INTELLIGENT 

TRANSPORTATION 

SYSTEMS

Vehicle-to-Vehicle 

Technologies 

Expected to Offer 

Safety Benefits, but a 

Variety of Deployment 

Challenges Exist

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2013

GAO-14-13

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-13, a report to 

congressional requesters

November 2013

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Vehicle-to-Vehicle Technologies Expected to Offer 

Safety Benefits, but a Variety of Deployment 

Challenges Exist

Why GAO Did This Study

In 2011, 5.3 million vehicle crashes in 

the United States resulted in more than 

2.2 million injuries and about 32,000 

fatalities. While improvements in 

automobile safety have reduced the 

number of fatalities in recent decades, 

DOT has worked with the automobile 

industry to develop V2V technologies, 

through which vehicles are capable of 

warning drivers of imminent collisions 

by sharing data, including information 

on speed and location, with nearby 

vehicles. GAO was asked to review the 

status of V2V technologies. GAO 

examined (1) the state of development 

of V2V technologies and their 

anticipated benefits; (2) the challenges, 

if any, that will affect the deployment of 

these technologies and what actions, if 

any, DOT is taking to address them; 

and (3) what is known about the 

potential costs associated with these 

technologies.

GAO reviewed documentation on V2V 

technology-related efforts by DOT and 

automobile manufacturers, visited a 

pilot study of V2V technologies in 

Michigan, and interviewed DOT 

officials, automobile manufacturers, 

and 21 experts identified by the 

National Academies of Sciences. 

Experts were selected based on their 

level of knowledge and to represent a 

variety of subject areas related to V2V 

technology development.

DOT and the Federal Communications 

Commission reviewed a draft of this 

report and provided technical 

comments which were incorporated as 

appropriate.

What GAO Found

The development of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technologies has progressed to the 

point of real world testing, and if broadly deployed, they are anticipated to offer 

significant safety benefits. Efforts by the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) and the automobile industry have focused on developing: 1) in-vehicle 

components such as hardware to facilitate communications among vehicles, 2) 

safety software applications to analyze data and identify potential collisions, 3) 

vehicle features that warn drivers, and 4) a national communication security 

system to ensure trust in the data transmitted among vehicles. According to 

DOT, if widely deployed, V2V technologies could provide warnings to drivers in 

as much as 76 percent of potential multi-vehicle collisions involving at least one 

light vehicle, such as a passenger car. Ultimately, however, the level of benefits 

realized will depend on the extent of the deployment of these technologies and 

the effectiveness of V2V warnings in eliciting appropriate driver responses. The 

continued progress of V2V technology development hinges on a decision that the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) plans to make in late 

2013 on how to proceed regarding these technologies. One option would be to 

pursue a rulemaking requiring their inclusion in new vehicles.

The deployment of V2V technologies faces a number of challenges, which DOT 

is working with the automobile industry to address. According to experts, DOT 

officials, automobile manufacturers, and other stakeholders GAO interviewed, 

these challenges include: 1) finalizing the technical framework and management 

framework of a V2V communication security system, which will be unique in its 

size and structure; 2) ensuring that the possible sharing with other wireless users 

of the radio-frequency spectrum used by V2V communications will not adversely 

affect V2V technology’s performance; 3) ensuring that drivers respond 

appropriately to warnings of potential collisions; 4) addressing the uncertainty 

related to potential liability issues posed by V2V technologies; and 5) addressing 

any concerns the public may have, including those related to privacy. DOT is 

collaborating with automobile manufacturers and others to find potential technical 

and policy solutions to these challenges and plans to continue these efforts. 

Although V2V technologies are being tested in a real-world pilot that will end in 

February 2014, DOT officials stated that they cannot fully plan for deployment 

until NHTSA decides how to proceed later this year.

DOT and the automobile industry are currently analyzing the total costs 

associated with V2V technologies, which include the costs of both in-vehicle 

components and a communication security system. All of the automobile 

manufacturers GAO interviewed said that it is difficult to estimate in-vehicle V2V 

component costs at this time because too many factors—such as future 

production volumes and the time frame of deployment—remain unknown. The 

costs associated with a V2V communication security system also remain 

unknown as the specifics of the system’s technical framework and management 

structure are not yet finalized. While the costs of in-vehicle V2V components may 

be modest relative to the price of a new vehicle, some experts noted that the 

potential costs associated with the operation of a V2V communication security 

system could be significant. Further, it is currently unclear who—consumers, 

automobile manufacturers, DOT, state and local governments, or others—would 

pay the costs associated with a V2V communication security system.

View GAO-14-13. For more information, 

contact Dave Wise at (202) 512-2834 or 

wised@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Letter 1 

Background 4

DOT and Industry Have Developed and Piloted V2V Technologies, 

Which Offer Potentially Significant Safety Benefits If Broadly 

Deployed 9

DOT Is Working with the Automobile Industry to Address a 

Number of V2V Technology Deployment Challenges 20

Costs of V2V Technologies Are Being Studied and Are Likely to Be 

Influenced by Various Factors Including Specifics of V2V 

Communication Security System 33

Agency Comments 36

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 37

Appendix II Structured Interview Guide for Experts Identified by the 

National Academies of Sciences 41

Appendix III Expert Ratings of Potential Challenges Facing Deployment of 

Vehicle-to-Vehicle Technologies 51

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53

Tables

Table 1: Subject Matter Experts Interviewed 38

Table 2: Expert Ratings of Potential Challenges Facing Deployment 

of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Technologies 51

Figures

Figure 1: Example of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications and a 

Warning Scenario 6

Figure 2: Components of a Vehicle-to-Vehicle Crash Avoidance 

System 12

Contents 
Page ii GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Figure 3: Examples of Crash Scenarios and Vehicle-to-Vehicle 

Applications 17

Abbreviations

CAMP Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership 

CVT connected vehicle technologies

DOT Department of Transportation

DSRC dedicated short-range communications

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

GHz gigahertz 

ITS intelligent transportation systems 

LiDAR light detection and ranging 

MHz megahertz 

NAS National Academies of Sciences 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information 

 Administration 

RADAR radio detection and ranging 

RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration

VIIC Vehicle Infrastructure Integration Consortium 

VSC Vehicle Safety Communications

V2V vehicle-to-vehicle

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.
Page 1 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 1, 2013

The Honorable Lamar Smith

Chairman

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson

Ranking Member

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

House of Representatives

The Honorable John J. Duncan

The Honorable Ralph Hall 

The Honorable Randy Hultgren

House of Representatives

Every year, motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in numerous 

injuries and deaths and high economic costs. For example, according to 

the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 5.3 million police-reported vehicle 

crashes occurred in the United States in 2011, resulting in about 32,000 

fatalities and more than 2.2 million injuries.1

NHTSA aims to reduce injuries, deaths, and economic losses resulting 

from motor vehicle crashes through a number of actions, such as 

establishing safety standards for motor vehicles2 and conducting research 

that supports vehicle safety. NHTSA’s safety standards cover various 

aspects of vehicle safety, such as brakes, headlights, seat belts, air bags, 

and child restraints. Improvements in automobile safety that aim to 

protect drivers and occupants in the event of a collision—including 

features such as seat belts and airbags—have reduced fatalities. 

Recently, however, the automobile industry has begun to introduce 

technologies that are intended to prevent accidents. Crash avoidance 

technologies, which use sensors such as cameras and radar, can 

observe a vehicle’s visible surroundings and issue warnings to the driver 

 

1

In addition, NHTSA has estimated that motor vehicle crashes had economic costs—

including productivity losses, property damages, and medical costs—of $230 billion in 

2000 (about $304 billion in 2013 dollars). See L. Blincoe et al, The Economic Impact of 

Motor Vehicle Crashes (Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, 2002). NHTSA has a study under way 

to update crash cost estimates and expects to issue results by the end of 2013.

2

49 USC §§ 30101 and 30111.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

when certain types of collisions with other vehicles or obstacles appear to 

be imminent.3

DOT and the automobile industry have been conducting research on new 

types of technologies to prevent crashes—called vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) 

technologies—in recent years. These technologies facilitate the sharing of 

data, such as vehicle speed and location, among vehicles to warn drivers 

of potential collisions. Based on the data shared, V2V technologies are 

capable of warning drivers of imminent collisions, including some that 

sensor-based crash avoidance technologies would be unable to detect.4

DOT’s efforts related to these technologies are being led by NHTSA and 

the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office within 

DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). 

According to NHTSA, if V2V technologies are widely deployed, they have 

the potential to address 76 percent of multi-vehicle crashes involving at 

least one light vehicle by providing warnings to drivers. In late 2013, 

NHTSA is planning to announce further actions it will take regarding these 

technologies for passenger vehicles, including potentially announcing 

intent to pursue future regulatory action, such as a proposed rulemaking 

to mandate the installation of V2V technologies in newly manufactured 

passenger vehicles.5 The inclusion of V2V technologies in newly 

manufactured vehicles could increase vehicle costs.

You asked us to examine the development and possible future 

deployment of V2V technologies. We examined: (1) the state of 

development of V2V technologies and their anticipated benefits; (2) the 

challenges, if any, that will affect the deployment of these technologies, 

and what actions, if any, DOT is taking to address them; and (3) what is 

known about the potential costs associated with these technologies for 

automobile manufacturers and consumers.

 

3

In some cases, certain vehicles can take action without driver input, such as emergency 

braking, based on such warnings. In addition, such technologies can use sensors to alert 

drivers when a vehicle is moving out of its lane of travel without use of a turn signal.

4

The automobile industry has also been researching and developing autonomous vehicle 

technologies. These would allow for vehicle operation without direct driver input.

5

NHTSA will complement this 2013 decision with a 2014 decision on introducing such 

technology for commercial vehicles, including trucks and buses. The Federal Highway 

Administration is developing guidance for release in 2015 to assist state departments of 

transportation to adapt to these new technologies.
 

Page 3 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

To address these issues, we reviewed documentation relevant to the V2V 

technology research efforts of DOT and the automobile industry, such as 

DOT’s ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010 - 2014 Progress Update 2012

and documentation related to DOT’s efforts to estimate the potential 

benefits of V2V technologies. We interviewed NHTSA and RITA officials 

about these efforts. We also visited the DOT-sponsored V2V Safety Pilot 

Model Deployment in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and received a demonstration 

of V2V technologies in the Detroit area from automobile manufacturers 

working on the development of these technologies.6 We conducted 

structured interviews with 21 experts identified by the National Academies 

of Sciences as knowledgeable in the areas of V2V technology 

development and interoperability, technology deployment, production of 

light-duty passenger vehicles, data privacy and security, legal and policy 

issues, and human factors7

 issues related to V2V technologies. The 

structured interviews included asking selected experts to rate the extent 

to which a series of issues—which we identified based on initial 

interviews with automobile manufacturers, DOT, and others—present 

challenges to the deployment of V2V technologies. We selected experts 

who represented both domestic and international automobile 

manufacturers, suppliers of V2V devices, a telecommunications 

company, and state governments, as well as automotive industry experts 

and academic researchers. In addition, we interviewed representatives of 

10 automobile manufacturers involved in collaborative V2V technology 

development efforts, a V2V device supplier, and associations 

knowledgeable about the development of V2V technologies. We also 

interviewed officials with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

about the use of radio-frequency spectrum by V2V communications. 

Further details about our scope and methodology can be found in 

appendix I. Our structured guide for interviewing experts is reproduced in 

appendix II.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to November

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

 

6

DOT collaborated with a consortium of automobile manufacturers to sponsor the Safety 

Pilot Model Deployment, a pilot test being conducted by the University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute that is taking place in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The pilot 

began in August 2012 and is scheduled to end in February 2014.

7

The term “human factors” refers broadly to how humans’ abilities, characteristics, and 

limitations interact with the design of the equipment they use and the environments in 

which they function. 
 

Page 4 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

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.

Although there were about 32,000 motor vehicle traffic fatalities in the 

United States in 2011, the number has generally declined in recent years. 

According to NHTSA, the rate of 1.10 fatalities per 100 million vehicle 

miles traveled in 2011 represented an all-time low and was 28 percent 

lower than the rate of 1.52 in 2001.8 DOT has attributed reductions in 

fatality rates to several factors, including increased use of in-vehicle 

safety features such as safety belts and a reduction in fatalities related to 

alcohol-impaired driving.

In recent years, automobile manufacturers have begun to equip some 

newly manufactured vehicles with sensor-based crash avoidance 

technologies intended to prevent accidents and further reduce the 

number of fatalities. These technologies employ sensors such as 

cameras, radio detection and ranging, and light detection and ranging9 to 

observe a vehicle’s surroundings.10 A vehicle equipped with such 

technologies is capable of detecting potential collisions with other 

vehicles or obstacles within a range of about 150 meters (about 500 feet) 

and alerting drivers through applications such as forward collision 

 

8

However, NHTSA’s preliminary data for 2012 indicate that the total number of traffic 

fatalities increased to approximately 34,000 and the rate of traffic fatalities per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled increased to approximately 1.16.

9

Radio detection and ranging, or RADAR, is a method of detecting objects and 

determining their position, velocity, or other characteristics by analysis of high frequency 

radio waves reflected from their surfaces. Light detection and ranging, or LiDAR, uses a 

narrow beam to transmit infrared light pulses to a target, which then travel back again. 

Measurement of the elapsed time of the light beam to reach the vehicle and return 

computes the vehicle’s distance from the operator.

10In November 2012, the National Transportation Safety Board urged NHTSA to establish 

performance standards for crash-avoidance technologies and mandate that such 

technologies be included as standard equipment in motor vehicles. Currently, sensorbased crash avoidance technologies are not required to be installed in new vehicles. In 

2010, NHTSA announced plans to mandate the installation of rear-mounted video 

cameras and in-vehicle displays in all new passenger vehicles by September 2014 but 

has not yet established rules governing the placement or minimum field of vision of such 

cameras.

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

warnings and lane departure warnings;11 however, such warnings are 

limited to the threats within the field of view of the vehicle’s sensors.

DOT has worked with the automobile industry and others to lead and fund 

research on connected vehicle technologies, which include V2V 

technologies as well as vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies. From fiscal 

years 2003 through 2012, the funding DOT has made available for efforts 

on connected vehicle technologies, part of its Intelligent Transportation 

Systems (ITS)

12 research program, totaled about $445 million and ranged 

from a low of $17 million in 2008 to a high of $84 million in 2011.13 In a 

connected vehicle environment, data is shared wirelessly among vehicles 

(V2V communications) or between vehicles and infrastructure (vehicle-toinfrastructure communications) using dedicated short-range 

communications (DSRC), a technology similar to Wi-Fi that offers a link 

through which vehicles and infrastructure can transmit messages over a 

range of about 300 to 500 meters (about 1,000 to 1,600 feet). Based on 

analysis of internal data and data received from other vehicles, a vehicle 

equipped with V2V technologies is able to issue a warning to its driver 

when a collision with another similarly equipped vehicle could occur. The 

range of V2V communications is not only greater than that of existing 

sensor-based technologies, but due to the sharing of data between 

vehicles, V2V technologies are capable of alerting drivers to potential 

collisions that are not visible to existing sensor-based technologies, such 

as a stopped vehicle blocked from view or a moving vehicle at a blind 

intersection (see fig. 1).

 

11A forward collision warning system can issue a warning to drivers when their vehicle is 

about to collide with a vehicle in front of them. Lane departure warnings can alert a driver 

when their vehicle begins to veer outside of a lane of travel without the driver activating a 

turn signal.

12ITS technologies consist of a range of communications, electronics, and computer 

technologies, such as systems that collect real-time traffic data and transmit information to 

the public via means such as dynamic message signs, ramp meters to improve the flow of 

traffic on freeways, and synchronized traffic signals that are adjusted in response to traffic 

conditions.

13DOT’s early work on connected vehicle technologies focused on vehicle-to-infrastructure 

technologies. The department increased its focus on V2V technologies because they are 

projected to produce the majority of connected vehicle technology safety benefits and they 

do not require the same level of infrastructure investment as vehicle-to-infrastructure 

technologies. DOT officials indicated that the department plans to increase its focus on 

vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies starting in 2015. 
 

Page 6 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Figure 1: Example of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications and a Warning Scenario

Note: In this scenario, the truck and sports utility vehicle are at risk of colliding because the drivers 

are unable to see one another approaching the intersection and the stop sign is not visible to the 

driver of the truck. Both drivers would receive warnings of a potential collision, allowing them to take 

actions to avoid it.

While V2V technologies send and receive data among vehicles, vehicleto-infrastructure technologies send and receive data between vehicles 

and infrastructure, such as traffic signals. Vehicle-to-infrastructure 

technologies could offer additional safety features that V2V technologies 

cannot, such as providing drivers with additional warnings when traffic 

signals are about to change, warnings that could help reduce collisions at 

intersections. In addition, these technologies can offer potential mobility 

and environmental benefits; for example, they can collect, analyze, and 

provide drivers with data on upcoming roadway and traffic conditions and 

suggest alternate routes when roadways are congested.14

 

14Vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies can also provide additional safety benefits. For 

example, they can provide drivers with information regarding safe speeds and road 

conditions such as work zones and, for example, warn drivers when they may be 

approaching a curve at an unsafe speed. 
 

Page 7 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

In addition to federal efforts, automobile manufacturers have formed a 

number of consortia to research and develop V2V communication-based 

technologies and have collaborated with DOT on these efforts. Since 

2002, DOT has awarded $77 million in funding, under cost-sharing 

agreements to support projects related to V2V technologies, to a number 

of consortia established by the Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership 

(CAMP). This partnership between Ford Motor Company and General 

Motors, L.L.C. is currently working with 6 other automobile manufacturers 

through the Vehicle Safety Communications (VSC) 3 Consortium to 

collaboratively address safety issues through advancements in vehicle 

communications.15 Additionally, the Vehicle Infrastructure Integration 

Consortium (VIIC) was created in 2005 and is currently comprised of 10 

automobile manufacturers with the goal of identifying and promoting 

policy solutions needed to support the development and deployment of 

V2V and vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies.16

The automobile industry (as well as some technology companies such as 

Google) is also working to develop autonomous vehicle technologies, 

which would control steering, acceleration, and braking without a driver’s 

input.17 Some automobile manufacturers have started to introduce semiautonomous sensor-based technologies capable of reducing a vehicle’s 

speed through adaptive cruise control18 or even stopping a vehicle 

through automatic braking when a collision is imminent. Autonomous 

 

15The CAMP VSC 3 Consortium is currently comprised of Ford Motor Company; General 

Motors Holdings LLC; Honda R&D Americas, Inc.; Hyundai America Technical Center, 

Inc.; Mercedes-Benz Research & Development North America, Inc.; Nissan Technical 

Center North America; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.; 

and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 

16VIIC is currently comprised of BMW of North America, LLC; Chrysler Group LLC; Ford 

Motor Company; General Motors Holdings LLC; Honda R&D Americas, Inc.; Hyundai 

America Technical Center, Inc.; Mercedes-Benz Research & Development North America, 

Inc.; Nissan Technical Center North America; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing 

North America, Inc.; and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

17A number of states have enacted legislation permitting the operation of these vehicles 

under certain conditions and, according to Google, its fleet of autonomous vehicles had 

logged more than 300,000 miles as of August 2012. In May 2013, DOT announced plans 

for research on safety issues related to autonomous vehicles and offered 

recommendations for states related to the testing, licensing, and regulation of these 

vehicles.

18Vehicles with adaptive cruise control are able to adjust their own speed based on the 

distance between the vehicle and vehicles ahead in order to maintain a safe distance.
 

Page 8 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

vehicles are being designed with the intent that a driver is needed to 

provide destination or navigation information, but not needed to control 

the vehicle.

Because V2V communications depend upon DSRC technology to 

transmit data among vehicles, the deployment of V2V technologies will 

require use of the radio-frequency spectrum. FCC has allocated spectrum 

for use by DSRC technologies that are part of DOT’s ITS research 

program.19 Specifically, in 1999, FCC allocated 75 megahertz (MHz) of 

spectrum20—the 5.850 to 5.925 gigahertz (GHz) band (5.9 GHz band)—

for the primary purpose of improving transportation safety and adopted 

basic technical rules for DSRC operations.21 In 2003, FCC established 

licensing and service rules for the 5.9 GHz band to provide a short-range, 

wireless link for transferring information between vehicles and roadside 

systems.22 However, the President and Congress have responded to 

growing demand for wireless broadband services by making changes in 

the law to promote efficient use of spectrum, including the band 

previously set aside for use by DSRC-based technologies. For example, 

the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 required the 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to 

 

19Allocation involves segmenting spectrum, the natural resources used for wireless 

communication, into bands of frequencies that are designated for use by particular types 

of services. FCC manages spectrum use for nonfederal users, including commercial, 

private, and state and local government users; the Department of Commerce’s National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration manages spectrum for federal users 

(47 U.S.C. §§ 303, 305). See GAO, Commercial Spectrum: Plans and Actions to Meet 

Future Needs, Including Continued Use of Auctions, GAO-12-118 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 23, 2011). 

20In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate the 

5.850-5.925 GHz Band to the Mobile Service for Dedicated Short Range Communications 

of Intelligent Transportation Services, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 18221 (1999). 

21Radio frequencies are grouped into bands and are measured in units of Hertz, or cycles 

per second. The term megahertz (MHz) refers to millions of Hertz and gigahertz (GHz) to 

billions of Hertz. The Hertz unit of measurement is used to refer to both the quantity of 

spectrum (such as 75 MHz of spectrum) and the frequency bands (such as the 5.850 – 

5.925 GHz band). 

22Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Dedicated Short-Range 

Communication Services in the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band (5.9 GHz Band); Amendment of 

Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band to 

Mobile Service for Dedicated Short Range Communications of Intelligent Transportation 

Services; WT Docket No. 01-90, ET Docket No. 98-95, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 

2458 (2004) (FCC 03-324).
 

Page 9 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

conduct a study evaluating spectrum-sharing technologies and the 

potential risk to federal users if unlicensed devices23 were allowed to 

operate in the 5.9 GHz band.24

Given the potential benefits of V2V technologies, NHTSA has said it will

decide by the end of 2013 how it will proceed with respect to these 

technologies for passenger vehicles. According to NHTSA officials, they 

are considering several possible actions, including announcing NHTSA’s 

intent to pursue future regulatory action, such as a proposed rulemaking 

to mandate the installation of these technologies in newly manufactured 

passenger vehicles25 and continuing to research and develop these 

technologies for passenger vehicles.

Efforts by DOT and the automobile industry to develop V2V technologies 

have reached the point at which they have been tested in a 12-month, 

real world pilot that will conclude in February 2014. These efforts have 

focused on developing and testing needed components including 

hardware to send and receive data among vehicles, software applications 

to analyze data and identify potential collisions, vehicle features that issue 

warnings to drivers of these potential collisions, and a security system to 

ensure trust in the data that are being communicated among vehicles. 

According to DOT, once deployed, V2V technologies have the potential to 

address—by providing warnings to drivers—76 percent of all potential 

multi-vehicle crashes involving at least one light-duty vehicle.

26 However, 

the potential benefits of V2V technologies are dependent upon a number 

of factors including their deployment levels, how drivers respond to 

 

23Traditional unlicensed equipment consists of low powered devices that operate in a 

limited geographic range, such as garage door openers and devices that offer wireless 

access to the Internet. They include Wi-Fi-enabled local area networks and fixed outdoor 

broadband transceivers used by wireless Internet service providers to connect devices to 

broadband networks. 

24Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, § 6406, 126 

Stat. 156, 231 (2012).

25In July 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that NHTSA 

develop minimum performance standards for connected vehicle technologies and require 

their installation on all newly manufactured highway vehicles.

26DOT defines light-duty vehicles as passenger cars, vans, minivans, sport utility vehicles 

or light pickup trucks with gross vehicle weight less than or equal to 10,000 lbs.

DOT and Industry 

Have Developed and 

Piloted V2V 

Technologies, Which 

Offer Potentially 

Significant Safety 

Benefits If Broadly 

Deployed 
 

Page 10 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

warning messages, and the deployment of other safety technologies that 

can provide similar benefits.

Recent and ongoing V2V technology development efforts have been 

working toward the expected late 2013 NHTSA decision as the next major 

milestone. DOT, for example, has focused on research and analysis that 

can provide input for and facilitate its upcoming decision. Most of the 21 

experts and 9 automobile manufacturers we spoke with told us that they 

expect NHTSA’s decision to help determine the progress of continued 

development and eventual deployment of V2V technologies. 

Development of these technologies has progressed to the point of real 

world testing. DOT has sponsored and provided approximately 80 percent 

of the funding for a pilot test called the Safety Pilot Model Deployment 

(Safety Pilot). This project—in which DOT has partnered with the CAMP 

VSC 3 Consortium—has been conducted by the University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute and is taking place in Ann Arbor, 

Michigan, from August 2012 to February 2014. The primary goals of this 

pilot are to test the effectiveness of V2V technologies in real world 

situations and to measure their potential benefits. In total, about 2,700 

passenger vehicles were equipped with these technologies in order to 

participate in the Safety Pilot.27 NHTSA plans to release findings from the 

Safety Pilot in the fall of 2014. DOT is considering the data from the first 6 

months of the pilot, along with other information, in working toward a 

decision by late 2013 on how to proceed with V2V technologies.28

Efforts by DOT and the automobile industry to develop V2V technologies 

have focused on both in-vehicle components as well as a security system 

that manages V2V communications and ensures trust in the data being 

 

27The eight members of CAMP each provided eight vehicles that were fully integrated with 

V2V components for the Safety Pilot. The remainder of the vehicles involved were 

equipped with aftermarket and retrofit V2V devices. These devices were not fully 

integrated with the vehicle or not installed during vehicle production. In addition, 79 

commercial vehicles and 88 transit vehicles were equipped with V2V devices and tested 

as part of the Safety Pilot.

28According to DOT, the department may release some information from its data analysis 

in relation to making this decision. 

Development of V2V 

Technologies Has Evolved 

to Include a Real World 

Pilot
 

Page 11 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

transmitted among vehicles (see fig. 2). Examples of in-vehicle 

components include:

• V2V hardware, including DSRC radios, cables, and antennae to send 

and receive data and GPS chips used to determine vehicle location.

• Software applications that analyze data such as location, speed, and 

brake status and, based on that analysis, predict when collisions are 

imminent. DOT has worked with automobile manufacturers to 

determine the most relevant applications based on common crash 

scenarios and to define, develop, and test these to inform and support 

NHTSA’s V2V technology decision later this year.

• A driver-vehicle interface that—based on the data analysis conducted 

by the V2V software applications—provides a warning to the driver 

through vehicle features such as sounds, lights, or seat vibrations 

when a collision may be imminent.29 Existing sensor-based crash 

avoidance technologies also provide warnings to drivers through 

similar mechanisms. DOT has been developing guidelines for 

automobile manufacturers in implementing driver-vehicle interfaces.

 

29For example, for potential collisions involving vehicles in a driver’s blind spot, one 

automobile manufacturer’s vehicles provided three short low-pitched beeps repeated three 

times, an orange light in the side view mirror, and a vibration on the side of the driver’s 

seat in the direction of the potential collision.
 

Page 12 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Figure 2: Components of a Vehicle-to-Vehicle Crash Avoidance System

In addition to in-vehicle V2V components, an external communication 

security system is needed to ensure that data being transmitted among 

vehicles are secure and trusted and have not been altered in the 

transmission process. Initial research and proposals by DOT and the 

automobile industry on the design of a communication security system 

have focused on a public key infrastructure system.30 Such a system 

 

30Public key infrastructure describes the hardware, software, people, policies, and 

procedures needed to create, manage, store, distribute, and revoke digital certificates. 

Public key infrastructure forms the foundation of the approach to V2V communications 

security by employing a “public key” to authenticate a sender or encrypt data being sent in 

a message, thereby producing trusted and secure messages. A public key infrastructure 

typically involves a certificate authority that issues and verifies digital certificates, which 

includes the public key, a directory that holds the certificates and a certificate 

management and distribution system. 
 

Page 13 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

provides security certificates to vehicles which indicate to other vehicles 

that the data being transmitted are to be trusted because they are valid 

and have not been altered. Public key infrastructure is used to provide 

security for many other types of data transmissions and transactions, 

including online banking and Internet commerce. According to CAMP 

VSC 3 officials, in-vehicle V2V equipment must be able to detect and

automatically report potentially misbehaving devices—such as devices 

that are malfunctioning, used maliciously, or hacked—to a communication 

security system. The communication security system must also detect 

and automatically revoke certificates from vehicles with such devices. 

Vehicles would receive certificates from a security certificate 

management authority. However, the technical specifications of how 

certificates will be provided, how often they will be validated, and who will 

manage this system have not yet been fully defined. According to DOT 

officials, a prototype V2V communication security system was developed 

and tested as part of the Safety Pilot, but that system’s design would 

need additional enhancements to be used for a full deployment.

In-vehicle V2V components could be factory built into new vehicles and 

fully integrated with existing internal electronics and networks. DOT and 

the automobile industry have also worked on developing retrofit and 

aftermarket V2V devices. Such devices would be installed in a vehicle 

post-manufacture and might not be fully integrated with the vehicle and its 

existing internal electronics and network. Such aftermarket devices might 

not have access to all of a vehicle’s data, such as brake status or steering 

wheel angle. As a result, they could provide a less robust set of data to 

other vehicles and could generate fewer or less precise warning 

messages to drivers. One specific type of aftermarket device that the 

automobile industry has worked to develop would only transmit a basic 

data set about a vehicle’s speed and location to other vehicles equipped 

with V2V technologies; this device would neither receive data from other 

vehicles nor provide a driver with a warning message, but would interact 

with the V2V communication security system. DOT is now working with 

the automobile industry to determine additional standards for such 

devices to ensure that they work on all types of vehicles and adhere to 

communication standards to ensure the integrity and security of their data 

transmission.

Because V2V communications involve the sharing of data among 

different devices and vehicles of various makes and models, they require 

technical standards to ensure interoperability. DOT and the automobile 

industry have worked through international standards organizations such 

as SAE International and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic 
 

Page 14 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Engineers to develop and set standards to facilitate V2V communications. 

These efforts have focused on standardizing the data elements that 

vehicles transmit and the means through which data are transmitted.31

Although V2V technologies have undergone real-world testing and most 

experts we interviewed believed that no major technical challenges 

remain in the development of in-vehicle V2V components, some experts 

voiced concerns about two technical issues—GPS accuracy and potential 

channel congestion—issues that DOT and the automobile industry 

continue to study.

• Three experts we interviewed expressed concern that GPS used by 

V2V technologies may not provide sufficiently accurate vehicle 

position for some V2V applications. Two experts also suggested that 

the means through which V2V technologies use GPS to determine 

vehicle position (called “relative positioning”

32) may not be accurate 

enough, given the need for precise vehicle location data to support 

V2V software applications. According to DOT officials, however, the 

department has collected data on the performance of GPS and V2V 

communications over 20,000 miles in diverse geographic and 

environmental conditions and is confident that the automotive-grade 

GPS being used for V2V safety applications is sufficiently accurate. 

Nevertheless, DOT continues to work to address this issue through 

research to identify the best means to determine vehicle location 

through relative positioning. DOT also collected additional data during 

the Safety Pilot to help ensure that GPS positioning limitations do not 

negatively affect the performance of V2V technologies.

• Two experts noted that, given the volume of V2V data that would be 

transmitted in high-traffic areas such as busy highways, channel 

congestion on the frequency used by V2V communications could 

 

31DOT has also been involved in efforts with the European Union and Japan to help set 

international standards for V2V technologies. For example, RITA has signed Implementing 

arrangements with both the European Union and Japan to cooperate on research 

programs and support global standards to ensure interoperability of systems. For more 

information see U.S. Department of Transportation International Deployment of 

Cooperative Intelligent Transportation Systems – Bilateral Efforts of the European 

Commission and the United States Department of Transportation FHWA-JPO-12-081 

(Washington, D.C.: October 2012).

32Through “relative positioning,” a vehicle’s location is determined relative to other 

vehicles. 
 

Page 15 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

result in delayed transmissions of V2V data. DOT and automobile 

manufacturers continue to engage in collaborative efforts and sponsor 

relevant studies to determine the point at which channel congestion 

might occur and determine potential solutions, such as limiting the 

frequency of V2V data transmissions in high-traffic situations without 

compromising safety.33

In the longer term, V2V technology development efforts are likely to 

complement efforts to continue to develop and deploy other sensor-based 

crash avoidance technologies and autonomous vehicle technologies. 

NHTSA’s Administrator stated in May 2013 that DOT sees these three 

types of technologies as being part of an evolution from vehicles with 

limited automatic controls to vehicles with fully autonomous self-driving 

capabilities. NHTSA’s preliminary statement of policy on vehicle 

automation, issued in May 2013, recognizes the potential benefits of 

automation and its relationship to V2V technologies.34 According to DOT 

officials, DOT’s 2015 to 2019 ITS strategic plan, expected to be issued in 

early 2014, will describe DOT’s planned activities in this area. 

Furthermore, a recent report by an automotive industry consulting firm 

stated that the convergence of sensor-based crash avoidance 

technologies and connected vehicle technologies will be needed to 

enable truly autonomous vehicles, given the benefits and downsides of 

each type of technology.35 Five experts and one automobile manufacturer 

we interviewed said that V2V technologies are a key part of the industry’s 

road map to vehicle automation.

V2V technologies are expected to offer significant safety benefits by 

helping drivers avoid collisions in a number of collision scenarios. The 

automobile industry has worked with DOT to develop safety applications 

for rear-end, intersection, and lane-change crash scenarios. (See fig. 3 

for examples of V2V safety applications and a go to 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-13 for a video that demonstrates 

 

33V2V technologies normally transmit data 10 times per second.

34NHTSA views vehicle automation as progressing along various levels of automation 

from having only certain vehicle functions such as braking independently automated to the 

point at which the vehicle is fully automated and the driver provides no control over the 

vehicle during travel.

35KPMG and Center for Automotive Research, Self-Driving Cars: The Next Revolution.

V2V Technologies Have 

Potential to Provide 

Significant Safety Benefits 

Only after Broad 

Deployment
 

Page 16 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

selected applications warning drivers of potential collisions.) According to 

NHTSA, these prevalent crash scenarios represent the majority of all 

vehicle crashes. Because automobiles cannot currently take autonomous 

actions—such as braking—based on data gathered by V2V technologies, 

drivers must act on V2V warnings to prevent collisions from happening. 

These crash scenario applications are being tested in the Safety Pilot, 

and DOT and the automobile industry have collected data to determine 

how to improve the accuracy of the applications. DOT is currently 

conducting a benefits assessment based in part on the first 6 months of 

data from the Safety Pilot to inform the decision NHTSA plans to make in 

late 2013.36 DOT’s Volpe Center37 is conducting this benefits assessment, 

which, according to DOT, uses a methodology to determine how many 

vehicle collisions would be prevented through the use of V2V 

technologies in a number of different types of collision scenarios. The 

result will be an estimate of the effectiveness of V2V safety applications.

 

36As noted previously, the Safety Pilot will end in February 2014. DOT plans to finalize its 

assessment and release its complete findings by fall 2014.

37The John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, part of RITA, is a fee-forservice organization that performs work for DOT as well as other federal, state, local, and 

international agencies and entities. 
 

Page 17 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Figure 3: Examples of Crash Scenarios and Vehicle-to-Vehicle Applications

Note: Sensor-based crash avoidance technologies can, in some instances, provide warnings in 

forward collision, blind spot, and do not pass scenarios.

In May 2013, DOT reported that V2V technologies have the potential to 

address—by providing warnings to drivers—76 percent of all potential 
 

Page 18 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

multi-vehicle crashes involving at least one light vehicle.38 While the 

majority of experts we interviewed agreed that 76 percent is plausible as 

a maximum level, this estimate is an upper limit of the potential safety 

benefits of V2V technologies which assumes their full deployment across 

the U.S. vehicle fleet. This estimate also assumes that V2V technologies 

provide warnings in all potential crash scenarios involving at least two 

vehicles equipped with these technologies. The actual number of crashes 

prevented by V2V technologies will depend on a number of factors, 

including the following:

• Deployment Levels: According to DOT, the safety benefits of V2V 

technologies will be maximized with near full deployment across the 

U.S. vehicle fleet. However, even if NHTSA pursues a rulemaking 

requiring installation of these technologies in new vehicles, it could 

take a number of years until benefits are fully realized due to the rate 

of turnover of the fleet. According to one automobile manufacturer we 

interviewed, given the rate of new vehicle sales, it can take up to 20 

years for the entire U.S. vehicle fleet to turn over. It may be possible 

to see some benefits at lower levels of deployment, as was seen in 

the number of interactions among participating vehicles in the Safety 

Pilot, according to DOT.39 Also, aftermarket devices that allow existing 

vehicles to be equipped with V2V devices could help speed 

deployment. However, three experts we interviewed expressed 

concern that drivers may not see value in purchasing aftermarket 

devices, which could limit their adoption.

• Driver response: The benefits of V2V technologies will also depend on 

how well drivers respond to warning messages. If drivers do not take 

appropriate action in response to warnings, then the benefits of V2V 

technologies could be reduced. For example, if drivers do not respond 

to warnings quickly enough—due to distraction, impairment, or other 

reasons—they may not be able to avoid a collision. Furthermore, if 

safety applications offer too many false warnings when no imminent 

threat exists, drivers could begin to ignore valid warnings or not 

 

38United States Department of Transportation, Description of Light-Vehicle Pre-Crash 

Scenarios for Safety Applications Based on Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications, 

(Washington, D.C.: May 2013).

39According to DOT, based on early data on vehicle interactions in the Safety Pilot, there 

has been a sufficient level of vehicle interactions to analyze the performance capability of 

the applications, examine driver response to warnings, and evaluate unintended 

consequences.
 

Page 19 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

respond to them quickly enough. For example, the Insurance Institute 

for Highway Safety reported that as many as 41 percent of drivers of 

certain makes of vehicles with sensor-based lane departure warning 

systems found the systems “annoying” due to false alarms and 

unnecessary warnings.40

• Deployment of other safety technologies: The potential benefits solely 

attributable to V2V technologies will also depend on the market 

penetration and effectiveness of sensor-based crash avoidance 

technologies. These existing technologies are able to address some 

of the same crash scenarios as V2V safety applications and their 

market penetration is likely to increase in the future. While there are 

cases where V2V technologies can provide safety benefits where 

sensor-based crash avoidance technologies cannot—such as around 

a curve or when detecting an unseen stopped car—there are some 

V2V technology collision scenarios that sensor-based crash 

avoidance technologies can also address. For example, cameras and 

radar can be used to provide drivers with forward collision warnings or 

lane change warnings when another vehicle is in a blind spot. In 

addition, vehicles in the future may use V2V technologies and sensorbased crash avoidance technologies to complement one another. For 

example, future vehicles may be able to use V2V data to validate 

sensor data and provide drivers with more accurate and certain 

warnings as well as to help execute more reliable automated control 

actions such as braking. The benefits attributable to V2V technologies 

will depend on how these technologies work together and the market 

penetration of these technologies. According to DOT officials, the 

department’s methodology for estimating the safety benefits of V2V 

technologies will account for the benefits of sensor-based crash 

avoidance technologies by estimating their penetration and 

effectiveness in avoiding collisions.

 

40Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Status Report, Vol. 47, No. 5, (Arlington, VA.: 

July 3, 2012).
 

Page 20 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

While V2V technologies have been tested in real world settings, a number 

of challenges exist to their wide-scale deployment and the realization of 

their potential benefits. DOT has been collaborating with automobile 

manufacturers and others to identify potential solutions to these 

challenges and is planning continued efforts to support the eventual 

deployment of V2V technologies. As part of these efforts, the department 

has been considering various policy options, such as options for 

managing the V2V communication security system. However, future DOT 

actions to address some of these issues will not be finalized until after 

NHTSA decides how the agency will proceed with V2V technologies later 

this year.

According to experts we interviewed, DOT officials, automobile 

manufacturers, and other stakeholders, the deployment of V2V 

technologies faces a number of challenges, including: (1) finalizing the 

technical framework and management structure of a V2V communication 

security system to ensure trust among vehicles, (2) ensuring that the 

possible sharing of the band of radio-frequency spectrum used by V2V 

communications will not adversely affect their performance, (3) 

considering human factors to ensure that drivers respond appropriately to 

V2V warnings, (4) addressing the uncertainty related to potential liability 

issues posed by V2V technologies, and (5) addressing any concerns the 

public may have about V2V technologies, including those related to 

privacy.41

As discussed earlier, a security system capable of detecting, reporting, 

and revoking the credentials of vehicles found to be sharing inaccurate 

information will be needed to ensure trust in the V2V data transmitted 

among vehicles. Final plans and policies for the V2V communication 

security system—including its technical framework and management 

 

41After identifying a series of potential challenges facing the development and deployment 

of V2V technologies through preliminary interviews with DOT officials, two automobile 

industry groups, two automobile manufacturers, representatives of CAMP and the VIIC, 

and others, we asked experts identified by the National Academies of Sciences to discuss 

the extent to which each may pose a challenge. After interviewing 21 experts, in addition 

to automobile manufacturers and DOT officials, we counted the experts’ ratings of 

potential challenges facing the development and deployment of V2V technologies and 

conducted a content analysis of their relevant responses. See appendix I for further details 

on our methodology and appendix III for a summary of the ratings provided by experts for 

each of the potential challenges discussed.

DOT Is Working with 

the Automobile 

Industry to Address a 

Number of V2V 

Technology 

Deployment 

Challenges 

V2V Technology 

Deployment Challenges 

and Efforts to Address 

Them

Framework of V2V 

Communication Security 

System 
 

Page 21 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

structure—have not yet been developed and will need to be finalized prior 

to V2V technology deployment.

• Technical framework: Of the 21 experts we interviewed, 12 cited the 

technical development of a V2V communication security system as a 

great or very great challenge to the deployment of V2V technologies. 

One expert told us that it is challenging to establish technical 

specifications for a system that attempts to maintain users’ privacy 

while providing security for over-the-air transmission of data. Another 

expert noted that a public key infrastructure system the size of the one 

needed to support the nationwide deployment of V2V technologies 

has never been developed before; the sheer magnitude of the system

will pose challenges to its development. Both the manner through 

which V2V communication security certificates will be provided to 

vehicles and how often they will be provided need to be determined. 

Some proposals call for using DSRC-equipped roadside infrastructure 

to provide security certificates, while other proposals call for using 

non-DSRC communications technologies such as cellular.

• Management structure: How a V2V communication security system 

will be managed has not yet been determined and the delineation of 

relevant roles and responsibilities could be difficult. Twelve of the 

experts we interviewed cited the establishment of a management 

framework for a security system as a great or very great challenge to 

V2V technology deployment. Because no similar institutions exist, 

many questions remain about how such a system should be 

structured and who should manage it. One expert suggested that 

deciding which approach is most appropriate involves weighing 

competing philosophies. The expert added that developing the 

management structure could prove more difficult than developing the 

technical aspects of the security system.

DOT has researched options to address the technical framework of a V2V 

communication security system and officials noted that additional 

technical and policy analyses are under way that will determine the 

specifics by early 2014. DOT officials stated that a framework that meets 

the technical requirements of CAMP will be finalized and subsequently 

prototyped and tested. As mentioned earlier, a prototype technical 

framework for issuing and managing security certificates has been tested 

as part of the Safety Pilot. DOT officials told us that there were no 

significant technical challenges identified during the development of this 

framework but noted that additional analysis related to the detection and 

revocation of credentials from vehicles found to be sharing inaccurate 
 

Page 22 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

information is needed. In preparation for the testing of the Safety Pilot’s 

prototype technical framework, DOT conducted research on the risks 

associated with such a system and identified potential approaches to 

address those risks.42 In addition, the department held public workshops 

in April 2012 to bring together various stakeholders to discuss issues 

related to a V2V communication security system.43 DOT officials 

explained that NHTSA is currently engaging a firm with expertise in 

information security systems to perform a review that will help inform the 

eventual technical specifications of a V2V communication security 

system. Although various technical frameworks are being considered, 

limits to DOT’s authority could limit the viability of some options. For 

example, according to DOT officials, the department does not have the 

legal authority to require the installation of roadside infrastructure to 

support a V2V communication security system because, aside from roads 

on federal lands, the federal government does not own or operate U.S. 

roadways.

In addition, DOT has worked with automobile manufacturers through the 

VIIC to examine potential management structures for a V2V 

communication security system. However, officials told us that it would be 

premature to comment on what the management structure will look like 

without knowing whether the agency will pursue a rulemaking related to

V2V technologies. As part of its research on the technical framework of a 

V2V communication security system, DOT also sought stakeholder input 

on the potential management structure and identified three potential 

options:

• Federal model: DOT officials explained that, if the federal government 

were to provide the security management services required to support 

V2V technologies, it most likely would do so through a service 

contract that would include specific provisions to ensure adequate 

market access, privacy and security controls, and reporting and 

continuity of services. According to DOT, the department has 

 

42U.S. Department of Transportation, An Approach to Communications Security for a 

Communications Data Delivery System for V2V/V2I Safety: Technical Description and 

Identification of Policy and Institutional Issues, FHWA-JPO-11-130 (Washington, D.C.: 

November 2011).

43U.S. Department of Transportation, Enabling a Secure Environment for Vehicle-toVehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) Transactions: April 2012 Public 

Workshop Proceedings, FHWA-JPO-12-072 (Washington, D.C.: June 2012).
 

Page 23 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

appropriate legal authority to pursue this model but does not have 

sufficient resources to introduce such a structure at this time.

• Public-Private model: Under a public-private partnership, the security 

system would be jointly owned and managed by the federal 

government and private entities. DOT officials stated that statutory 

authority would be needed to create a public-private management 

structure that is vested with the authority that Congress deems 

necessary and appropriate to finance and operate a V2V 

communication security system. DOT officials added that the required 

legal authority would likely need to include authorization to establish 

and collect fees on behalf of the entity and possibly provisions 

addressing liability, privacy, data ownership, and security 

requirements applicable to such a system.

• Private model: DOT officials stated that its current legal authority and 

resources have led NHTSA to focus primarily on working with 

stakeholders to develop a viable private model. DOT officials 

suggested that, through an agreement with a privately owned and 

operated security management provider, a private model could be 

used to support a V2V communication security system. Aside from 

any aspects specifically detailed in the agreement, DOT suggested 

that the governance and financing of a private management structure 

would depend on what entity constitutes and owns the entity.

In response to requirements in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012,44 FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 

February 2013 that requested comments on allowing unlicensed devices 

to share the 5.9 GHz band of the radio-frequency spectrum that had been 

previously set aside for the use of DSRC-based ITS applications such as 

V2V technologies.45 The proposed modifications would provide access to 

additional spectrum with consistent technical requirements, resulting in 

faster data speeds by allowing unlicensed devices to use wider bandwidth 

channels. Existing FCC regulations46 are designed to ensure that 

unlicensed devices do not cause interference with licensed users and 

 

44Sec. 6406 of Act. Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, 231. 

45In the Matter of Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed 

National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 1769 (2013). 

4647 C.F.R. § 15.5. 

Potential Spectrum Sharing
 

Page 24 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

require operators of unlicensed devices to immediately correct the 

problem or cease operation if interference occurs.47 NTIA completed an 

evaluation in January 2013 in response to requirements in the act that it 

study spectrum-sharing technologies and the risks to federal users 

associated with allowing unlicensed devices to share the 5.9 GHz band. 

NTIA concluded that further work was needed to determine whether and 

how the risks identified can be mitigated and is currently collaborating 

with federal and industry stakeholders, as well as FCC, to conduct a 

quantitative analysis of potential mitigation strategies.48 FCC officials told 

us that they are unlikely to act further on a rulemaking in this area until 

NTIA’s analysis is complete.49

Although existing FCC regulations are designed to ensure that unlicensed 

devices do not cause interference, four automobile manufacturers and 16 

experts we interviewed expressed concern or uncertainty about the 

potential effects of allowing unlicensed devices to share the 5.9 GHz 

band. One automobile industry group said that its members are not 

opposed to opening the 5.9 GHz band for sharing but emphasized the 

importance of understanding the implications of doing so to ensure that it 

will not hinder critical V2V safety applications. As part of the federal 

rulemaking process, FCC sought public comments on potential 

approaches to help minimize any potential harmful interference.50 In 

response, one automobile manufacturer wrote that it is very concerned 

that V2V technologies and unlicensed devices will not be able to coexist 

on the 5.9 GHz band. This automobile manufacturer recommended that 

FCC proceed with extreme caution when allowing sharing of the 5.9 GHz 

 

47In its February 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC stated that unlicensed 

devices typically operate at very low power over relatively short distances and often 

employ various techniques, such as dynamic spectrum access or listen-before-talk 

protocols, to reduce the interference risk to others as well as themselves. The primary 

operating condition for unlicensed devices is that the operator must accept whatever 

interference is received and must correct whatever interference is caused.

48See Department of Commerce, Evaluation of the 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz 

Bands Pursuant to Section 6406(b) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012 (Washington, D.C.: January 2013).

49FCC officials told us that they expect NTIA to finalize its recommendations for FCC by 

December 2014 and that, while FCC has generally stated that it would wait for the 

outcome of NTIA’s studies before acting, FCC reserves the right, based on the record 

developed in the proceeding or changed circumstances, to act prior to that time.

5078 Fed. Reg. 21320, April 10, 2013. 
 

Page 25 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

band, stating that V2V technologies cannot tolerate harmful interference 

and suggesting that every potential signal loss could render V2V 

communications ineffective at a moment in which they could protect 

drivers’ lives. Members of the VIIC also noted that the development and 

testing of V2V technologies has always assumed use of the 5.9 GHz 

band. Because of this, one expert we interviewed suggested that opening 

the 5.9 GHz band for sharing would create an added burden for both 

automobile manufacturers and suppliers, which would have to consider 

technical steps to make coexistence with unlicensed devices feasible and 

conduct additional testing to maintain confidence that V2V technologies 

will work as envisioned. In addition, DOT coordinated with NTIA to submit 

its concern through comments to FCC that sharing the allocation could 

degrade the performance of V2V safety applications.

As NTIA continues its analysis of potential risk mitigation strategies, DOT 

officials told us that the department is working cooperatively with the 

agency to examine spectrum-sharing arrangements that have been 

proposed for the 5 GHz band and expects results of this analysis to be 

available in spring 2014. According to DOT officials, the automobile and 

Wi-Fi industries are discussing other possible spectrum sharing 

techniques but specific approaches have not yet been defined.

Because V2V technologies require drivers to take actions based on 

warning messages,51 the ultimate effectiveness and safety benefits of 

V2V technologies depend upon how well drivers respond to the warnings. 

Addressing the human factors that affect how drivers will respond 

includes minimizing the risk that drivers could become too familiar with or 

overly reliant upon warnings over time and fail to exercise due diligence in 

responding to them, assessing the risk that V2V warnings could distract 

drivers and present new safety issues, and determining what types of 

V2V warnings will maximize driver response.

The challenges posed by human factors are in many ways similar to 

those posed by sensor-based crash avoidance technologies and some 

other vehicle technologies. However, human factors issues may present 

even greater challenges to V2V technologies. One automobile 

manufacturer explained that, since not all vehicles in the United States 

 

51As discussed earlier, warnings messages can be provided in a number of forms, 

including beeps or other audio warnings, bright lights, and seat vibrations.

Human Factors 
 

Page 26 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

will be equipped with V2V technologies in the early years of their 

deployment, it is unknown how drivers will adjust their behavior to 

account for the fact that not all of the vehicles on the road are capable of 

providing data. By contrast, with sensor-based technologies, drivers know 

that their vehicle’s warning system is not dependent on the presence of 

similar technologies in nearby vehicles. Further, the potential introduction 

of aftermarket V2V devices with a lower level of integration with a 

vehicle’s existing internal network could create additional human factors 

challenges if aftermarket device warning messages and data are less 

robust than fully integrated systems. For these reasons, one automobile 

manufacturer said that it is unrealistic to expect aftermarket devices to 

perform in all situations.

Automobile manufacturers have already developed different approaches 

to issuing warnings to drivers for existing sensor-based crash avoidance 

technologies. Three experts we interviewed suggested that the manner in 

which V2V warnings are issued to drivers should be allowed to vary 

among automobile manufacturers once basic standards are put in place. 

However, two experts suggested that the manner in which V2V warnings 

are issued to drivers should be similar across vehicles to avoid the 

confusion that might arise from receiving different types of warnings in 

similar situations when driving a different vehicle (e.g., a rental car).

NHTSA has a research program in place to develop human factors 

principles that may be used by automobile manufacturers and suppliers 

as they design and deploy V2V technology and other safety technology 

driver-vehicle interfaces that provide warnings to drivers. This program is 

evaluating alternative approaches to issuing warnings relative to 

effectiveness and potential driver distraction. In addition, DOT has

surveyed drivers participating in the Safety Pilot about driver distraction, 

in addition to other topics, and collected data on driver responses to 

various V2V warnings. NHTSA has also sponsored other research on 

driver warnings—including initial research on the potential standardization 

of warnings across automobile manufacturers—and is planning to 

complete a compendium of research findings in late 2013. Based on 

research in this area, NHTSA has worked with stakeholders to develop 

design principles for V2V driver-vehicle interfaces, which NHTSA plans to 
 

Page 27 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

publish in April 2014.

52 DOT continues to determine next steps in this 

area.53

Six automobile manufacturers and 17 experts we interviewed expressed 

concern about the challenge posed by uncertainties related to potential 

liability in the event of a collision involving vehicles equipped with V2V 

technologies. This challenge is manifested in a number of potential 

liability issues and questions that are unanswered at this time:

• One automobile manufacturer said that because V2V technologies 

offer warnings that are based in part on data transmitted by other 

vehicles—as opposed to sensor-based systems that collect data 

solely from a vehicle’s surroundings—it could be harder to determine 

whether fault for a collision between vehicles equipped with V2V 

technologies lies with one of the drivers, an automobile manufacturer, 

the manufacturer of a V2V device, or another party.

• One expert suggested that, because V2V data may be needed to 

determine fault in the event of a collision, there could be challenges in 

determining who owns the data transmitted between vehicles. This 

expert suggested that establishing rules regarding V2V data 

ownership would, in the event of a collision, help to answer questions 

about which parties have access to the data.

• There may be challenges in determining liability if V2V technologies 

do not work appropriately—for example, if data transmission is 

delayed due to channel congestion, hacking into the system, or 

inaccurate GPS readings.

• Four automobile manufacturers shared their concern that the 

introduction of aftermarket V2V devices into vehicles already on the 

road would create additional liability issues. One automobile 

manufacturer explained that this is because it is difficult to integrate 

aftermarket devices into a vehicle’s existing internal network, 

 

52According to DOT officials, these principles address how to minimize the potential for 

driver distraction. They include a conceptual framework that will address, among other 

things, how to time the presentation of warning messages to drivers and how to prioritize 

multiple messages.

53For example, DOT plans to develop a driver-vehicle interface software-evaluation tool 

that will allow the automobile industry to evaluate the distraction potential of possible types 

of driver-vehicle interfaces. According to DOT officials, this tool will be finalized in 2015.

Liability Issues 
 

Page 28 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

potentially making it more difficult to gather and transmit the same 

degree of information as a fully integrated device and, therefore, 

making it more difficult to determine the cause of a collision.

Automobile manufacturers may be reluctant to move forward with plans to 

install V2V technologies in their newly manufactured vehicles because of 

the uncertainty that accompanies these liability issues. Citing some 

automobile manufacturers’ concerns about the liability risks posed by V2V 

technologies, members of the VIIC have suggested that additional work 

needs to be done to estimate the potential liability and risks associated 

with the deployment of V2V technologies and determine ways to mitigate 

that risk. One automobile manufacturer and two experts suggested that

congressional action could be needed to limit the liability levels of 

automobile manufacturers in the event of a V2V device malfunction. One 

of these experts suggested that legislation setting forth liability limits for

V2V devices that are shown to meet certification tests and function 

according to regulations and standards may be appropriate. However, 

one expert suggested that all vehicle technologies involve liability issues 

and that if the automobile industry ensures that V2V technologies work 

properly before deployment, V2V technologies should not pose any 

greater liability risks than existing sensor-based crash avoidance 

technologies.

DOT officials told us that they do not believe that V2V technologies pose 

any greater liability issues for automobile manufacturers than existing 

sensor-based crash avoidance technologies and therefore do not believe 

that related legislation is necessary. One expert we interviewed 

suggested that DOT should help guide the process of determining who or 

what entity owns the data transmitted between vehicles by V2V 

technologies as that knowledge would make it easier to determine liability 

in the event of a crash. Another expert suggested that DOT will have a 

role to play in helping to address liability issues once the specifics of the 

future deployment of these technologies become clearer.

DOT and the CAMP VSC 3 Consortium conducted Driver Acceptance 

Clinics in 2011 and 2012 to obtain volunteer drivers’ feedback on V2V 

technologies, among other purposes, and participants rated the 

Public Acceptance 
 

Page 29 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

desirability and usefulness of these technologies highly.54 However, 

according to stakeholders and experts we interviewed, obtaining broad 

public acceptance could present a challenge to deployment, as concerns 

related to driver privacy and the limited potential benefits of V2V 

technologies in the early years of their deployment could impede overall 

public acceptance of these technologies.

• Privacy concerns: Public interest groups we interviewed said that 

overcoming concerns about privacy under a system that involves the 

sharing of data among vehicles will pose a challenge. One group 

suggested that the possibility that V2V data could be obtained by third 

parties such as law enforcement agencies could harm the deployment 

of these technologies. Similarly, one expert suggested that public 

acceptance of V2V technologies might be limited without rules 

prohibiting the use of vehicles’ speed and location data to issue 

tickets or track drivers’ movements. Three experts we interviewed 

suggested that legislation may be needed to limit the potential use of 

V2V data. Representatives of automobile manufacturers that are 

members of the VIIC stated that, although the security system under 

development is being designed to ensure data privacy through a 

structure that prevents the association of a vehicle’s V2V 

communication security certificates with any unique identifier of 

drivers of their vehicles, the potential perception of a lack of privacy is 

a challenge. Further, one automobile manufacturer that is part of the 

VIIC said that it could be difficult to explain how V2V technologies 

work to the public without raising concerns related to privacy.55

• Perception of functionality: Public acceptance of V2V technologies 

could also be negatively affected by drivers’ perception of the 

technologies’ limited functionality, especially when few vehicles are 

 

54Six clinics were conducted across the country between August 2011 and January 2012. 

The goals of the clinics were to promote V2V technologies, to assess their performance 

and reliability, and to obtain drivers’ feedback. Over 90 percent of participants said that 

they would like to have V2V technology features in their vehicles and almost 80 percent 

reported having a high level of understanding of how these technologies work.

55We have previously reported on the challenges faced in protecting the privacy of 

consumer data collected by private companies, noting that entities have not consistently 

implemented recommended practices, such as notifying users about the collection of their 

data and placing limits on the retention of data, or consistently disclosed which third 

parties are given access to such information. See GAO, Mobile Device Location Data: 

Additional Federal Actions Could Help Protect Consumer Privacy, GAO-12-903

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 11, 2012).
 

Page 30 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

equipped with V2V devices in early years. As mentioned earlier, when 

there are few equipped vehicles on the roads, drivers may see limited 

benefits of V2V technologies as they may not frequently encounter 

similarly equipped vehicles and infrequently receive warning 

messages in potential collision scenarios. Some experts said that 

limited benefits in the early years of deployment might pose 

challenges to consumer acceptance of V2V technologies. For this 

reason, six experts we interviewed suggested that the simultaneous 

introduction of applications with mobility applications would help 

provide benefits to drivers when deployment is low. For example, one 

expert suggested that mobility applications capable of helping drivers 

avoid congested roads or notifying them of a broken-down car ahead 

in the roadway would provide more apparent benefits to drivers, even 

with a low rate of deployment of V2V technologies.56 In addition, 

seven experts we interviewed suggested that it would be helpful for 

either DOT or automobile manufacturers to reach out to customers to 

communicate the potential safety benefits of V2V technologies in 

advance of deployment in order to increase public acceptance of 

these technologies.

DOT officials told us that the department recognizes that public 

acceptance needs to be considered for the deployment of V2V 

technologies and noted that they have worked closely with automobile 

manufacturers and other stakeholders to develop a technical approach 

that limits risks to individual privacy. DOT officials have emphasized the 

need to distinguish between the ability to identify bad actors through a 

V2V communication security system and the ability to monitor the 

movements of individual vehicles. DOT stated that as currently 

conceived, a V2V communication security system would contain multiple 

technical, physical, and organizational controls to minimize privacy 

risks—including the risk of vehicle tracking by individuals and government 

or commercial entities. According to DOT officials, after NHTSA decides 

whether to proceed with a rulemaking and it is known what entity will 

provide the security for V2V technologies, the department will perform a 

 

56However, such mobility applications may require the deployment of vehicle-toinfrastructure technologies.
 

Page 31 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

comprehensive Privacy Impact Assessment, as required by law,57 to 

determine how to balance individual privacy, data security, and safety. 

DOT officials have emphasized that, to ensure transparency, it will be 

important to communicate what V2V data is generated by a vehicle, the 

extent to which it can be linked to drivers, and who or what entities—both 

legally and technologically—will be able to collect, use, and share the 

data. DOT officials told us that the department will continue to assess any 

risks to privacy posed by the introduction of V2V technologies and identify 

mitigation measures to minimize those risks as more aspects of a system 

of V2V communications are defined. DOT officials also said that, since its 

current authority to regulate the interception and use of V2V data is 

limited, the department might express a strong policy preference or make 

recommendations to Congress for limitations on the use of V2V data by 

entities over which the department lacks regulatory authority.

DOT officials told us that the department does not currently have a 

specific plan about how to proceed with public outreach efforts because 

NHTSA has not yet decided whether a rulemaking is appropriate at this 

time. Additional DOT efforts to address other challenges facing the 

deployment of V2V technologies could help increase their public 

acceptance. For example, DOT is collecting data from the Safety Pilot 

regarding the acceptance of V2V technologies by participating drivers. 

Furthermore, DOT’s ongoing development of guidelines for the 

implementation of driver-vehicle interfaces to address human factors 

challenges could help increase overall acceptance of these technologies. 

In addition, DOT has plans for further research on vehicle-toinfrastructure technologies, which could provide additional safety benefits 

and enable the types of mobility applications that some experts 

suggested could help increase public acceptance of V2V technologies. 

Further, DOT is working with industry stakeholders to develop clear 

certification standards for aftermarket devices, along with all other V2V 

devices, and is considering incentives to encourage drivers to purchase 

these devices.

 

57Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, Div. H, §522, 118 Stat. 

2809, 3268. The objective of a Privacy Impact Assessment is to determine if collected 

personal information data is necessary and relevant. These assessments are used to 

identify and address information privacy when planning, developing, implementing, and 

operating individual agency information management systems and integrated information 

systems. They assess security and privacy risks associated with operating information 

systems that collect, access, use, or disseminate personal information.
 

Page 32 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

DOT has indicated that its 2015 to 2019 ITS strategic plan—currently 

under development and expected to be issued in early 2014—will focus 

on the challenges facing the deployment of V2V technologies. As noted 

earlier, DOT officials told us that they do not want to take certain actions, 

such as determining the structure of a V2V communication security 

system, until after NHTSA’s late 2013 decision on how to proceed 

regarding V2V technologies. DOT has stated that the department’s 

forthcoming plan will include details of near term efforts to further develop 

the technical framework and management structure of a V2V 

communication security system and consideration of incentives needed to 

support the eventual deployment of V2V technologies to the U.S. vehicle 

fleet. In addition, DOT plans to develop an understanding of how the 

public views connected vehicle technologies and their benefits in order to 

develop effective methods for describing the value of V2V technologies to 

users in the context of partial deployment.

According to DOT, the strategic vision for the 2015 to 2019 ITS strategic 

plan is to improve safety, mobility, and environmental mitigation through 

connected vehicles and to enable a transportation system that builds 

upon the capabilities of V2V technologies and vehicle-to-infrastructure 

technologies. In line with this goal, as noted earlier, DOT is planning for 

additional research, including research conducted with the automobile 

industry, into vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies. In addition, by 

defining how an automated vehicle fleet can be introduced with limited 

impact to current infrastructure and researching how increases in the 

degree of automation of the U.S. vehicle fleet could have liability 

implications for stakeholders, DOT has stated that it plans to prepare for 

the introduction of autonomous vehicles to a connected vehicle 

environment featuring both V2V and vehicle-to-infrastructure 

technologies.

Status of DOT Planning for 

V2V Technology 

Deployment
 

Page 33 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

DOT and the automobile industry, through the CAMP VSC 3 Consortium, 

are currently analyzing the total costs of deploying V2V technologies, 

which include the costs of in-vehicle components and the costs 

associated with a V2V communication security system. DOT is currently 

obtaining estimates of the costs of in-vehicle V2V components from 

automobile manufacturers and industry suppliers and has engaged a 

contractor to study the potential costs of providing V2V communications 

security through a number of possible technical and management 

options. NHTSA will use these cost estimates to inform its decision on 

how to proceed with V2V technologies later this year. In addition, the 

CAMP VSC 3 Consortium is now conducting an independent analysis of 

potential security system costs. According to an official with that 

organization, this study should be completed in late 2013 and the 

consortium will provide input and comments on the key assumptions of 

DOT’s cost study as well. Despite these efforts, all of the automobile 

manufacturers we interviewed told us that they had not yet completed any 

formal studies estimating V2V technology costs. We also conducted a 

literature search for published studies discussing potential V2V 

technology costs and were unable to identify any such studies. Finally, we 

asked the experts we interviewed to identify studies on the potential costs 

of deploying V2V technologies; none of the 21 experts were able to 

identify any studies beyond those now being conducted by DOT or the 

CAMP VSC 3 Consortium.

All of the automobile manufacturers we interviewed said that it is difficult 

to estimate the costs of in-vehicle V2V components at this time because 

too many factors remain unknown. According to both automobile 

manufacturers and experts we interviewed, a number of factors will 

influence the costs of in-vehicle V2V components:

• Volume: Five experts and two automobile manufacturers we 

interviewed pointed out that as the volume of V2V components 

produced increases, the per-unit costs are likely to decrease due to 

the economies of scale in manufacturing. Thus, a federal requirement 

that automobile manufacturers install V2V technologies in newly 

manufactured vehicles would likely result in lower per-vehicle costs of 

in-vehicle V2V components than would otherwise be the case.

• Time frames: The costs of in-vehicle components of V2V technologies 

may decline over time due to technological advances. Two automobile 

manufacturers we interviewed said that both the automobile and 

consumer electronics industries have been successful at driving down 

Costs of V2V 

Technologies Are 

Being Studied and Are 

Likely to Be 

Influenced by Various 

Factors Including 

Specifics of V2V 

Communication 

Security System 
 

Page 34 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

the costs of other technologies over time and suggested that this also 

may occur with the cost of in-vehicle V2V components.

• Degree of integration with existing vehicle technologies: Automobile 

manufacturers already install sensor-based crash avoidance 

technologies in some vehicle models. The extent to which V2V 

technologies are integrated with the existing components of these and 

other technologies that use similar components will influence the 

costs of V2V technologies. For example, vehicles that already have 

GPS chips installed for navigation purposes may not need an 

additional GPS chip specifically for V2V technologies purposes. One 

expert and one automobile manufacturer we interviewed explained 

that automobile companies have been successful in integrating 

different technologies in their vehicles in recent years, resulting in 

reduced costs.

• Federal requirements: The specifics of any federal regulation 

regarding V2V technologies, including any possible regulation 

mandating their installation in new vehicles, would likely influence 

costs. For example, the introduction of requirements related to V2V 

technological specifications and standards, the use of hardware for 

V2V components, and the use of V2V safety applications would

influence the ultimate costs of V2V technologies.

Although the costs of in-vehicle V2V components are difficult to estimate 

at this time, they may be modest compared to the price of a new vehicle. 

According to CAMP VSC 3 Consortium representatives, in-vehicle V2V 

components—including the DSRC components and GPS receiver—are 

already commercially available at a relatively low cost. A CAMP VSC 3 

representative noted that although members of the partnership are unable 

to discuss potential V2V technology costs with one another due to 

antitrust concerns, they have agreed to focus their V2V technology 

development efforts on limiting their costs as much as possible. As a 

result, compared to the average sale price of a new vehicle—about 

$31,000 in 2012, according to the National Automobile Dealers 

Association—the potential costs of these physical components may not 

add significantly to a vehicle’s price. One expert we interviewed estimated 

that the costs of V2V components would add less than one percent to the 

price of a new vehicle. These costs may be less than the costs of sensorbased crash avoidance technologies, according to one industry 

association we interviewed, because sensors are more expensive. 
 

Page 35 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

At this time, the potential costs associated with a V2V communication 

security system are unknown as specifics of a security system remain 

undetermined. One expert we interviewed explained that since it is not yet 

known how the security system will look or how it will be organized or 

managed, no one has a good handle on those costs. According to DOT 

officials, how often vehicles must communicate with the security system 

and requirements of how security certificates will be provided will 

influence the ultimate cost of a V2V communication security system. 

Furthermore, it is currently not only difficult to estimate the potential costs, 

but unclear who or what entity—consumers, automobile manufacturers, 

DOT, state and local governments, or others—would pay the costs. 

Determining who or what entity will fund the system will likely prove 

challenging.

Although the potential costs of a V2V communication security system are 

unknown at this time, eight experts we interviewed noted that either these 

costs, or the costs of roadside equipment that may be needed, could be 

significant. One expert said that, given the need for continuous operation 

of a security system, the costs are likely to be much greater than the 

costs of in-vehicle V2V components. Potential sources of funding may 

also face challenges in providing it. For example, if roadside equipment is 

needed to support a security system, it could be costly in a nationwide 

deployment. Participants in a 2012 DOT-hosted workshop focused on 

connected vehicle security58 noted that the costs of roadside equipment 

could range between $25,000 and $30,000 per installation, a cost that 

many state and local governments would find prohibitive if they were 

responsible for its financing.59 In addition, three experts whom we 

interviewed said that the costs of ongoing maintenance and operation of 

such installations could also prove prohibitive. According to DOT officials, 

however, the potential costs of roadside equipment could be much lower 

if its installation were to be integrated into already planned construction 

work at selected sites. They also noted that these costs should decline 

 

58DOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Enabling a Secure 

Environment for Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) Transactions:

April 2012 Public Workshop, (Washington, D.C.: June 2012).

59As we have reported in the past, funding constraints have posed a significant challenge 

to the deployment of intelligent transportation systems technologies by state and local 

governments. See GAO, Intelligent Transportation Systems: Improved DOT Collaboration 

and Communication Could Enhance the Use of Technology to Manage Congestion,

GAO-12-308 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2012).
 

Page 36 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

over time due to declining costs of technologies and increased volumes of 

production.

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Transportation and 

the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission for review and 

comment. DOT and FCC both provided comments via email that were 

technical in nature. We incorporated these comments as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Chairman of the 

FCC. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff that made significant contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix IV.

David J. Wise

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 37 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

To address all of our objectives, we reviewed documentation of the efforts 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and automobile 

manufacturers related to vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technologies, such as 

the department’s ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010 - 2014 Progress 

Update 2012 and documentation on completed and ongoing research. 

We also interviewed officials from DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) and the Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration (RITA) about these efforts. We also interviewed officials 

with the Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP) Vehicle Safety 

Communications (VSC) 3 Consortium as well as, both collectively and 

individually, representatives from all of the following automobile 

manufacturers that currently comprise the Vehicle Infrastructure 

Integration Consortium: BMW, Chrysler, Ford,1 General Motors, Honda, 

Hyundai-Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen. We also 

interviewed a V2V device supplier and representatives of industry and 

public interest groups knowledgeable on the topic of V2V technologies, 

such as the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the American 

Automobile Association.

In addition, we collaborated with the National Academies of Sciences 

(NAS) to identify and recruit experts in vehicle-to-vehicle technologies. 

We provided NAS with criteria for selecting experts, which included: (1) 

type and depth of experience, including recognition in the professional 

community and relevance of any published work; (2) employment history 

and professional affiliations, including any potential conflicts of interest; 

and (3) other relevant experts’ recommendations. NAS initially identified 

35 experts knowledgeable in the areas of V2V technology development 

and interoperability, technology deployment, production of light-duty 

passenger vehicles, data privacy and security, legal and policy issues, 

and human factors issues related to V2V technologies. From that list, we 

selected and conducted structured interviews with 21 experts who 

represented domestic and international automobile manufacturers, 

suppliers of V2V devices, a telecommunications company, and state 

governments, as well as automotive industry experts and academic 

researchers (see table 1 for list of experts interviewed). In conducting our 

structured interviews, we used a standardized interview guide (see 

 

1

While we interviewed Ford as part of group meetings with the Vehicle Infrastructure 

Integration Consortium and the CAMP VSC3 Consortium and interviewed a Ford official 

as an expert identified by the National Academies of Sciences, we did not otherwise 

individually interview Ford.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

appendix II) to obtain consistent answers. During these interviews we 

asked, among other things, for expert views on the state of development 

of V2V technologies, the potential benefits of V2V technologies, their 

potential costs, and DOT’s role in developing V2V technologies. We also 

asked for each expert’s views on a number of already defined potential 

challenges facing the deployment of V2V technologies. We determined 

this initial list of potential challenges after initial interviews with DOT, 

industry associations, select automobile manufacturers, and other interest 

groups knowledgeable about V2V technologies. Prior to conducting the 

interviews, we pretested the structured interview guide with two of the 

selected experts to ensure our questions were worded appropriately and 

could be administered consistently. After conducting these interviews, we 

conducted a content analysis of expert responses relevant to each 

objective and counted the rating of each potential challenge discussed. 

See appendix III for a count of the ratings provided by experts on 

potential challenges facing deployment of V2V technologies.

Table 1: Subject Matter Experts Interviewed

Name Affiliationa

Roger Berg DENSO

Chris Body Kapsch TrafficCom

John Campbell Battelle

Susan Chrysler University of Iowa

Richard Deering Richard Deering Associates

Thomas Dingus Virginia Tech

Dorothy Glancy Santa Clara University School of Law

John Kenney Toyota

Bob Koeberlein Idaho Transportation Department

Greg Krueger Science Applications International 

Corporation (SAIC)

Mike Manser University of Minnesota

Jim Misener Independent consultant

Ravi Puvvala Savari 

Bob Rausch Transcore

Russell Shields Ygomi

Steve Shladover California Partners for Advanced 

Transportation Technology (PATH)

Mike Shulman Ford Motor Company

Kirk Steudle Michigan Department of Transportation

Mitch Tseng Tseng Infoserv
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 39 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Name Affiliationa

Bryant Walker Smith Stanford Law School

William Whyte Security Innovation

Source: GAO.

a

We interviewed experts as individuals, not as representatives of any institution. We provide 

information on institutions to help readers identify experts.

We completed a literature search to obtain documentation, studies, and 

articles related to our objectives. Although this report focuses upon V2V 

technologies, our literature search was broadened to include any relevant 

work published in the past 10 years that was related to terms including 

“vehicle-to-vehicle communications,” “vehicle-to-infrastructure 

communications,” “vehicle-to-roadside communications,” or “intelligent 

vehicle highway systems.” 

To specifically address the state of development of V2V technologies and 

their anticipated benefits, we conducted a site visit to Ann Arbor, 

Michigan, where we interviewed researchers from the University of 

Michigan Transportation Research Institute who are managing the Safety 

Pilot Model Deployment and toured areas of the city in which related 

infrastructure was installed. We also interviewed automobile 

manufacturers’ CAMP VSC 3 Consortium representatives in Farmington 

Hills, Michigan, and received a demonstration of V2V safety warnings in 

multiple potential crash scenarios. We also reviewed DOT’s May 2013 

Description of Light-Vehicle Pre-Crash Scenarios for Safety Applications 

Based on Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications report that estimates 

potential benefits of V2V technologies.

In addition, to specifically address the challenges facing the deployment 

of V2V technologies, we interviewed officials from the Federal 

Communications Commission and a privacy group to obtain their views 

on the potential challenges of spectrum allocation and data privacy, 

respectively, related to deployment of V2V technologies.

To specifically address the potential costs associated with V2V 

technologies, we discussed efforts to estimate costs with DOT and 

representatives of the CAMP VSC 3 Consortium and reviewed relevant 

documentation, such as the April 2012 public workshop entitled Enabling 

a Secure Environment for Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-toInfrastructure (V2I) Transactions, which DOT organized to facilitate 

discussion of communications security structures under development 

among public and private stakeholders. In addition, we asked all 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 40 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

automobile manufacturers we interviewed about the potential costs of 

V2V technologies.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 through 

November 2013 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.
Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for 

Experts Identified by the National Academies 

of Sciences

Page 41 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Questions for Connected Vehicle Technology Experts

(Experts identified by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies) 

Overview of GAO Review of Connected Vehicle Technologies

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) is undertaking work looking at the use of connected vehicle 

technologies (CVT) involving vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications. These technologies allow vehicles to wirelessly 

communicate with one another through Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC); share data, such as data on 

vehicle location and speed; and provide drivers with warnings of potential collisions. GAO is examining these 

technologies at the request of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. Specifically, we are examining:

(1) the progress of development of connected vehicle technologies that involve vehicle-to-vehicle 

communications and their anticipated benefits;

(2) the challenges that affect the development and deployment of these technologies and their potential costs; and 

(3) how the U.S. Department of Transportation is leading efforts to address these challenges.

Our work is limited to CVTs involving V2V communications and we are not including vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) 

communications beyond the extent to which infrastructure may be needed to support V2V communications. We are 

reviewing efforts in the United States and not in other countries. In addition, our work is limited to passenger vehicles and 

we are not including commercial and transit uses.

Please keep the following in mind as you consider your responses to the questions:

 We use the term “stakeholders” to indicate organizations that have been or are expected to be involved in the development or deployment of 

CVTs involving V2V communications including, but not limited to, automobile manufacturers, parts suppliers, government agencies, and 

telecommunications companies.

 We use the term “CVTs involving V2V communications” to include devices that send and receive data, safety applications (such as Forward 

Collision Warning and Emergency Electronic Brake Lights Warning) that analyze data and provide warnings through driver-vehicle interfaces, 

and any security system(s) that may be needed to help establish trust between vehicles sharing data.

 We use the term “V2V devices” to represent the devices now being tested in the Safety Pilot Model Deployment in Ann Arbor, Michigan:1

 

(1) Fully-integrated devices: these devices would be installed during vehicle production and send, receive and analyze vehicle data to 

generate driver warnings of potential collisions. Because they are fully integrated into vehicles, they can analyze additional vehicle 

data—such as steering wheel angle, acceleration rate, brake status and turn signal status—to provide more robust warnings to drivers 

and provide more complete data to other vehicles.

 

1

These devices are wireless and include components such as a GPS chip to determine vehicle location and an antenna for data 

transmission at 5.9 GHz using DSRC. Vehicles with these devices transmit data on vehicle location and speed (called “basic safety 

messages”).

Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for 

Experts Identified by the National Academies 

of Sciences
Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for 

Experts Identified by the National Academies 

of Sciences

Page 42 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

(2) Aftermarket safety devices: these devices, installed after vehicle production, send, receive, and analyze vehicle data to generate 

warnings of potential collisions. However, because they are not integrated with vehicles’ electronics architecture and are thus unable 

to consider additional data, these devices may be limited in their warnings and driver-vehicle interface.

(3) Vehicle awareness devices: these devices are installed after vehicle production and are not connected to any vehicle systems. They 

send data on a vehicle’s location and speed which may be received by other vehicles, but these devices do not generate driver 

warnings.

Status and Benefits of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Connected Vehicle Technologies

1) Please discuss your views of the status of development of CVTs that involve V2V communications in the United 

States, including progress made and successes to date.

2) In your opinion, what are some of the greatest potential benefits of CVTs that involve V2V communications? 

a. Which potential V2V applications are likely to offer the greatest benefits and why?

3) What work, in your opinion, needs to be completed before such technologies are commercially feasible and available 

in the U.S.? 

a. In your opinion, what is a realistic timeframe in which automobile manufacturers might begin to install these 

technologies in new vehicles being manufactured for the U.S. vehicle fleet?

4) According to a 2007 report by the U.S. DOT, CVTs involving V2V communications have the potential to address up 

to 76 percent of unimpaired roadway crashes, which could have the potential to greatly reduce the number of roadway 

fatalities that occur each year.

a. What views, if any, do you have on DOT’s projection of these technologies’ potential benefits? 

b. Other than this study and DOT’s Safety Pilot Driver Clinics and Model Deployment, are you aware of any 

other studies that estimate the potential benefits of V2V technologies? 

Costs of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Connected Vehicle Technologies

5) To your knowledge, are there any studies that estimate the potential future costs associated with the deployment of 

CVTs involving V2V communications? 

a. Specifically, are you aware of any work that has been done to estimate the costs associated with the 

deployment of (1) fully-integrated devices, (2) aftermarket safety devices, and (3) vehicle awareness devices?

6) To your knowledge, are there any studies that estimate the potential costs of the type(s) of security system(s) needed 

to support CVTs involving V2V communications, including any infrastructure that such a security system may 

require?

7) What factors may affect the costs associated with the deployment of CVTs involving V2V communications? 
Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for 

Experts Identified by the National Academies 

of Sciences

Page 43 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Challenges Associated with Vehicle-to-Vehicle Connected Vehicle Technologies

8) In your opinion, to what extent does each of the following issues present a challenge to the development and eventual 

deployment of CVTs that involve V2V communications? (Place only one ‘x’ in each row below to indicate your 

response.)

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



a. Technical challenges in the 

development of each of the 

following V2V technologies:

- V2V devices ............................. ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

- V2V safety applications ........... ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

- Driver-vehicle interface ............ ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

i. Please discuss the technical challenges being faced in the development of CVTs involving 

V2V communications.

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant stakeholders? If so, please 

discuss.

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and 

any additional steps they should take.

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



b. Technical development of a data 

security system to help establish 

trust between vehicles sharing 

information.......................................... ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

i. Please discuss any challenges posed by issues of technical development of a data security 

system to the development and deployment of CVTs involving V2V communications. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant stakeholders? If so, please 

discuss.

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and 

any additional steps they should take.
Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for 

Experts Identified by the National Academies 

of Sciences

Page 44 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



c. Standardization to ensure 

interoperability among different 

types of devices and vehicles .............. ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

i. Please describe the challenge that ensuring the interoperability of CVTs involving V2V 

communications presents to development and deployment of these technologies. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant stakeholders? If so, please 

discuss.

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and 

any additional steps they should take.

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



d. Deployment of V2V devices and 

applications into a great enough 

percentage of the U.S. vehicle 

fleet to realize significant benefits...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

i. Please discuss the challenge(s) associated with the process of deploying V2V technologies 

across the U.S. vehicle fleet.

a. Please discuss any challenges presented by the potential need for less-than fully 

integrated aftermarket V2V devices. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant stakeholders? If so, please 

discuss.

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and 

any additional steps they should take.
Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for 

Experts Identified by the National Academies 

of Sciences

Page 45 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



e. Costs of deploying CVTs 

involving V2V communications 

(including V2V devices, safety 

applications, driver-vehicle 

interface, and security system) ............ ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

i. Please discuss any challenge(s) posed by the costs associated with specific aspects of the 

deployment of CVTs involving V2V communications.

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant stakeholders? If so, please 

discuss.

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and 

any additional steps they should take.

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



f. Potential need for roadside 

equipment required to support 

security system .................................... ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

i. Please discuss the extent to which the potential need for roadside equipment to support V2V 

technologies may or may not present a challenge(s).

ii. Please discuss the extent to which financing any roadside equipment needed for a system of 

V2V technologies may or may not present a challenge(s).

iii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant stakeholders? If so, please 

discuss.

iv. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and 

any additional steps they should take.
Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for 

Experts Identified by the National Academies 

of Sciences

Page 46 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



g. Establishment of a framework, 

including determination of roles 

and responsibilities, for 

management of a security system 

to support a V2V environment ............ ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

i. Please discuss the challenge(s) associated with the establishment of a governance structure 

for the management of a security system to support CVTs involving V2V communications. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant stakeholders? If so, please 

discuss.

iii. Please discuss how U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and any 

additional steps they should take.

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



h. Establishing acceptable end user 

privacy ................................................. ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

i. Please discuss any challenges posed by issues of end user privacy to the development and/or 

deployment of V2V technologies. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant stakeholders? If so, please 

discuss.

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and 

any additional steps they should take.
Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for 

Experts Identified by the National Academies 

of Sciences

Page 47 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



i. Public acceptance .................................. ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

i. Please discuss the challenge of public acceptance to the development and deployment of 

V2V technologies. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant stakeholders? If so, please 

discuss.

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and 

any additional steps they should take.

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



j. Use of DSRC technology at 5.9 

GHz frequency band ........................... ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

i. Please discuss any challenge(s) presented by the decision to use DSRC technology to 

establish V2V communications to date and in the future. 

ii. The Federal Communications Commission allocated 75 MHz of spectrum in the 5.9 GHz 

band for vehicle safety and mobility applications. Please discuss any implications of the 

possibility of making the bandwidth set aside for CVTs for other uses.

iii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant stakeholders? If so, please 

discuss.

iv. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and 

any additional steps they should take.
Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for 

Experts Identified by the National Academies 

of Sciences

Page 48 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



k. Human factors for V2V 

communications (e.g. how warning 

messages affect driver performance) ........ ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

i. Please discuss the challenges that human factors pose to the development and eventual 

deployment of CVTs that involve V2V communications. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant stakeholders? If so, please 

discuss.

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and 

any additional steps they should take.

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



l. Liability issues (i.e. uncertainty 

related to legal responsibility for 

vehicle crashes after broad 

deployment of V2V devices) .................... ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

i. Please discuss the extent to which the broad introduction of V2V technologies to the U.S. 

vehicle fleet may pose potential challenges related to liability. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant stakeholders? If so, please 

discuss.

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and 

any additional steps they should take.
Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for 

Experts Identified by the National Academies 

of Sciences

Page 49 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

9) What additional challenges, if any, exist in the ongoing development and eventual deployment of CVTs that involve 

V2V communications? For each additional challenge, please discuss its extent, how it presents different challenges 

for different relevant stakeholders, and how well DOT and other stakeholders are addressing it and additional steps 

that they should take. 

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



a. ____________________........................ ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



b. ____________________........................ ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............

Very great 

challenge



Great 

challenge



Moderate 

challenge



Slight 

challenge



No

challenge



Don’t know



c. ____________________........................ ...... ..... ...... ...... ............. .............
Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for 

Experts Identified by the National Academies 

of Sciences

Page 50 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

U.S. DOT’s Role in Connected Vehicle Technologies

10) In your view, how well is U.S. DOT carrying out the following efforts related to the development and deployment of 

CVTs involving V2V communications? 

a. Evaluating the potential safety benefits of CVTs involving V2V communications 

b. Considering the potential costs of deploying CVTs involving V2V communications 

c. Supporting the development of V2V safety applications.

d. Conducting development and testing of V2V devices and promoting the development of technical standards. 

e. Communicating and collaborating with key stakeholders, including automobile manufacturers and suppliers 

and other interested parties.

f. Identifying policies to help lead to deployment of CVTs involving V2V communications. 

11) Please discuss how, in your opinion, each of the following possible actions regarding CVTs involving V2V 

communications would affect automobile manufacturer costs, new vehicle costs, vehicle production, and deployment 

of CVTs involving V2V communications: 

a. A federal mandate for automobile manufacturers to install equipment necessary to support V2V safety 

applications? 

b. The inclusion of V2V safety applications in NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program?2

c. Continued research and development? 

12) Do you have any views not already discussed on the development and deployment of CVTs involving V2V 

communications, including any additional actions U.S. DOT should take?

 

2

Doing so would enable automobile manufacturers to earn higher government safety ratings for vehicles that support V2V safety 

applications. For more information on the New Car Assessment Program, please see www.safecar.gov. 
Appendix III: Expert Ratings of Potential 

Challenges Facing Deployment of Vehicle-toVehicle Technologies

Page 51 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

As part of our review, we conducted 21 structured interviews with 

individuals identified by the National Academies of Sciences to be experts 

on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technologies (see table 1 in appendix I for list 

of experts interviewed). In conducting these structured interviews, we 

used a standardized interview guide (see Appendix II) to obtain consistent 

answers. During these interviews we asked, among other things, for each 

expert’s views on a number of already defined potential challenges facing 

the deployment of V2V technologies. The ratings provided by the experts 

for each of the potential challenges discussed are shown in table 2 below. 

To inform our discussion of the challenges facing the deployment of V2V 

technologies, we considered these ratings as well as experts’ responses 

to open-ended questions.

Table 2: Expert Ratings of Potential Challenges Facing Deployment of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Technologies

Potential Challenge

Very 

great 

challenge

Great 

challenge

Moderate 

challenge

Slight 

challenge

No 

challenge

Don’t 

know

Technical challenges in the development of each of the 

following V2V technologies:

V2V devices 0 2 9 7 2 1 

V2V safety applications 0 3 12 4 1 1 

Driver-vehicle interface 4 1 9 5 1 1 

Technical development of a data security system to help 

establish trust between vehicles sharing information 6 6 4 3 0 2 

Standardization to ensure interoperability among different 

types of devices and vehicles 1 6 6 6 2 0 

Deployment of V2V devices and applications into a great 

enough percentage of the U.S. vehicle fleet to realize 

significant benefits 4 4 8 2 0 3 

Costs of deploying connected vehicle technologies involving 

V2V communications (including V2V devices, safety 

applications, driver-vehicle interface, and security system) 2 4 4 7 3 1 

Potential need for roadside equipment required to support 

security system 1 8 6 3 0 3 

Establishment of a framework, including determination of 

roles and responsibilities, for management of a security 

system to support a V2V environment 4 8 6 1 1 1 

Establishing acceptable end user privacy 6 1 7 4 1 2 

Public acceptance 2 7 7 3 1 1 

Use of DSRC technology at 5.9 GHz frequency band 6 4 5 1 0 5 

Human factors for V2V communications (e.g. how warning 

messages affect driver performance) 4 3 6 5 0 3 

Appendix III: Expert Ratings of Potential 

Challenges Facing Deployment of Vehicle-toVehicle Technologies
Appendix III: Expert Ratings of Potential 

Challenges Facing Deployment of Vehicle-toVehicle Technologies

Page 52 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Potential Challenge

Very 

great 

challenge

Great 

challenge

Moderate 

challenge

Slight 

challenge

No 

challenge

Don’t 

know

Liability issues (i.e. uncertainty related to legal responsibility 

for vehicle crashes after broad deployment of V2V devices) 4 4 5 3 0 5 

Source: GAO analysis of structured interviews with experts identified by the National Academies of Sciences.
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 53 GAO-14-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems

David Wise, (202) 512-2834, or wised@gao.gov

In addition to the individual above, Judy Guilliams-Tapia, Assistant 

Director; Melissa Bodeau; Leia Dickerson; David Hooper; Terence Lam; 

Maren McAvoy; Josh Ormond; Madhav Panwar; Matthew Rosenberg; 

Chad Williams; and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(542211)
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 (http://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 http://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: http://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.