FHWA Encourages States to Install Crash-Tested Roadside Safety Hardware, but the Movement to Adopt Improved Standards Has Been Slow

FHWA oversees and promotes the installation of crash-tested roadside  safety hardware through guidance and policy directives to the states and  by issuing letters to roadside safety hardware developers that submit  crash-test results for review by FHWA. We found that states generally  require crash testing; however, some inconsistencies across state  policies and practices exist, and a movement to adopt the improved  MASH standards has been slow. Most States Said They Require Crash Testing, though Some Inconsistencies Exist, and Transition to Improved Standards Has Been Slow

Most states that responded to our survey told us that roadside safety  hardware installed on the NHS is required to be crash tested, and many  of those states said they had processes in place to limit installation of  roadside safety hardware to those that have obtained FHWA eligibility  letters. Monitoring and reporting industry  and state progress to the goal dates set in the 2016 Joint Implementation  Plan would allow FHWA to keep decision makers in both DOT and  Congress aware of progress. Crash Testing Is Well Documented and Thorough, but FHWA’s Oversight Process Does Not Address Potential Threats to Independence

At all nine U.S. labs accredited to conduct crash testing of roadside safety  hardware for FHWA review, laboratory crash testing was well  documented and thorough in terms of consistency in documentation and  test procedures across labs. Specifically, six of the nine crash test labs we reviewed can  test products that were developed by employees of the same parent  organization. FHWA reviews crash test results as part of its eligibility letter process;  however, FHWA does not have a process for formally verifying the testing  outcomes and making or providing for an independent pass/fail  determination. FHWA relies heavily on the labs to determine whether the  crash test outcome results in a pass or fail determination for roadside  safety hardware. In  other test settings we found that federal agencies require third party  verification of test results or independent entities to make pass/fail  determinations. Establishing a process for third-party  verification of crash test results could provide greater assurance that  threats to independence are fully addressed. Few In-Service Performance Evaluations of Roadside Safety Hardware Have Been Conducted, in Part, Due to a Lack of Data

According to FHWA and AASHTO-sponsored research, in-service  performance evaluations (ISPE) are recommended for effective roadside  safety hardware oversight because real-world crash conditions, such as  vehicle characteristics, as well as the terrain of the roadway, may vary  widely from those experienced in crash testing. FHWA officials told us that in the summer of 2015, FHWA began a  pilot study on the collection of data on guardrail end terminals’  performance. FHWA officials told us they currently have no plans to include additional  ISPEs for other types of roadside safety hardware as part of their broader  highway-safety research portfolio. However, continuing this study and reporting on the performance of  guardrail end terminals, or planning to make ISPEs part of other future  research, could add to the limited body of knowledge regarding the in- service performance of roadside safety hardware. Recommendations

To promote the transition to improved crash test standards, to strengthen  FHWA’s oversight of the roadside safety hardware’s crash-testing  process, and to make more information available to states and industry  on how roadside safety hardware performs in actual conditions, we  recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator  of FHWA to take the following five actions:  1. Develop a process for third-party verification of results from crash-test  labs. In written comments,  reproduced in appendix III, DOT concurred with GAO’s  recommendations. FHWA also provided technical comments which we  incorporated, as appropriate. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report addresses: (1) how FHWA performs oversight of state policies  and practices related to roadside safety hardware; (2) the thoroughness  of the crash-testing process and FHWA’s oversight of this process; and  (3) the extent to which information is available on roadside safety  hardware performance once installed. We  reviewed standards and relevant guidance from the American Association  of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2014, 54 percent of traffic fatalities in the United States occurred as a result of a vehicle's leaving the roadway, according to U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) data. Roadside safety hardware, such as guardrails, is meant to reduce the risk of a serious crash when leaving the roadway. But in the last several years, a number of serious injuries and deaths resulted from crashes into roadside safety hardware. GAO was asked to review FHWA's oversight framework for roadside safety hardware.
This report assesses: (1) how FHWA performs oversight of state policies and practices related to roadside safety hardware; (2) the laboratory crash-testing process and FHWA's oversight of this process; and (3) the extent to which information is available on roadside safety hardware's performance once installed. GAO reviewed federal and state policies, surveyed state DOTs and received 44 responses, and reviewed documentation from nine U.S. crash test labs.

What GAO Found

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) oversees and promotes states' installation of crash-tested roadside safety hardware through guidance and policy directives to states and by issuing letters to roadside safety hardware developers that provide states with information on roadside safety hardware that has been crash tested. States that responded to our survey generally stated they require crash testing. However, some inconsistencies across state practices exist, and states' movement to require installation of devices successfully tested to updated, improved crash test standards—in the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH)— has been slow. FHWA, in partnership with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), recently established transition dates to the MASH standards for states, but some challenges exist in developing and approving a sufficient quantity of roadside safety hardware tested to MASH standards. FHWA currently does not have a monitoring plan to report on progress to meeting the established dates; monitoring and reporting would allow FHWA to keep decision makers aware of progress and position FHWA to take corrective actions as needed.
In general, laboratory crash testing appears to be well documented and thorough; however, FHWA's oversight of the process does not address potential threats to independence. GAO found that six of the nine accredited U.S. crash test laboratories evaluate products that were developed by employees of the parent organization—a potential threat to lab independence. FHWA reviews crash tests' results and related documentation, if they are submitted for review, but FHWA relies heavily on the labs to make a pass/fail determination. We found that some other federal agencies in oversight of similar labs' testing settings require third party verification of test results or independent entities to make pass/fail determinations. FHWA does not have a process for formally verifying the testing outcomes and making its own or providing for an independent pass/fail determination. Developing a process for third party verification of roadside safety hardware's lab test results could provide greater assurance that potential threats to independence are fully addressed.
Little is known about the in-service performance of roadside safety hardware because few evaluations of this performance have been done. FHWA and AASHTO recommend that states and others perform in-service performance evaluations (ISPE) of installed roadside safety hardware because crash testing cannot fully capture real-world crash conditions. However, few ISPEs have been done, in part, because of a lack of inventory and crash data. In the summer of 2015 in four states, FHWA began a pilot study that could provide useful information, but according to FWHA officials, the purpose of this phase of the pilot is to determine best practices on data collection rather than assess performance of roadside safety hardware. FHWA officials told us they currently have no plans to include performance findings as part of future phases of this study or in their broader research portfolio. Continuing this study or planning to make ISPEs part of future research could add to the limited ISPE body of knowledge.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making recommendations, including that DOT monitor and periodically report on the transition to the MASH crash test standards; develop a process for third party verification of crash test results; and support additional research on roadside safety hardware's in-service performance. DOT concurred with the recommendations and provided technical comments, which were incorporated in the report, as appropriate.