Highway Safety: Federal and State Efforts Related to Accidents That Involve Non-Commercial Vehicles Carrying Unsecured Loads
Published: 2012-11-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Vehicles carrying objects that are not properly secured pose a safety risk on our nation's roadways. Debris that falls from a vehicle can collide with other vehicles or pedestrians, causing serious injuries or fatalities. According to data collected by NHTSA, there were about 440 fatalities caused by roadway debris in 2010. However, the exact number of incidents resulting from vehicles carrying unsecured loads is unknown.
Congress, through the Conference Report for the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, (2012), directed NHTSA to improve its data on unsecured-load incidents and directed GAO to report on state laws and related exemptions, and punitive measures regarding unsecured loads on non-commercial vehicles, such as cars and light trucks used for non-commercial purposes. This report examines NHTSAs data collection efforts as well as states laws related to unsecured loads. GAO reviewed NHTSA documents and interviewed officials from NHTSA, as well as representatives of highway safety associations and state police agencies. GAO also conducted a survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with a response rate of 100 percent, and researched the laws, punitive measures, and education efforts in each state.
GAO provided a draft of this report to NHTSA for review and comment. NHTSA provided technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) collects limited information on crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads but plans to make changes to collect better information. Currently, NHTSA collects some data in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System. However, the systems do not currently have a data category to distinguish between debris resulting from natural sources (such as a tree branch) and debris resulting from human error (such as an unsecured load). As a result, NHTSA cannot currently identify how many crashes involve vehicles carrying unsecured loads. NHTSA intends to make changes to both its systems to better identify crashes involving unsecured loads. These changes will go into effect in 2013. However, NHTSA may still face challenges collecting this data because 1) law enforcement officials face difficulties in determining whether a crash involved an unsecured load and 2) states do not collect uniform data on unsecured loads in their police crash reports. NHTSA officials stated that they would likely recommend changes to the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC)voluntary guidelines intended to create uniform data in police crash reports; however, the revised guidelines will not be released until 2017 because of MMUCCs 5-year cycle of updates. NHTSA officials acknowledged that even with the changes in its data systems, data improvements will take time to implement and data on unsecured-load crashes will likely continue to be imprecise.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia have statutes regarding unsecured loads that pertain to non-commercial and commercial vehicles. A majority of states and the District of Columbia reported exempting vehicles from unsecured load statutes for primarily commercial activities such as roadway maintenance or agriculture activities, while 9 states have statutes that apply to all vehicles. All 50 states and the District of Columbia reported having fines or penalties for violating unsecured load statutes ranging from $10 to $5,000; fifteen states add the possibility of imprisonment. Ten states also reported having a safety or education program related to unsecured loads.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Non-commercial vehicles carrying objects that are not properly secured  pose a safety risk on our nation’s roadways. Debris from a vehicle’s  unsecured load can collide with other vehicles, or pedestrians alongside  roads, causing serious injuries or fatalities. In addition, this type of debris  can be a hazard on the road that can result in a crash as drivers swerve  to avoid it. Over the last 10 years, several serious crashes involving non- commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loadssafety risks associated with this practice. For example, in February 2004,  a driver in Renton, Washington, was critically injured when an    have highlighted the  entertainment center fell from the back of a trailer being pulled by a  vehicle in front of her. In November 2011, a woman was killed in Beverly,  West Virginia, when unsecured contents fell off a trailer being hauled by a  non-commercial vehicle and went through her windshield. More recently,  in April 2012, a pedestrian in North Naples, Florida, sustained a fractured  skull and spinal injuries when a mattress and metal frame fell off a non- commercial vehicle and struck the victim.
According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)  data, in 2010, there were about 51,000 crashes—including almost 10,000  injured persons and 440 known fatalities—involving a vehicle striking an  object that came off of another vehicle or a non-fixed object lying in the  roadway. However, the exact number of crashes involving non- commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads is unknown, in part  because there is no mechanism for distinguishing road obstructions  resulting from human error, such as an unsecured load, and those  involving natural elements such as a fallen tree. Moreover, while the  Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulates securing  cargo on commercial vehicles, similar federal regulations for non- commercial vehicles do not exist. States determine what laws, if any, to  apply to securing cargo on non-commercial vehicles.
In response to these issues, the Conference Report accompanying the  Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, directed  NHTSA to collect and classify data resulting from crashes involving road  debris in a manner that would distinguish road obstructions resulting from  human error from those involving natural elements. Further, the  Conference Report also directed GAO to report on the various state laws,  associated penalties, exemptions, and enforcement actions regarding  unsecured loads. In response to this congressional direction, this report  examines (1) efforts NHTSA has undertaken to monitor crashes involving  vehicles carrying unsecured loads and (2) existing state laws,  exemptions, and punitive measures regarding non-commercial vehicles  carrying unsecured loads.
To identify efforts NHTSA has undertaken to monitor crashes involving  vehicles carrying unsecured loads, we obtained documents from and  conducted interviews with NHTSA officials to obtain information on the  agency’s current policies, procedures, and practices for monitoring  crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads. Specifically, we  obtained information about what data on unsecured loads NHTSA  currently collects; how NHTSA coordinates with state agencies on its data  collection efforts; actions NHTSA has taken or plans to take to improve its  data collection processes in response to congressional direction; and  challenges, if any, that NHTSA faces in improving its data on vehicles  carrying unsecured loads. In addition, we conducted a literature search to  identify and review relevant studies, reports, and available data on  crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads and to gain a better  understanding of the magnitude of the problem of vehicles carrying  unsecured loads. Finally, we analyzed NHTSA’s crash data from the  Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive  Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES) to identify  the number of crashes from 2005 through 2010 in which a vehicle struck  falling or shifting cargo or an object lying in the roadway. Based on our  interviews with NHTSA officials and our review of NHTSA’s policies and  procedures for maintaining the data and verifying their accuracy, we  determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  our report.
To identify existing state laws, exemptions, and punitive measures  regarding non-commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads, we  conducted a literature review of and legal research on state laws,  penalties, and exemptions regarding properly securing loads on non- commercial vehicles. In addition, we conducted a survey of all 50 states  and the District of Columbia to supplement, verify, and corroborate data  obtained from our legal research and to obtain additional information on  penalties, enforcement actions, and education and prevention efforts in  each state. We received completed surveys from 51 respondents for a  response rate of 100 percent. In addition, we conducted interviews with  state police officials in 7 states to collect information on enforcement  actions and education and prevention efforts related to properly securing  loads carried by non-commercial vehicles. We selected states that (1)  were geographically diverse, (2) were of varying sizes, and (3) have  varying types of laws related to non-commercial vehicles carrying  unsecured loads. We also conducted interviews with associations and  individuals active in highway safety issues to obtain additional information  on issues related to unsecured loads and efforts by states to deal with  these issues. Interviewees included the American Automobile Association  Foundation for Traffic Safety and one of the co-authors of a 2004 study  for this foundation examining the safety impacts of vehicle-related road  debris; the Governors Highway Safety Association; and the  Transportation Cargo Safety Organization.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2012 to November  2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient and 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. Further details on  our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I and the survey is  reproduced in appendix II.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Unsecured cargo or other debris falling from a moving vehicle can pose a  serious hazard to other motorists and can lead to property damage,  injuries, or fatalities (see fig. 1). Examples of unsecured-load debris that  often ends up on roadways include objects such as mattresses or box  springs, ladders, and furniture items.
NHTSA’s mission is to prevent motor vehicle crashes and reduce injuries,  fatalities, and economic losses associated with these crashes. To carry  out this mission, the agency conducts a range of activities, including  setting vehicle safety standards; conducting research on a variety of  safety issues; administering grant programs authorized by Congress;  providing guidance and other assistance to states to help them address  key safety issues, such as drunken driving and distracted driving; and  collecting and analyzing data on crashes. NHTSA analyzes crash data to  determine the extent of a problem and to determine what steps it should  take to develop countermeasures. Regarding unsecured loads, NHTSA  collects some data regarding whether a crash involved an unsecured  load.
Determining the number of crashes involving unsecured loads can be a  challenge because data are limited. NHTSA does track the number of  crashes involving road debris. However, as mentioned previously, these  data include all types of road debris, including debris resulting from  human error (e.g., unsecured load) and debris that is from natural  elements (e.g., a fallen tree branch). Based on available NHTSA data,  such crashes comprise a small percentage of total police-reported  crashes. For example, in 2010, out of a total of about 5,419,000 crashes,  about 1 percent— 51,000 crashes—involved a vehicle striking an object  that came off another vehicle or a non-fixed object lying in the roadway.  Of these 51,000 crashes, there were almost 10,000 people injured and  440 fatalities—about 1 percent of the total number of fatalities from motor  vehicle crashes in that year (32,855).
States determine what laws, if any, to apply to non-commercial vehicles  carrying unsecured loads and whether to develop prevention programs  geared towards reducing crashes of non-commercial vehicles carrying  unsecured loads. State and local law enforcement agencies are  responsible for enforcing these laws.
section_title: NHTSA’s Changes to Its Collection of Data on Unsecured Loads Will Take Time to Implement
paragraphs: While NHTSA currently collects limited information on crashes involving  unsecured loads, the agency intends to make changes to its data  systems to follow Congress’s direction to distinguish road obstructions  resulting from human error from those involving natural elements.  NHTSA’s changes to its data systems will allow the agency to better track  crashes involving unsecured loads, but NHTSA will still face challenges  with collecting this information because the determination as to whether a  crash involved an unsecured load is made by state law enforcement  officials and can be difficult to make. Further, there are some limitations  with respect to the state data collected in police crash reports, and data  improvements will take time to implement.
subsections: section_title: NHTSA Plans to Collect Better Data on Unsecured Loads in Response to Congressional Direction
paragraphs: NHTSA collects data on crashes and fatalities that may involve both  commercial and non-commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads in two  data systems—FARS and NASS GES. (see table 1). The FARS provides  a census of police-reported traffic crashes nationwide in which at least  one fatality occurred. The NASS GES provides national estimates of  crash statistics based on a sample of police-reported crashes. For both  data systems, police crash reports, which are unique to each state, are a  key source of data. NHTSA gathers this information from states and  recodes it into a uniform format.
Currently, there are three data categories in these systems that track data  on crashes involving road debris. However, as noted previously, these  data categories do not currently distinguish between different types of  roadway debris (i.e., debris resulting from natural/environmental sources  versus debris resulting from human error). As a result, NHTSA cannot  currently identify how many crashes involve vehicles carrying unsecured  loads.
In response to the congressional direction to improve its data on  unsecured-load crashes, NHTSA officials stated that they are currently  making changes to the FARS and the NASS GES to collect better  information and better track crashes involving unsecured loads.  Specifically, NHTSA has developed changes to both systems to (1) revise  two existing data categories on road debris and (2) add two new data  categories. The revised and new categories will provide more specific  information on unsecured-load crashes. (See appendix III for current  FARS and NASS GES data category definitions and planned 2013  changes.) For example, NHTSA will now be able to distinguish between  the following two types of crash scenarios that involve an object being set  in motion by one vehicle and striking another vehicle, a person, or  property, causing injury or damage:
Cargo, such as a mattress, being transported by one motor vehicle  becomes dislodged and strikes another vehicle, a person, or property.
An object in the road, such as a tree branch, is struck by a motor  vehicle and then strikes another vehicle, a person, or property.
NHTSA will also be able to distinguish between two types of crash  scenarios that involve a vehicle striking an object already in the road  (without striking another vehicle, a person, or property):
A motor vehicle strikes a non-fixed object already at rest in the  roadway, such as a mattress, and the object is known to have been  cargo from an unsecured load.
A motor vehicle strikes a non-fixed object already at rest in the  roadway, such as a tree branch, and the object is known to have not  come from a motor vehicle, or it is unknown if it came from a motor  vehicle.
NHTSA officials stated that they intend to analyze this data in the future to  determine whether actions are needed to address this problem. They  explained that in deciding when to take actions regarding a traffic safety  issue, NHTSA first tries to determine the extent of the problem by looking  at counts or trends. The agency then may conduct research to better  understand the problem and work toward developing countermeasures.
According to NHTSA officials, these changes will be effective in the FARS  and NASS GES during the 2013 data collection year, which begins  January 2013. To implement these changes, NHTSA plans to develop a  2013 coding manual between mid-August 2012 and December 5, 2012,  and develop data-entry specifications by November 2012. NHTSA  officials stated that they plan to train FARS analysts at the state level and  NASS GES data coders on how to use the new and revised data  elements in early December 2012. Public users will first have access to  the 2013 data in 2014 after data collection and quality control checks are  completed.
section_title: Identifying Unsecured- Load Crashes Can Be Difficult, and Data Improvements Will Take Some Time to Implement
paragraphs: While NHTSA’s changes to the FARS and NASS GES data systems will  allow the agency to better track crashes involving unsecured loads, it still  faces challenges collecting data on these crashes. Two primary factors  affect NHTSA’s ability to collect this information: (1) law enforcement  officials face difficulties in determining whether a crash involved an  unsecured load and (2) states do not collect uniform data on unsecured  loads in their police crash reports. Even with the changes that NHTSA is  making in its data collection processes and procedures, the resulting data  will be imprecise because it relies on state reporting of crashes and data  improvements will take time to implement as acknowledged by NHTSA.  NHTSA officials stated that they will make every effort to capture the data  available in the source documents to provide the most accurate  assessment of this safety issue.
Even though NHTSA is improving its data systems, determining whether  a crash is a result of an unsecured load will remain a challenge. Several  law enforcement officials we spoke with indicated that classifying a crash  involving an unsecured load is difficult in some cases, because it is  unclear whether the object on the road was as a result of an unsecured  load or another factor. One law enforcement official explained that if an  object falls from a moving vehicle and immediately hits a vehicle or a  person, the crash is generally classified as an unsecured-load crash.  However, if an object falls from a moving vehicle onto the road and  remains on the road for some time before another vehicle subsequently  strikes the object, then the crash will generally not be classified as an  unsecured-load crash unless there is a witness available to report that the  object originally fell off of another vehicle (see fig. 2). The official  explained that identifying the first incident as an unsecured-load crash is  generally easier because of a higher likelihood of witnesses at the scene  who saw the crash occur and saw the unsecured-load fall from the  vehicle. In the second scenario, where debris remains on the road for  some time, there may be no information to explain how the object on the  road ended up there. According to this official, it is up to the reporting  officer to determine how to classify or describe the crash in the police  report. Under NHTSA’s planned data system changes, the agency will be  able to specify in their data systems crashes that involve unsecured loads  if all pertinent information is available to the reporting officer. However, if  the incident is not identified by the reporting officer as an unsecured-load  crash in the first place, it may not be flagged as such in NHTSA’s data  systems. NHTSA officials acknowledged that it can be difficult in some  cases to determine if something in the road fell off a vehicle if there is no  evidence available.
States do not uniformly define and report data on unsecured loads in  police crash reports. NHTSA uses information from police crash reports to  determine whether a crash is an unsecured-load incident or another type  of incident. Some state crash reports contain a field where officers can  check off a box indicating whether “unsecured loads” were a contributing  factor in a crash while others rely on the officer to explain in the narrative  section of the report whether the incident involving an unsecured load or  other factor. NHTSA uses information from both sections of the report in  developing their data. However, in some cases, information about  whether a crash involved an unsecured load may not be included in the  narrative portion of the police reports. According to NHTSA officials,  reports on fatal crashes are more likely to have this information; however,  the level of information that is included in the narrative report could vary  from officer to officer. If a police crash report does not contain information  indicating that a crash involved an unsecured load, then NHTSA cannot  classify the crash as such.
On a voluntary basis, most states have begun collecting a similar  minimum core of information in their police crash reports. These core  elements are outlined in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria  (MMUCC), voluntary guidelines for the implementation of uniform crash  data elements.guidelines to varying degrees. One avenue for ensuring that all states  collect consistent information on unsecured loads in their police crash  reports would be to include unsecured-load data as a core data element  in the next edition of the guidelines. NHTSA does not have independent  authority to seek changes in state police reports; however, NHTSA  officials stated that they will likely recommend changes to MMUCC  guidelines. In order for a new data element to be added, it must be  approved by the MMUCC Expert Panel, which includes representatives  from NHTSA, FMCSA, the Federal Highway Administration, the National  Transportation Safety Board, the Governors Highway Safety Association,  Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Ford Motor Company, Emergency  Medical System agencies, and local and state police agencies.  Recommended changes to the guidelines can be submitted by any  agency represented on the MMUCC expert panel.
According to NHTSA officials, most states follow these  Any changes to the guidelines cannot be made for quite some time as  MMUCC operates on a 5-year cycle. MMUCC released its revised  guidelines in July 2012, and the next update is not expected until 2017.  NHTSA officials explained that they would be unable to recommend  changes to the guidelines until 2016, when MMUCC begins the process  updating the guidelines. If changes are made to the guidelines, these  changes would not go into effect until after 2017. NHTSA officials also  noted that making changes to police crash reports in response to  changes in the guidelines can take from 12 to 18 months. Some police  agencies now use electronic police crash reports, and as a result,  changes to the police crash reports could require information technology  infrastructure investments to update their electronic systems. Moreover,  additional training of police officers regarding how to use the new data  elements would be required. NHTSA officials stated that in the interim,  state FARS analysts and NASS GES data coders will communicate to law  enforcement officials that information on unsecured-load crashes should  be included in the narrative portion of police crash reports.
section_title: All 50 States and the District of Columbia Have Laws That Pertain to Non- Commercial Unsecured Loads, but Exemptions, Fines, and Penalties Vary
paragraphs: All fifty states and the District of Columbia have statutes regarding  unsecured loads that pertain to non-commercial vehicles. While nine  states reported having no exemptions related to their statute, a majority of  states and the District of Columbia reported exempting vehicles from  unsecured-load statutes most commonly for roadway maintenance or  agriculture activities, but these exemptions are primarily related to  commercial activities. All fifty states and the District of Columbia reported  having fines or penalties for violating unsecured-load statutes ranging  from $10 to $5,000; fifteen of these states add the possibility of  imprisonment. (See appendix IV for summary of all fifty states and the  District of Columbia’s laws, exemptions, and penalties/fines.) Ten states  reported having a safety or education program related to unsecured  loads.
subsections: section_title: All States Have Laws Pertaining to Commercial Unsecured Loads That also Apply to Non-Commercial Vehicles, but Certain Commercial Activities Are Frequently Exempted
paragraphs: All fifty states and the District of Columbia have statutes regarding  unsecured loads that pertain to non-commercial vehicles. While the  statutes vary widely, many use a common construction similar to: “No  vehicle shall be driven or moved on any highway unless such vehicle is  so constructed or loaded as to prevent any of its load from dropping,  shifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping there from,” a statement that is  oftentimes followed by exemptions as discussed below. However, a few  states such as Mississippi have short statutes that contain a shortened  form of this common language. Other states such as Oklahoma set forth  more specific instructions in the statute directing, for example, the  covering of loads to be “securely fastened so as to prevent said covering  or load from becoming loose, detached or in any manner a hazard to  other users of the highway.”
The state statutes on unsecured loads differ more frequently in their  description of exemptions. According to our survey, 41 states and the  District of Columbia have exemptions from unsecured-load laws in their  statutes (see fig. 3). These exemptions most commonly applied to  roadwork and agriculture. For example, the most common roadway  exemption includes “vehicles applying salt or sand to gain traction” or  “vehicles dropping water for cleaning or maintaining the highway.”  Exemptions for commercial activities range from general wording such as  “applies to all motor vehicles except those carrying agricultural loads,” to  industry-specific exemptions such as “applies to all motor vehicles except  logging trucks or those carrying wood, lumber, or sawmill wastes.”
Nine states reported having no exemptions to their unsecured-load  statute, including Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New York,  South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
All states have some level of fines or penalties for violations of  unsecured-load statutes. Most states have specific penalties ranging from  as little as $10 to as much as $5,000; fifteen states include possible jail  time. (See fig. 4.)
Two states—Nevada and New Hampshire—reported the fine as  unknown, because it is imposed at the local court level and could vary  widely.
Twenty states and the District of Columbia reported maximum fines of  $10 to less than $500 and only two of those states—Tennessee and  Colorado—add possible jail time in addition to the fine. Eight of  these states have maximum fines between $10 and $100 for the first  offense.
Twenty-eight states reported more severe maximum fines of $500 to  $5,000 for violating unsecured-load laws and thirteen of those  states—Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,  New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West  Virginia, and Wyoming—include possible jail time in addition to a fine.
The states of Illinois, Virginia, and Washington have the highest  maximum fines: $2,500 for Illinois and Virginia, and $5,000 for  Washington. In addition, the law enforcement officials in all of the seven  states we selected for interviews stated that additional criminal charges  could be brought in their state against individuals who injured or killed a  person as a result of negligently securing their load in addition to the  specific penalties stated in unsecured-load statutes.
Enforcement officials in some states told us that it is often difficult to write  citations for unsecured-load violations. In five of the seven states, officials  we interviewed noted that statutory language can be ambiguous, or  require law enforcement officials either to witness the unsecured load  falling or have the load actually fall to the ground to be considered a  statutory violation. This language makes law enforcement respond  reactively rather than proactively. All seven enforcement officials we  interviewed told us they were not aware how anyone could distinguish  between citations written for commercial vehicles (i.e., used for business  purposes) and non-commercial vehicles (i.e., private vehicles used to  move personal belongings or take trash to the local landfill for example)  as written in their states. Therefore, counting violations of their states’  unsecure load laws specifically for non-commercial vehicles is not  currently possible.
section_title: Some States Have Programs for Educating the Public about Unsecured Loads
paragraphs: Ten of the 50 states and the District of Columbia reported they have a  safety or education program that pertains to unsecured loads on non- commercial vehicles. Those states include California, Illinois, Maine,  North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,  Washington, and Wisconsin. Enforcement officials in all of the seven  states we selected for interviews stated that in their experience,  education—teaching drivers about the importance of properly securing  the load in any vehicle or trailer before driving—is the key component to  reducing unsecured-load incidents. See appendix V for examples of  safety education materials from North Carolina and Washington.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to NHTSA for review and comment.  NHTSA provided technical comments that were incorporated as  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of NHTSA, the  Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and interested  Congressional Committees. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff has  any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or  FlemingS@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 who made major contributions to this report are listed in  appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines (1) efforts the National Highway Traffic Safety  Administration (NHTSA) has undertaken to monitor crashes involving  vehicles carrying unsecured loads and (2) existing state laws,  exemptions, and punitive measures regarding non-commercial vehicles  carrying unsecured loads. For the purposes of our review, we defined  unsecured load to include a load or part of a load in transit that is not  properly restrained, tied down, or secured with tarps, nets, or ropes to  reasonably prevent a portion from falling off. We defined non-commercial  vehicles to include passenger vehicles (cars or light trucks) transported  for non-commercial purposes, and the towing of loads in an open trailer  behind the passenger vehicle. Light trucks included trucks of 10,000  pounds gross vehicle weight rating or less, including pickups, vans, truck- based station wagons, and utility vehicles. Open trailers included trailers  that can be obtained from personal or commercial sources, such as U- Haul, but used for non-commercial purposes. NHTSA collects data on  crashes involving non-commercial and commercial crashes. We obtained  NHTSA’s input in developing these definitions.
To identify efforts NHTSA has undertaken to monitor crashes involving  vehicles carrying unsecured loads, we obtained documents from and  conducted interviews with NHTSA officials to obtain information on  NHTSA’s current policies, procedures, and practices for monitoring  crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads. Specifically, we  obtained information about what data on unsecured loads NHTSA  currently collects; how NHTSA coordinates with state agencies on its data  collection efforts; actions NHTSA has taken to date or plans to take to  improve its data collection processes in response to its mandate; and  challenges, if any, that NHTSA faces in improving its data on vehicles  carrying unsecured loads. In addition, we conducted a literature search to  identify and review relevant studies, reports, and available data on  crashes involving vehicles carrying unsecured loads and to gain a better  understanding of the magnitude of the problem. Finally, we analyzed  NHTSA’s crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)  and the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates  System (NASS GES) to identify the number of crashes in 2010 in which a  vehicle struck falling or shifting cargo or an object lying in the roadway.  We assessed the reliability of these data sources by, among other things,  interviewing NHTSA officials and reviewing NHTSA policies and  procedures for maintaining the data and verifying their accuracy. Based  on this information, we determined that the data provided to us were  sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes.
To identify existing state laws, exemptions, and punitive measures  regarding non-commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads, we  conducted a literature review of and legal research on state(s) laws,  penalties, and exemptions regarding properly securing loads on non- commercial vehicles. In addition, we conducted a survey of all 50 states  and the District of Columbia to supplement, verify, and corroborate data  obtained from our legal research and to obtain additional information on  penalties, enforcement actions and education and prevention efforts in  each state. (The survey is reproduced in appendix II.) The survey was  completed primarily by law enforcement officers in each state’s  Department of Public Safety. We selected three states in which to  conduct pretests: Iowa, New Mexico, and Washington. In each pretest,  we provided the state police official with a copy of our draft survey, asked  this individual to complete it, and then conducted an interview to discuss  the clarity of each question. On the basis of the feedback from the three  pretests we conducted, we made changes to the content and format of  the survey questions as appropriate. We launched our survey on June 20,  2012. We received completed responses from the 51 survey respondents  for a response rate of 100 percent. We reviewed survey responses for  inaccuracies or omissions, analyzed the data, and have presented the  key findings in this report.
We also conducted interviews with state police officials in seven states to  collect information on enforcement actions and education and prevention  efforts related to properly securing loads carried by non-commercial  vehicles. We selected states that were (1) geographically diverse, (2) of  varying sizes, and (3) varied in the types of laws related to non- commercial vehicles carrying unsecured loads. Using these criteria, we  interviewed state police officials in California, Colorado, Maryland, New  York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. In addition, we also conducted  interviews with associations and individuals active in highway safety  issues, to obtain additional information on issues related to unsecured  loads and efforts by states to deal with these issues. Interviewees  included the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic  Safety and one of the co-authors of a 2004 study for this foundation  examining the safety impacts of vehicle-related road debris;Governor’s Highway Safety Association; and the Transportation Cargo   the  Safety Organization. We also requested interviews with the International  Association of Chiefs of Police, American Association of State Highway  and Transportation Officials, and the American Association of Motor  Vehicle Administrators; these organizations replied that they did not have  information on unsecured-loads issues.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2012 to November  2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient and 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Survey Questions
section_title: Appendix III: Current FARS and NASS GES Data Category Definitions and Planned 2013 Changes
subsections: section_title: Data category How data category is defined currently Data categories that apply to objects set in motion, striking another vehicle, person, or property No Change.* Motor Vehicle In-Transport Strikes or is Struck by Cargo or Objects Set-in- Motion from/by Another Motor Vehicle In-Transport
paragraphs: Used when cargo on or parts from a motor  vehicle are set in motion or an object in the road  is struck by a motor vehicle and set in motion. In  both cases, the cargo, parts, or object then  strike another motor vehicle.  Scenario A: A mattress transported by, or a  hubcap from, vehicle 1 becomes dislodged and  is set in motion. The mattress or hubcap flies  into and strikes vehicle 2.  Scenario B: Vehicle 1 hits a tree branch or a  hubcap from an unknown source in the  roadway, and sets it in motion striking vehicle 2.
section_title: *Although NHTSA will continue to code both scenarios A and B in the above data category, it will now distinguish between the two scenarios, using the additional data categories described below. Cargo/Vehicle Parts Set-In-Motion
paragraphs: Used for all set-in-motion crashes described  above.
Revised: Will now be used only for scenario  A (crashes where the object set in motion  was originally cargo on, or parts from, a  moving motor vehicle and this object strikes  another vehicle, person or property causing  injury or damage).
Not a current category.
New: Will be used for scenario B (crashes  where the object set in motion was not  originally cargo on or parts from a moving  motor vehicle or it is unknown whether the  object was the cargo or a part of an in- transport motor vehicle. In either case, the  object strikes another motor vehicle, person  or property causing injury or damage).
section_title: Data categories that apply to vehicles striking objects already in the road that may or may not have come from another vehicle Motor Vehicle in Transport Strikes an Object That Is Not Fixed
paragraphs: Used for crashes wherein a motor vehicle  strikes any non-fixed object, such as a mattress  or a tree branch, lying in the roadway.  Scenario C: Vehicle hits a tree branch already  in the roadway.  Scenario D: Vehicle hits a mattress already in  the roadway.
Revised: Will be used only for scenario C  (when a motor vehicle strikes a non-fixed  object already at rest in the roadway but  known to have not come from a motor  vehicle, or unknown if it came from a motor  vehicle).
section_title: How data category is defined currently Not a current data category.
paragraphs: How data category will be defined  starting in 2013  New: Will be used for scenario D (when a  motor vehicle strikes a non-fixed object  already at rest in the road but known to have  been the cargo or part of another motor  vehicle in-transport).
section_title: Appendix IV: Non-Commercial Unsecured- Load Laws, Exemptions, and Fines or Penalties or Both
subsections: section_title: Unsecured-load law Ala. Code 32-5-76
paragraphs: Unsecured-load law exemptions   Motor vehicles carrying agricultural loads.  Not more than $500.
Unsecured-load violation  fines/penalties (& separate penalty  statute if not contained in  unsecured-load law)
Motor vehicles carrying agricultural,  mining, and timber, vehicles applying salt  or sand to gain traction, or public vehicles  cleaning or maintaining the highway.
Not more than $1000 and litter pickup.
Motor vehicles carrying agricultural loads,  cleaning or maintaining the highway or  dropping sand for traction, minor pieces of  agricultural materials such as leaves and  stems from agricultural loads. $250–$1000.
Motor vehicles depositing sand for traction  or water for cleaning or maintaining the  highway. $100 Arkansas Code Annotated §5-4- 201.
Motor vehicles carrying clear water or live  bird feathers. $211 ($146 fine plus $30 security fee  and $35 conviction assessment)  California Rules of Court; Rule 4.102,  January 2010 Edition.
Motor vehicles dropping material for  traction or for cleaning or maintaining the  roadway. Vehicles operating entirely in a  marked construction zone, vehicles  involved in maintenance of public roads  during snow or ice removal operations,  vehicles involved in emergency operations  when requested by a law enforcement  agency or an emergency response  authority. $150–$300 and/or 10-90 days  imprisonment. C.R.S. 42-4-1701.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-271   Farming vehicles, motor vehicles dropping  $117–$158. sand for traction or water for maintaining  roadway.
None.
First offense not less than $10 and no  more than $28.75 and for each  subsequent offense, no less than  $28.75 and no more than $100.  $150–$250.
Motor vehicles dropping sand for the  purpose of securing traction, or water or  other substance sprinkled on the roadway  in cleaning or maintaining the roadway.
Unsecured-load law exemptions   Farming vehicles traveling locally or  vehicles dropping sand for traction or  water for cleaning or maintaining the road.
Unsecured-load violation  fines/penalties (& separate penalty  statute if not contained in  unsecured-load law)   $200 Fla. Stat. § 318.18, license  suspension with second offense. Any  person who willfully violates the  provisions of this section which offense  results in serious bodily injury or death  to an individual within the confines of  statute is also subject to fines of no  more than $500 and prison for not  more than 60 days;  § 775.082 and § 775.083.
Motor vehicles carrying agricultural,  vehicles transporting agriculture or farm  products.
Up to $1000 and/or jail time not to  exceed 1 year.  O.C.G.A. § 17-10-3.
Agricultural vehicles, vehicles carrying  birds with feathers, and vehicles carrying  rocks, sand, or gravel. $250 - $1000 + suspension of license  (dependent on number of offenses).
Vehicles that are government, quasi- government, their agents or employees or  contractors thereof, in performance of  maintenance or construction of a highway;  vehicles owned by canal companies,  irrigation districts, drainage districts or  their boards of control, lateral ditch  associations, water districts or other  irrigation water delivery or management  entities, or operated by any employee or  agent of such an entity, performing  construction, operation or maintenance of  facilities; and vehicles transporting  agricultural products.. $67.
Motor vehicles dropping sand for traction  or water for cleaning the highway, or  agricultural vehicles.
For 109: $120, Class A Misdemeanor,  Illinois Supreme Court Rules, Rule  526. A conviction for this could result in  a determinate sentence of  imprisonment of less than one year or  a fine not to exceed $2,500 for each  offense or the amount specified in the  offense, whichever is greater, may be  imposed. Illinois Unified Code of  Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55). For  109.1: Not to exceed $250.
Motor vehicles transporting poultry or  spreading sand/de-icing (removing ice).
Up to $500 Indiana Code  § 34-28-5-4.
Motor vehicles carrying hay or stover  (stalks and leaves, of corn); or sand for  traction or water for maintaining roadway. $200 Iowa Code § 805.8A.
section_title: Unsecured-load law K.S.A. § 8-1906
paragraphs: Unsecured-load law exemptions   Motor vehicles hauling livestock or  spreading substances in highway  maintenance or construction.
Unsecured-load violation  fines/penalties (& separate penalty  statute if not contained in  unsecured-load law)   Not to exceed $500 K.S.A. § 8-1901.
None.
Motor vehicles dropping sand to secure  traction, or dropping a liquid substance on  a highway to clean or maintain. $500 and/or 6 months jail time.
Motor vehicles carrying hay, straw, vines,  cornstalks, or grain. $150–$500.
Motor vehicles carrying agricultural  products and those dropping materials to  provide traction or clean the highway. $500.
Motor vehicles dropping sand for the  purpose of securing traction, or sprinkling  of water or other substance on such a way  in cleaning or maintaining the same. $50–$200.
Highway maintenance vehicles engaged  in ice or snow removal. Agricultural and  horticultural vehicles.
Not more than $500 and/or 90 days jail  time.
Motor vehicles carrying agricultural  products such as small grains, shelled  corn, soybeans, or other farm produce, or  vehicles dropping material for traction or  cleaning.
Not more than $300 Minn. Stat. §  169.89.
Motor vehicles dropping material for  traction or for cleaning or maintaining the  highway.
Not more than $500 and not more than  6 months imprisonment or both. Miss.  Code Ann. § 63-5-7, 63-9-11.
None.
Not to exceed $300 R.S.Mo. §  560.016.
Commercial motor vehicles in compliance  with state and federal laws; agricultural  vehicles; vehicles performing road  maintenance or in a marked construction  zone.
No more than $500  Mont. Code Anno., § 61-8-711.
None. $100 - $500 R.R.S. Neb. § 28-106.
Motor vehicles dropping materials for  traction or cleaning the highway.
Fines are addressed and set by  individual courts, for example in Reno  it’s $403.
Local farmers, transportation of heavy  scrap or crushed vehicles, or construction  vehicles in a construction zone, vehicles  driving at less than 30 mph.
Fines are addressed and set by  individual courts.
Agricultural vehicles.
Not more than $500 for each violation.
Unsecured-load law exemptions   Agricultural vehicles or those dropping  sand for traction or water for cleaning the  roadway.
Unsecured-load violation  fines/penalties (& separate penalty  statute if not contained in  unsecured-load law)   $100 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-7-401; § 66- 8-116.
None. $100 - $750 and/or imprisonment up to  30 days.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-116  Motor vehicles dropping material for  $100 N.C. Gen. Stat. §20-176. traction or cleaning the highway.
Motor vehicles dropping sand for traction  or water for highway maintenance. $20.
Agricultural and garbage vehicles or those  dropping sand for traction or water for  cleaning the roadway. $150 - $1000 ORC Ann. 2929.28; ORC  Ann. 4513.99.
Agricultural vehicles or those dropping  sand for traction or water for cleaning the  roadway. $5 - $500 or imprisonment for up to 6  months, or both. 47 Okl. St. § 17-101.
ORS § 818.300; 818.310  No exemptions for vehicles, just for certain  roads, private thoroughfares. $260 ORS § 818.300(4) and ORS §  153.019. Additionally, owners or  drivers are liable for all damage done  as a result of the violation if it occurs  on certain roadways. ORS § 818.410.
Logging and garbage trucks, the shedding  or dropping of feathers or other matter  from vehicles hauling live or slaughtered  birds or animals, and spreading of any  substance in highway maintenance or  construction operations. $300–$1000.
Logging trucks or those carrying wood,  lumber, or sawmill wastes. Motor vehicles  dropping sand for traction or water for  highway maintenance. $85, R.I. Gen. Laws § 31-41.1-4; $100  to not more than $500, R.I. Gen. Laws  § 31-25-10.
Motor vehicles dropping sand for traction  or water for highway maintenance.  Agricultural and timber-related vehicles. $100.
None. $500 or 30 days in prison or both, S.D.  Codified Laws § 22-6-2.
Vehicles carrying farm produce to the  market. Vehicles which transport crushed  stone, fill dirt and rock, soil, bulk sand,  coal, phosphate muck, asphalt, concrete,  other building materials, forest products,  unfinished lumber, agricultural lime. Motor  vehicles dropping sand for traction or  water for highway maintenance.
No more than $50 or not more than 30  days in prison or both. Tenn. Code  Ann. § 40-35-111.
section_title: State Texas
paragraphs: Unsecured-load law exemptions   None.
Unsecured-load violation  fines/penalties (& separate penalty  statute if not contained in  unsecured-load law)   $25–$500 Tex. Transp. Code §  725.003.
Vehicles carrying dirt, sand, gravel, rock  fragments, pebbles, crushed base,  aggregate, any other similar material, or  scrap metal. Certain agricultural loads and  vehicles spreading any substance  connected with highway maintenance,  construction, securing traction or snow  removal. $100–$250.
None. $99 –$156 § 1454.
Motor vehicles dropping material for  traction or for cleaning or maintaining the  highway. § 10.1-1424. Motor vehicles  used exclusively for agricultural purposes,  or transporting forest products, poultry, or  livestock. § 46.2-1156.
Not more than $2,500 or not more than  12 months in jail for violating § 10.1- 1424, and a fine of not more than $250  for violating § 46.2-1156.  Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-11.
Vehicles carrying gravel, sand, and dirt if 6  inches of freeboard is maintained within  the bed. Motor vehicles dropping sand for  traction.
Up to $5000 or up to a year in jail or  both. Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) §  9A.20.021.
Motor vehicles dropping material for  traction or for cleaning or maintaining the  highway.
Up to $500 fine or 6 months  imprisonment or both. W. Va. Code §  17C-18-1.
None. $10–$200 Wis. Stat.  § 348.11.
Motor vehicles spreading substance for  maintaining or constructing the highway.
Up to $500 fine or 6 months  imprisonment or both. Wyo. Stat. § 31- 5-1201.
section_title: Appendix V: “Secure Your Load” Educational Materials for Non-Commercial Vehicles
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Judy Guilliams-Tapia (Assistant  Director), Margaret Bartlett, David Hooper, Maren McAvoy, Maria  Mercado, Amy Rosewarne, Beverly Ross, Kelly Rubin, and Andrew  Stavisky made key contributions to this report.