owning or leasing about 650,000 motor vehicles at a cost of almost 

$4.4 billion. Recently, new technologies have become available that may help reduce the 

frequency of accidents as well as the costs of accidents that occur. These technologies, called 

collision avoidance technologies, use sensors, such as cameras and radar, to observe a 

vehicle’s surroundings and issue warnings to drivers when certain types of collisions may be 

imminent. While such technologies have increasingly become available as factory-installed 

options on vehicles, aftermarket collision avoidance technologies have also become available 

that may offer similar benefits but cost less than factory-installed options.

You asked us to examine how much accidents involving federal vehicles cost the government 

each year as well as whether aftermarket collision avoidance technologies might help to reduce 

the number of accidents and the associated costs. We briefed your staff on the preliminary 

results of our review on March 26, 2014; this report formally transmits the briefing slides we 

provided at that time (see enclosure I). This report discusses what is known about (1) the extent 

to which federal vehicles were reported to have been involved in accidents from fiscal years 

2008 through 2012 and the cost of those accidents to the government, and (2) the potential of

aftermarket collision avoidance technologies to help reduce vehicle accidents.

To describe what is known about the extent to which federal vehicles were reported to have 

been involved in accidents from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and the cost of those accidents 

to the government, we reviewed GSA and agency-specific guidance regarding reporting vehicle 
Page 2 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions

accidents; prior GAO reports on the federal fleet;1 and interviewed knowledgeable officials from 

GSA and the Department of Transportation (DOT). We also reviewed GSA’s fiscal year 2012 

Federal Fleet Report, the most recent available, which provides statistics on federally owned 

and leased vehicles, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) traffic 

statistics, which provide information on accident rates in the United States. We have previously 

assessed the reliability of data from these sources by reviewing documentation related to how 

the data are collected, processed, and used and interviewing agency officials who are 

knowledgeable about these data sources.2 We found these data to be sufficiently reliable for the 

limited purpose of providing context for the data we present. We also obtained information and 

interviewed officials from three civilian agencies: the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), the 

Interior (Interior), and Veterans Affairs (VA). We selected these agencies because they reported 

among the highest number of accidents to GSA from fiscal years 2008 to 2012.

We assessed whether various federal data sources might allow us to quantify the number of 

accidents involving federally owned and leased vehicles or analyze comprehensively the costs 

of those accidents to the federal government. The data sources we assessed include GSA’s 

Comprehensive Accident Reporting System, GSA’s Federal Motor Vehicle Registration System, 

NHTSA’s National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System, NHTSA’s Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System, the Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Injuries/Illnesses and Fatal Injuries 

Program. We assessed the reliability of GSA’s Comprehensive Accident Reporting System by 

reviewing the data to identify anomalies and reviewing GSA’s responses to questions about how 

the data are collected, processed, and used. We determined that data from GSA’s 

Comprehensive Accident Reporting System were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 

report—that is, to provide information on the number, type, and costs billed to the government of 

accidents for GSA-leased vehicles and the number of injuries and fatalities that resulted from 

these accidents. We did not assess the other data sources for reliability because we determined 

they did not have information that would allow us to identify the number of accidents or analyze 

the costs of accidents involving federally owned or leased vehicles. See the appendix to 

enclosure I for our assessment of each of these sources.

To describe what is known about the potential of aftermarket collision avoidance technologies3

 1

See the Related GAO Products section at the end of this report for our recent reports on the federal fleet.

to help reduce vehicle accidents, we reviewed relevant federal studies and reports, such as 

those issued by DOT. We reviewed relevant industry literature regarding the costs, benefits, and 

limitations of aftermarket collision avoidance technologies. We also interviewed knowledgeable 

officials at GSA, DOT, USDA, Interior, and VA, to obtain their perspectives on aftermarket 

collision avoidance technologies. In addition, we interviewed representatives from a company 

that provides aftermarket collision avoidance technologies and several organizations with 

experience with aftermarket technologies that we identified during our research and interviews 

with federal agencies. These organizations include the National Transportation Safety Board, 

the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, two national fleet management organizations, and a 

foreign automotive insurance firm. The results of our discussions with agency officials and 

2

For Federal Fleet Report data, see GAO, Federal Fleets: Overall Increase in Number of Vehicles Masks That Some 

Agencies Decreased Their Fleets, GAO-12-780 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2, 2012). For NHTSA data GAO, Motorcycle 

Safety: Increasing Federal Funding Flexibility and Identifying Research Priorities Would Help Support States’ Safety 

Efforts, GAO-13-42 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2012).

3

There are other types of collision avoidance technologies that interact with a vehicle, such as by applying the 

brakes, which are not discussed in this report.
Page 3 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions

industry representatives are not generalizable, but do provide insights regarding federal vehicle 

accidents and aftermarket collision avoidance technologies.

As part of our work, we conducted a literature review of scholarly journal articles, government 

reports, industry reports, and other studies published worldwide in English in the past 10 years. 

We searched several resources including Transportation Research International 

Documentation, ProQuest, and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Our search 

of these databases identified more than 170 articles that discussed various aspects of collision 

avoidance technologies and how they might prevent accidents. We identified nine studies that 

were relevant and applicable for our purposes. We reviewed the methodologies of these studies 

and determined that they were sufficiently reliable for describing the potential of these 

technologies to reduce vehicle accidents. Because of assumptions made by these studies, 

however, it was not possible to predict how many collisions might be avoided if the technologies 

were installed in a fleet of vehicles or whether investing in the technology would be costeffective. For further information on these studies, see enclosure III.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2013 to April 2014 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

In summary, we found that limited data are available on federal vehicle accidents and their 

associated costs. Available data sources do not allow comprehensive measurement of either 

the number of accidents involving federally owned or leased vehicles or the associated costs. 

Data on the number of accidents involving GSA-leased vehicles, which represent about 29 

percent of the federal fleet, show that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012, about 23,000 

vehicles were involved in accidents in which the government was at fault; costs for repaired and 

totaled GSA-leased vehicles to the federal government amounted to about $53.6 million. Annual 

costs related to vehicle damage have decreased from about $12 million in fiscal year 2008 to 

about $8.6 million in fiscal year 2012, though GSA’s data do not allow us to determine the 

reason for this decrease because it does not include data on specific cost elements, such as 

parts and labor.

4 Similarly, comprehensive data are not readily available for costs beyond those 

related to the GSA-leased vehicles. For example, information on the type of injury or costs of 

injuries and fatalities is not available from GSA. However, according to NHTSA, lost productivity 

and medical costs account for a large percentage of total accident costs relative to property 

damage costs, which account for less than one third of total accident costs. Officials from 

USDA, Interior, and VA told us that the information necessary to accurately determine the 

number and cost of accidents involving their leased and owned vehicles is either unavailable or 

would be time consuming to collect.

We also found that limited information exists on the potential of aftermarket collision avoidance 

technologies to reduce vehicle accidents. For example, our literature review yielded no studies 

of the costs and benefits of aftermarket collision avoidance technologies, and we were unable to 

verify any claims of benefits associated with the technologies. In addition, none of the agencies 

we contacted—GSA, DOT, USDA, Interior, or VA—use these technologies in their vehicle 

fleets. GSA does not currently offer these technologies as options for purchased or leased 

vehicles, citing a lack of demand from its customers.

 4

The $8.6 million in annual costs related to vehicle damage in fiscal year 2012 represents a small percentage of the 

$1.1 billion in costs to acquire, operate, and maintain GSA-leased vehicles.
Page 4 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions

For additional information on the results of our work, please see the briefing slides provided in 

enclosure I. We are not making any recommendations in this report.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to GSA, DOT, USDA, Interior, VA, the Department of Labor, 

and the National Transportation Safety Board for review and comment. On April 14, the Deputy 

Director of Audit Relations, within DOT’s Office of the Secretary of Transportation, provided 

comments via email on a draft of our report. In those comments, DOT stated that while our 

report focused on aftermarket collision avoidance technologies, data do exist on the 

effectiveness of collision avoidance technologies that are factory-installed. DOT also stated that 

while factory-installed collision avoidance technologies have historically only been available on 

luxury vehicles, those technologies are starting to become available on mid-priced vehicles due 

to factors such as consumer demand. In its comments, which are reprinted in enclosure II, 

Interior stated that it agreed with our observation that information on the cost of accidents 

involving its vehicles was either unavailable or would be time consuming to collect but noted 

that information on the number of accidents is available through a departmental safety system. 

GSA provided technical comments that we incorporated where appropriate. USDA, VA, the 

Department of Labor, and the National Transportation Safety Board did not have comments on 

the report.

- - - - -

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the 

Administrator of GSA, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Agriculture, the 

Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Labor, and the 

Chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board. This report will also be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

Should you or your staff have questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and 

Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report were 

Derrick Collins (Assistant Director), Owen Bruce, Pamela Davidson, Leia Dickerson, Colin 

Fallon, Katherine Hamer, David Hooper, Wesley A. Johnson, Terence Lam, Joshua Ormond, 

Madhav Panwar, and Jessica Wintfeld.

Lori Rectanus

Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Enclosures
Page 5 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions

Enclosure I:
Page 6 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 7 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 8 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 9 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 10 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 11 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 12 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 13 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 14 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 15 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 16 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 17 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 18 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 19 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 20 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 21 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 22 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 23 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 24 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 25 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 26 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 27 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 28 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 29 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 30 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 31 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 32 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions
Page 33 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions

Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of the Interior
Page 34 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions

Enclosure III: Studies GAO Identified as Relevant and Applicable to Aftermarket Collision 

Avoidance Technologies

Purpose

Vehicle 

type

Projected a 

reduction in 

collisions?

Cost 

effective? Limitations

This study estimated the number 

of preventable crashes 

assuming a fleet of vehicles was 

fully equipped with a lane 

departure warning system. The 

study used computer 

simulations that drew on 

national crash data as well as 

naturalistic driving and test 

data.a

Passenger 

vehicles

Yes Not discussed The results are 

sensitive to 

assumptions the 

computer model 

made on 

simulated driving 

behaviors.

This study estimated the 

average annual number of 

preventable crashes and return 

on investment assuming 

widespread use of forward 

collision warning systems in the 

trucking industry. The study

utilized national crash data and 

industry-specific cost data.b

Heavy-duty 

trucks

Yes In some 

instances only

The projections 

are only 

applicable to the 

heavy-duty 

trucking industry 

due to the 

inherent 

differences 

between heavyduty trucks and 

passenger 

vehicles.

This study estimated the 

average annual number of 

preventable crashes and return 

on investment assuming 

widespread use of lane 

departure warning systems in 

the trucking industry. The study

utilized national crash data and 

industry-specific cost data.c

Heavy-duty 

trucks

Yes In some 

instances only

The projections 

are only 

applicable to the 

heavy-duty 

trucking industry 

due to the 

inherent 

differences 

between heavyduty trucks and 

passenger 

vehicles.

This study estimated the annual 

crash reductions in Australia and 

potential cost effectiveness 

assuming widespread use of 

lane departure warning systems 

and 75 percent effectiveness. 

The study used police-reported 

crash data and national crash 

cost estimates.d

Passenger 

vehicles, 

trucks, and 

motorcycles

Yes Not cost 

effective

The projections 

may not be 

applicable to the 

U.S. due to 

factors such as 

a given country’s 

culture towards 

driving safety, 

driver behavior, 

and road design.
Page 35 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions

Using an automobile simulator, 

this study compared the number 

of collisions test subjects had 

when driving with and without a

warning device comparable to a 

forward collision warning 

system.e

Passenger 

vehicles

Yes Not discussed Driver simulators 

do not replicate 

real-world road 

conditions, 

system 

functioning, or 

driver behavior.

This study projected the annual 

reduction in road departure 

crashes assuming widespread 

use of a lane departure warning 

system with multiple cameras 

and warnings that are available 

55 percent of the time. The 

study drew on national crash 

data as well as test drive data.f

Passenger 

vehicles

Yes Not discussed The projections 

may be an overestimate since 

the technology 

under study is 

more advanced 

than aftermarket 

technologies 

and may be 

more effective at 

detecting critical 

events.

This study estimated the 

reduction in heavy-vehicle rearend crashes on U.S. highways 

by deploying a forward collision 

warning system across the 

national fleet of heavy vehicles. 

The study relied on simulations 

of collision avoidance behavior 

and statistical models using field 

data, as well as national crash 

data and naturalistic driving 

data.g

Heavy-duty 

trucks

Yes Not discussed The projections 

are only 

applicable to the 

heavy-duty 

trucking industry 

due to the 

inherent 

differences 

between heavyduty trucks and 

passenger 

vehicles.

This study projected the annual 

reduction in all crashes and 

severe crashes in Germany 

assuming widespread use of 

lane departure warning systems. 

The study used the German 

national crash database.h

Passenger 

vehicles

Yes Not discussed The projections 

may not be 

applicable to the 

U.S. due to 

factors such as 

a given country’s 

culture towards 

driving safety, 

driver behavior, 

and road design.

This study projected the 

maximum potential reduction in 

passenger vehicle collisions and 

fatal crashes in the U.S. 

assuming the widespread and 

effective use of forward collision 

and lane departure warning 

systems. The study drew on 

Passenger 

vehicles

Yes Not discussed The projections 

may overestimate 

benefits since 

they assume 

100 percent 

system 

effectiveness
Page 36 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions

national crash data on collisions 

and crash fatalities.i

and driver

compliance.

Source: GAO analysis.

a

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Advanced Crash Avoidance 

Technologies (ACAT) Program—Final Report of the Volvo-Ford-UMTRI Project: Safety Impact Methodology for Lane 

Departure Warning—Method Development and Estimation of Benefits, DOT HS 811 405 (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

b

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Analysis of Benefits and Costs of 

Forward Collision Warning Systems for the Trucking Industry, FMCSA-RRT-09-021 (Washington, D.C.: 2009).

c

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Analysis of Benefits and Costs of 

Lane Departure Warning Systems for the Trucking Industry, FMCSA-RRT-09-022 (Washington, D.C.: 2009).

d

Centre for Automotive Safety Research, Analysis of Crash Data to Estimate the Benefits of Emerging Vehicle 

Technology, CASR094 (The University of Adelaide, Australia: 2011).

e

A. Kramer, N. Cassavaugh, W. Horrey, E. Becic, and J. Mayhugh, “Influence of Age and Proximity Warning Devices 

on Collision Avoidance in Simulated Driving,” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society, vol. 49, (2007): 935-949.

f

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Evaluation of a Road-Departure 

Crash Warning System, DOT HS 810 854 (Washington, D.C.: 2007).

g

H. Rakha, G. Fitch, M. Arafeh, M. Blanco, and R. Hanowski, “Evaluation of Safety Benefits from a Heavy-Vehicle 

Forward Collision Warning System,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 

no. 2194, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C: (2010) 44-54.

h

B. Gottselig, V. Eis, T. Wey, and R. Sferco, “Developments of Road Safety Trends—Identification of the Potential 

Effectiveness of Modern Safety Systems Using an Integrated Approach,” Proceedings of the Technical Congress, 

Verband der Automobilindustrie, Germany (2008): 173-184.

I

J.Jermakian, “Crash Avoidance Potential of Four Passenger Vehicle Technologies,” Accident Analysis and 

Prevention, vol. 43 (2011): 732-740.

(545099)
Page 37 GAO-14-804R Federal Vehicle Collisions

Related GAO Products

GAO. Federal Vehicle Fleets: Adopting Leading Practices Could Improve Management. 

GAO-13-659. Washington, D.C., July 31, 2013. 

GAO. Use of Remanufactured Parts in the Federal Vehicle Fleet Is Based On a Variety of 

Factors. GAO-13-316R. Washington, D.C., March 7, 2013.

GAO. Federal Fleets: Overall Increase in Number of Vehicles Masks that Some Agencies 

Decreased Their Fleets. GAO-12-780. Washington, D.C., August 2, 2012. 

GAO. Federal Energy and Fleet Management: Plug-in Vehicles Offer Potential Benefits, but 

High Costs and Limited Information Could Hinder Integration into the Federal Fleet. GAO-09-

493. Washington, D.C., June 9, 2009.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.