GHANA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

MANUAL ON

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

"Prevention is better than

cure"

JANUARY, 2002
Table of Contents

Introduction.........................................................................................................3
Preliminary Guidelines for Road Safety Audit.................................................3
2.1 The responsibilities......................................................................................3
2.2 The steps in an audit process......................................................................4
2.3 Audit stages..................................................................................................7

Appendices
A. GHA Policy for Road Safety Audit
B. Road Safety Audit Checklists
C. Example of an Audit Report (extract)

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

2
1 Introduction
Road safety audit is a systematic, well-established procedure to prevent accidents. “Prevention”
involves fewer traumas, and costs less than a cure (i.e., a remedial treatment). The objectives of
road safety audit are to make new roads as safe as possible before project implementation, to
identify measures to reduce the severity of future accidents, or to highlight and correct safety
problems on existing roads. As such, the lessons learnt from accident remedial programmes are
applied pro-actively. A road safety audit conducted at the planning or design phases allows a pencil
line on a plan to be changed, which is much cheaper than having to change something concrete on
the road. Road safety audit can be applied to both small and large projects. Up to five audit stages
are recommended in Denmark and in other countries.

A road safety audit can produce enormous safety benefits at low cost, if carried out in a formal and
coordinated manner at the earliest stages of a road project (it is more difficult and costly to remove
safety problems at later design stages or once traffic is using the road). The process requires
management commitment, donor co-operation, skilled auditors, and an on-going training
programme.

2 Preliminary guidelines for road safety audit

Road safety audit is a formal process: comments and decisions made by the various parties are
documented in reports or meeting minutes. In practice, the parties maintain dialogue during the
process to avoid or minimize misunderstandings. One project may have several audits at different
stages of a given project. Usually, the same auditor conducts any successive project-specific audit
stages and he/she does not resume discussions on issues that were previously decided.

The road safety audit system is presented in three parts: the responsibilities, the procedure, and the
audit stages.

2.1 The responsibilities

Safety audits involve three parties with defined roles— the client, the designer, and the auditor.

2.1.1 The client

The client is the organisation that owns the road, i.e., Ghana Highway Authority. GHA has adopted
a policy of auditing all its major road projects (see Appendix A) and it will commission the road
safety audit. In the case of projects where the designer works for a foreign donor, GHA is still
ultimately responsible for the safety of the road, and has a duty to ensure that an audit is carried out.
In principle the GHA should make the final decision on the audit recommendations, but there will
be a need to consult fully with the donor. Problems can be avoided to a large extent if GHA
ensures that the ToR for the design contract makes road safety a key objective. For the purposes of
this report it is assumed that the Chief Executive (CE) will represent the client, but in practice he
may delegate the task to the Deputy Chief Executive (Development) or other appropriate GHA
officer.

2.1.2 The designer

The designer is the party responsible for the project planning/design. The designer reviews the
auditor’s comments and ensures that the client is advised of any design/audit disagreements.

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

3
If a project is designed within GHA, the “designer” might be the Planning Division, Survey and
Design Division, Road Maintenance Division, or the regions. If the project is designed outside
GHA, the designer might be a consultant or a contractor (in the case of very small projects).

2.1.3 The auditor

The auditor is an independent organisation or person(s), who critically reviews all project materials
in terms of best road-safety practice and identifies and describes all project-related road safety
concerns from the perspective of all road users. The auditor(s) does not participate in the planning
or design of the project nor do they weigh safety considerations against economic considerations.
Most audits should be within the capability of the road safety specialists in the Road Safety and
Environment Division (RSED), but with big, or unusually complex, schemes it will be advisable to
commission an independent consultant, preferably one specialising in audit work. If this is too
difficult to arrange it may be acceptable for the audit to be done by the same firm of consultants that
did the design – provided that the auditors are experienced, are independent of the design team, and
the audit report is reviewed by RSED.

Auditing is a skilled job and should only be undertaken by persons who have received training and
had experience. It is difficult for one person, however experienced, to spot all the problems, so it is
strongly recommended that audits be done by a team of two or three staff, including specialists (e.g.
signals engineers, bridge engineers). One of them should be designated as team leader. The audit
report must contain the names of the team members together with their qualifications. This is
particularly important for audits done by firms of consultants.

2.1.4 Sensitivities
Audit involves one set of professionals checking the work of other professionals, and this calls for
much diplomacy and respect. Auditors must try and understand the background to design decisions
and avoid being over-critical and petty. Highway designers whose work is being audited should
keep an open mind and accept that the audit team may be able to improve on the safety aspect of the
design - to the benefit of everyone. The audit process brings specialist advice into the design
process - it is not a test of the competence of the highway designers.

2.2 The steps in an audit procedure

The following section describes the steps in an audit.

2.2.1 Ordering an audit

The CE is responsible for ordering the audit and deciding who is to do it. He will issue written
instructions to this effect, and ensure that a copy is passed to the designer, and any donor involved.
The designer will then provide the auditor with all drawings and relevant background information.
The auditor should check that the brief contains at minimum the following items:
 A project description;
 An account of the design principles and standards that were used (e.g., design speed, radii of
bends, superelevation, standards for crest and sag curves, stopping sight distance, etc);
 Reasons for any departure from the road standards;
 Traffic data;
 Accident data;
 Set of drawings;
 An account of project changes since the previous audit (if applicable).

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

4
2.2.2 Studying the plans - inspecting the site
These two tasks take place about the same time. The auditors familiarise themselves with the site
and try and understand what is proposed. Based on their experience, and a check on whether
Ministry standards and general safety principles have been followed the auditors will then make a
preliminary assessment of the safety performance and accident potential of the road improvement.

2.2.3 Holding a commencement meeting with the highway design team

The purpose of this meeting is to exchange information. It is an opportunity for the auditors to clear
up any doubts about what is proposed and find out the reasoning behind specific design decisions.
There is also merit in getting the designers’ initial reaction to some of the amendments that are
being considered. It will often be necessary to explain the purpose and workings of the audit
process to the design team. Sometimes it is convenient and helpful to combine the commencement
meeting with the site inspection.

2.2.4 Undertaking the audit

The key principles for a good safety audit are:
 consider the needs of all road users (including pedestrians (especially children), cyclists, and
motor-cyclists) in all weathers and lighting conditions
 be thorough and comprehensive
 be realistic and practical
 stick to road safety aspects
 check compliance with relevant standards and guidelines (while remembering that compliance
with standards does not guarantee that the road will be safe)
 use a team of at least two auditors
 produce the audit report within one month of the audit being ordered

It has been found that the use of checklists or memory prompts is a valuable tool in ensuring that
nothing is forgotten during the audit. A provisional set of checklists is given in Appendix B. These
will need to be refined as more experience is gained. Experience so far suggests that the most
common safety concerns are (in order of importance):
 Failure to incorporate traffic calming measures that will force drivers to slow down when
passing through villages and towns
 Failure to segregate and protect pedestrians from moving traffic, and provide facilities for them
to cross the road
 An unforgiving roadside environment (such as high embankments, steep side slopes, deep open
drains, edge drops between carriageway and shoulder, unprotected / unsafe bridge parapets)
 Inadequate signing and marking (particularly at / near junctions and hazardous bends)
 Unsafe junctions (lack of channelisation, lack of speed control, confusing layout, poor visibility)
 Poor alignment (such as sharp bends after long straight sections, and sharp crest and sag curves)
 Narrow sections (pinch-points) (such as at bridges and culverts)
 Awkward and confusing transitions from old, unimproved sections of road.

It is recommended that the site be revisited at this stage. Inspecting the site during darkness as well
as daylight is important, especially if it is either an urban scheme, or it is a Stage 4 audit. The
inspection should include adjacent sections of road, because there will often be safety problems at
the joint between the new and old sections.

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

5
2.2.5 Writing the Road Safety Audit Report
The audit report sets out clearly what the problems are and makes recommendations on how they
can be remedied. It will often refer first to general problems, such as inadequate cross-section, or
lack of information on signing, and then proceed to problems at specific points along the road. It is
recommended that each problem be treated under three headings:
Observation – refer briefly to the problem feature, and locate it precisely (specify the chainage, or
indicate on a copy of the scheme drawing)
Reason for concern - explain briefly why the feature increases the accident risk
Suggested response – give a clear indication of what needs to be done, but do not provide a detailed
design; that is the job of the highway designer

It is helpful to try and indicate how serious you think each problem is. In some cases there may be
no obvious solution to the problem, but the problem should still be identified in the report. The
audit report does not give an overall assessment of the design, so there is no need to refer to the
good points of the design.

The audit report should be thorough and comprehensive, but also concise. Do not discuss the safety
situation in Ghana, or general safety and highway design issues. The report should detail the
specific safety concerns you have regarding the scheme, nothing else. Refer to the checklist below:

Checklist for audit reports

Introduction - details of:

 who requested the audit
 names of persons in audit team
 drawings and documents submitted
 constraints, e.g. no signing plans available
 when the audit was done - date of any site visit
 the technical terms used in the report (e.g. crash barrier, guardrail)

Safety concerns regarding general aspects of the design

such as design speed, cross-section, superelevation, failure to enforce low
speeds through villages, inadequate signing, etc.
 Explain each concern under the headings: Observation, Reason for
concern, and Suggested response; specify whether a response is Essential,
Highly Desirable, or Desirable.

Safety concerns regarding features at specific locations

such as inadequate marking of a bend.
 Explain each concern under the headings: Observation, Reason for
concern, and Suggested response; specify whether a response is
Essential, Highly Desirable, or Desirable.

End section
 Audit team leader should sign and date the report.

Appendix C contains an extract from a sample audit report. Once the report is finalised it should
be signed by the audit team leader and submitted to the CE. He will usually send a copy to the
_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

6
designers with a request for their comments. Once he has received their comments he will pass a
copy to the auditors.

2.2.6 Holding a completion meeting with the CE and the designers

The purpose of this is to discuss the corrective action with the designers, make any necessary
amendments, and agree how to follow these up. By the end of the meeting the CE must have given
the designers clear instructions on what to do, and a written copy will be sent on to them. If any of
the audit recommendations are not adopted the reasons must be recorded in the meeting note. In
some cases it may be necessary to consult the donor before a final decision can be taken.

2.2.7 Follow-up
It will usually be necessary for the auditors to continue to provide advice and technical support to
the designers and the project implementation team regarding the agreed measures. Very often the
design will be changed during construction, and the auditors should be ready to intervene if the
change will adversely affect safety. If they cannot attend all the monthly site progress meetings
they should at least read the meeting notes.

2.3 Audit stages

One project can have up to five road safety audit stages. Audit stages 1 to 3 focus on the initial
design (planning), draft design, and detailed design. Audit stages 4 and 5 occur after project
completion (site inspection before opening and regular audits or monitoring of existing roads). It
needs to be stressed that the earlier a road is audited within the design and development
process the better.

Small installations or reconstruction projects usually do not have separate draft and detailed
designs. Depending on the size and the scope of the project, one or more of the first three stages are
merged. A five-stage audit is only undertaken for major new projects. A road safety audit can also
be carried out on the signing and traffic control measures to be taken during the construction phase
or during major maintenance works.

Stage 1. Initial design (planning)

At the initial design stage, the route options, standards, layout options, number and type of junctions
(e.g., a roundabout vs. signals) are assessed.

Stage 2. Draft design

The alignment, cross-section, and layout of junctions are assessed at the draft design stage and
before the project is politically adopted. When land is required, the draft-design audit is undertaken
before boundaries are finalised.

Stage 3. Detailed design

The plans for traffic signing, line marking, lighting, and landscaping and the detailed design of
junctions are assessed before completing the tender documents.

Stage 4. Opening
The project is audited immediately before the road is opened to traffic. The objectives of this site
inspection are to ensure that the finished construction addressed the safety concerns of the earlier
audits and to check for any hazardous condition that was not apparent at the previous stages. It is
also useful in spotting mistakes in the signing and marking. A local traffic policeman should be
_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

7
invited to participate in the audit, as they are likely to have a good understanding of how the local
people will cope with the new road, and, if necessary, can arrange for an increased Police presence
in the first few days after opening.

Stage 5. Monitoring (existing road)

The same audit procedure can be used on existing roads. Even though a road may have been audited
at other stages, the road and its use changes over time. Regular audits of existing roads allow
hazards to be identified before accidents occur or to remedy those situations that are causing
accidents. This involves the regular assessment of accident data and driving speeds at the project
site and the regular re-assessment of the road function. Be cautious about improving sites which
look dangerous but which have had no accidents - you may make things worse. Nevertheless, there
is a great potential to prevent accidents by having GHA routinely subject the entire road network to
road safety audit, according to set priorities, and with appropriate follow-up with ongoing road
safety improvements.

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

8
Appendix A GHA policy for road safety audit
The government (MRT) should provide safe roads to road users. MRT should adopt the road safety
audit process as part of an overall strategy / policy to reduce the road accident risk. Subsequently,
road safety audits should be implemented at the Ghana Highway Authority (GHA), Department of
Feeder Roads (DFR), and Department of Urban Roads (DUR). GHA could take the initiative to
develop and implement the process.

A.1 Policy objective

Safety audits should:
 Minimize the risk and severity of road accidents;
 Minimize the need for remedial works after construction;
 Reduce the life cycle cost of projects;
 Improve the awareness of safe design practices by everyone involved in the
planning, design, construction, and maintenance of roads.

A.2 Proposed GHA policy

A.2.1 General Policy

Development projects
A road safety audit should be conducted on all development projects [i.e., road safety audit should
be included in the Terms of Reference (TOR)].

Operating and maintenance work

Audits can be carried out at one or more stages, depending on the scope and nature of the operating-
and-maintenance work. This type of audit covers all operating and maintenance guidelines (e.g.,
standards, occupational health guidelines, and work instructions). Maintenance works, which have a
significant effect on road safety, are also included in this category (e.g., resurfacing, revegetation
projects, road-furniture projects, and traffic management schemes, such as carriageway markings,
signs, and traffic signals).

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

9
A.2.2 Specific Policy

GHA Departments and Divisions are to subject the following projects to road safety audit:

Project type and audit stages

Major projects: Audit at all five stages
Road safety audit should be carried out at all 5 stages for major projects, such as large, new roads
(motorways, highways, and bypasses).
Medium-sized projects: Audit at two stages
Audits should be carried out once during stages 1, 2, or 3, and once during stages 4 or 5 for medium-
sized projects, such as the reconstruction and widening of existing roads (e.g., traffic calming on roads
through towns and villages), and the new construction or major reconstruction of existing junctions.
Minor projects: Audit smaller projects at least once
Audits should be carried out at least once, i.e., at stages 1/2/3, or stage 4, or stage 5 for minor projects
such as minor widenings or road narrowings, minor traffic calming projects, and minor reconstruction
of junctions.
Existing roads: Audit on a routine basis, and as needed
Existing roads should be audited in a routine manner and audits should be carried out when road safety
problems are noted by GHA, the police, or other parties.

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

10
Appendix B Road Safety Audit Checklists
Purpose and use of the checklists
There are very many aspects to consider when doing a safety audit, and the use of checklists can
help you avoid forgetting something. Eight sets of checklists have been devised which are
appropriate to the kind of highway schemes that are commonly encountered in Ghana. They are:

1 Planning
2 Cross-section
3ab Alignment
4 Roadside communities and facilities
5ab Junctions - general
5c Junctions - additional checks for roundabouts
5de Junctions - additional checks for signal-controlled junctions
6 Special road users
7 Signs, markings and lighting
8 Roadside hazards

They are only a guide, and they will not mean much to someone who does not have knowledge and
experience of the safety aspects of highway design. They are quite comprehensive but you may still
come upon situations that are not covered. Some matters, such as pedestrian needs, are covered in
more than one set of checklists, but this is inevitable given the complex interrelationships involved.
You may wish to use the checklists just to refresh your memory on what to look for, and this may
involve nothing more than reading through the checklists before you start studying the drawings,
and then reading them once again before you finalise the audit report. Others may wish to keep the
checklists by their side while they study the drawings and note down their findings in brief against
each check item.

The use of these checklists by highway designers will help them identify potential safety problems
in their designs and give them a better understanding of what safety auditing is about.

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

11
Checklist 1 - Planning
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:

1.1 Is there a development plan or development strategy for the area and, if so, does the
project conform to this ?

1.2 Is the proposed design appropriate in relation to the forecast traffic volumes and
traffic characteristics ?

1.3 Does the route fit in with the physical constraints imposed by the topography ?

1.4 Does the route serve major generators of traffic in a safe and adequate manner ?

1.5 Is the frequency of junctions and their type appropriate for the function of the road
and its design speed ?

1.6 Does the project road fit in well with the existing road network ?
(Check for potential problems at the joins - Check whether changes in traffic volumes
on existing roads will cause problems)

1.7 Does the project road relieve routes or sites with bad accident records ? Does it
have any harmful effects on safety on the surrounding road network ?

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

12
Checklist 2 - Cross-section
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:

2.1 Are the widths of the lanes, shoulders, medians (if any) in accordance with standards
and adequate for the function of the road and the mix of traffic likely to use it ?

2.2 Are there narrow sections (at bridges, culverts as well as other places) where there
could be safety problems ? If they are unavoidable, check whether they are handled as
safely as possible (i.e. signing, crash barrier protection)

2.3 Have the shoulders and side slopes been designed to a safe standard ? (Check
whether: shoulders are constructed to a good standard, there is no drop at the
carriageway / shoulder join, and that; side slopes are either no steeper than 1:4 or
vehicles are protected from them by crash barrier)

2.4 Have the side drains be designed to a safe standard for vehicles and pedestrians ?
(Check depth and profile – if hazardous to pedestrians, can they be covered? – if
hazardous to traffic can they be shielded by crash barrier?)

2.5 Is the transition between the project road and the existing road(s) handled safely ?
(Check for major changes in standards)

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

13
Checklist 3a - Alignment
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:

3.1 Is the proposed design speed appropriate to the function of the road, the mix of traffic
likely to use it, and the road environment ? (Check whether different sections need
different design speeds)

3.2 Do the horizontal and vertical alignments generally give sufficient forward visibility for
the selected design speed ? (Check for inadequate stopping sight distances)

3.3 Are there major inconsistencies in the alignment (such as a sharp bend following a
straight downgrade section) and, if so and they are unavoidable, have adequate measures
been taken to make drivers (a) aware of them, and (b) slow down ?

3.4 Do the horizontal and vertical alignments fit together comfortably ? (Check for bad
combinations, such as a sharp bend immediately after a summit curve, and a sag curve
within a bend)

3.5 Does the alignment provide regular, safe overtaking opportunities ? Does it avoid
creating situations where the forward visibility is marginal for overtaking (neither clearly
adequate or inadequate) ?

3.6 Does the proposed treatment at bends make appropriate, adequate and safe
provision for: transition curves on approach, superelevation, and carriageway widening ?

3.7 Is the alignment of the road ahead clear to the approaching driver ? (Check for
perception problems, such as where tracks or disused roads, lines of trees or poles, give a
misleading impression). Are marker posts or bend signs needed ?

3.8 Does the vertical alignment pose excessive demands on the power of heavy vehicles
? Has it been designed so that maximum grades are interspersed with recovery grades ?
Are there passing places to allow faster vehicles to overtake slow-moving heavy vehicles ?
Should a climbing lane be provided ?

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

14
Checklist 3b - Alignment
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:

3.9 Is the transition between the project road and the existing road(s) handled safely ?

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

15
Checklist 4 - Roadside communities and facilities
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:
Place name:

4.1 Does the cross-section, alignment and signing force drivers to reduce their speed on
entering the town or village and maintain it an appropriate level ? (Check that it will be
quite clear to drivers that the road environment is changing and that they must slow down
- check whether effective traffic calming measures are proposed)

4.2 Is there adequate and safe provision for pedestrians to walk alongside the road and
to cross it ? (Check for provision of footways and safe crossing places, and check
whether they are where they will be best-used. In the busier places check whether
pedestrian movements are controlled and channeled by means of guardrail. Check
whether side drains are pedestrian-friendly.)

4.3 Is the design and provision of roadside parking and access to properties adequate,
controlled and safe ? (Check provision at the popular bus and truck stopping places
especially. Check that the opportunity has been taken to improve any problem sites.)

4.4 Has the opportunity been taken to improve the traffic and parking situation in the
towns and villages through which the road passes ? (Check for junction improvements,
access control, provision of service lanes, parking areas and bus stops).

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

16
Checklist 5a - Junctions - general
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:
Junction name:

5.1 Is the junction in a safe location ? (Check whether there are other junctions too
close to it. Check whether approaching drivers will get a clear view of it - junctions on
bends can be a problem. Check whether the site permits the junction to be of a proper
layout and standard)

5.2 Is the type of junction (T-junction, staggered junction, signal-controlled junction,

roundabout, etc ) suitable for the function of the two roads, the traffic volume, the traffic
movements (pedestrian and vehicular), and the site constraints ? Is it the safest
alternative – for all road users?

5.3 Is the layout of the junction adequate for all permitted vehicular movements and for
all types of vehicle ? (Check using turning circle templates for buses and trucks)

5.4 Will the general type of the junction, its layout and the priority rules be recognised by
approaching drivers in adequate time ? Is the route through the junction as simple and
clear as possible ? Do the decisions that need to be made by drivers follow a simple,
logical and clear sequence ? (Check for unusual or over-complicated layouts. Check that
the signing and marking is correct and clear)

5.5 Is the number and width of entrance and exit lanes appropriate ?

5.6 Does the layout encourage slow controlled speeds at and on the approach to STOP /
GIVE WAY lines and other critical decision points ? (Check for Y and skew junctions
which can be a problem. Also roundabouts with inadequate entry deflection)

5.7 Are the sight lines at and on the approach to STOP / GIVE WAY lines and other
critical decision points adequate and unobstructed ? (Check for Y and skew junctions
which can be a problem. Check signs, lighting columns, pedestrian guardrail, etc)

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

17
Checklist 5b - Junctions - general
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:
Junction name:

5.8 Is there adequate provision for channeling (and protecting where necessary) the
different streams of traffic ? (Check the provision for left-turn lanes and storage areas,
deceleration lanes, and acceleration lanes)

5.9 Is adequate provision made for pedestrians and non-motorised vehicles ? (Check
whether it is convenient, easily-seen and understood, capable of being used safely (check
intervisibility between pedestrians and vehicles) and large enough to meet demand)

5.10 Is the provision of night-time lighting adequate ? (Consider the need for drivers to
recognise and understand the junction, and see pedestrians. Consider the needs of
pedestrians who are negotiating the junction. Check that the layout of the lighting columns
illuminates the junction effectively).

5.11 If there are merge situations, are they arranged so that traffic joins the mainline from
the nearside, i.e. from the right ? (Merges from the offside are considered less safe,
because of poor visibility for joining traffic and other factors).

5.12 Is the signing adequate ? (Check presence, design, size of lettering, location, etc. At
larger junctions there should be advance direction signs, and, if the junction is a
roundabout or the layout is complicated, the sign should incorporate a map of the layout.
Direction signs should be provided within the junction at the point of exit)

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

18
Checklist 5c - Junctions - additional checks for roundabouts
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:
Junction name:

5.13 Is the geometry simple and easily understood ? (Beware of roundabouts which are
not circular, or which have awkward entry paths)

5.14 Are there too many entries for safe, efficient operation ? Are they sufficiently
separated from each other to avoid confusion ?

5.15 Does the design deflect entering traffic sufficiently to ensure entry speeds are no
greater than 50 km/h ? (Check entry path curvature, centre island size and positioning)

5.16 Is the visibility for entering traffic adequate ? (Note that, if visibility is too good, it may
encourage entry speeds which are too high)

5.17 Is the visibility for circulating traffic adequate ? (Check that visibility across the
centre island is not unduly obstructed by signs, landscaping or structures)

5.18 Has the centre island been designed to be forgiving to errant vehicles ?

5.19 Has adequate provision been made for pedestrians to cross the arms of the
junction ? (Guardrail will usually be necessary to channel pedestrians to safe crossing
points on the arms)

5.20 Have the needs of cyclists and other non-motorised vehicles been considered ?
(Where there are many cyclists consider providing a separate track for them)

5.21 Does the signing make the priorities clear ? (Entering traffic must give way to
circulating traffic)

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

19
Checklist 5d - Junctions - additional checks for signal-
controlled junctions
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:
Junction name:

5.22 Do the signal colours, signal sequence, and signal timings conform to accepted
practice?

5.23 Do the signals clearly indicate which movements are allowed at any one time ?

5.24 Are the signal heads positioned so that drivers can see them easily, and in time to
stop ? (Check this for drivers at the stop line as well as those approaching at speed - it
will usually be necessary to have repeaters. Check that signals are not obscured by
lighting columns, bridge piers, signs, etc. ) Should repeater signals be provided above the
primary signal, or should overhead signals be installed ?

5.25 Will approaching traffic be travelling in excess of 70 km/h ? (70 km/h is the limit for
safe operation of signals - if approach speeds are above this consider warning signs,
speed limits, and possibly traffic calming measures).

5.26 Are the signals for different streams of traffic located so that they are visible only to
the traffic for whom they are intended ? (Check also that there is no risk that pedestrians
may be misled by the traffic signals into thinking that it is safe for them to cross)

5.27 Are all left-turning movements fully controlled and protected (i.e. traffic can only turn
left when there is a green arrow showing, and there are no conflicting movements) as far
as possible ?

5.28 Does the signing, marking and channelisation make it clear to drivers what path they
should take through the junction ?

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

20
Checklist 5e - Junctions - additional checks for signal-
controlled junctions
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:
Junction name:

5.29 Are pedestrian crossing places marked, and are pedestrians channeled to these
crossings ? Are there pedestrian refuges ?

5.30 Are the pedestrian crossings signal-controlled where appropriate ? If so, is there a
need for the crossing movements to be fully protected from conflicting traffic movements -
for example where there will be serious conflicts with turning traffic ?

5.31 Are the pedestrian signals positioned so that pedestrians can see them ?

5.32 If there are several stages in the crossing is the entire crossing controlled by
signals ? Are the pedestrians protected while they wait for the next stage ? Can they get
confused as to which signal refers to them ? (Check that pedestrians waiting on refuges
are protected by guardrail, and that the crossings are staggered – not in line with each
other)

5.33 Is the signal control equipment located where it does not interfere with visibility, and
where it is unlikely to be hit by out-of-control vehicles ? Is there a safe place for the
maintenance staff to park their vehicle ?

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

21
Checklist 6 - Special road users
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:

6.1 Has there been a survey of non-motorised vehicle and pedestrian flows ?

6.2 Will there be any major conflicts between motorised traffic and pedestrians and other
road users ?

6.3 Have pedestrians’ needs for crossing the road and walking alongside it been
provided for ? (Check particularly in towns and villages and at all junctions)

6.4 Have the needs of cyclists and other non-motorised vehicles been provided for ?
(Check the need and feasibility of cycle lanes in towns)

6.5 Is the provision for pedestrians and non-motorised vehicles at bridges and narrow
sections adequate in relation to pedestrian and vehicular traffic volumes and traffic speeds
?

6.6 Is the provision of bus stopping places adequate? Is the location, design and signing
adequate ?

6.7 Does the volume of motorcycle traffic justify the provision of separate lanes ?
(Check in towns)

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

22
Checklist 7 - Signs, markings and lighting
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:

7.1 Is the provision for signing (regulatory, warning and informative signs and marker
posts) adequate and in accordance with the Ministry´s Traffic Signs Manual ?

7.2 Are the sign sizes, placement and construction adequate, safe and in accordance
with standards ?

7.3 Are the proposed road markings adequate and in accordance with standards ?

7.4 Is the delineation adequate, especially on sections with difficult alignments ? (Check
signs, road markings, and marker posts).

7.5 Is there a need for the project road, or parts of it, to be lit at night ?

7.6 Is the proposed lighting scheme (if any) adequate ? Are there any hazardous dark
areas ?

7.7 Has the siting of lighting columns been considered from a safety viewpoint ?

7.8 Are frangible or slip-base columns to be provided ?

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

23
Checklist 8 - Roadside hazards
Scheme title:
Section reference: Chainage:

8.1 Will bridge and culvert parapets, and other obstructions be close to moving traffic ?
If so, can they be relocated ? If they cannot be relocated, are they adequately signed and,
where necessary, protected by crash barrier ?

8.2 Are bridge parapets designed to contain errant vehicles, where the speed and
volume of traffic warrants it ?

8.3 Are the approaches to bridges and the ends of bridge parapets protected by crash
barrier, where the speed and volume of traffic warrants it ? (Check that any crash barrier
is very firmly attached to the bridge parapet it is protecting).

8.4 Are bridge parapets, bridge railing, and pedestrian guardrail of a safe design ?
(Check that horizontal elements are strongly supported and cannot come loose when hit
by a vehicle)

8.5 Are there any poles or columns located close to moving traffic that could be sited
elsewhere ?

8.6 Is crash barrier provided where necessary and where traffic volumes and traffic
speeds warrant it ? (Check for large drops (over 1.5 metres) especially on the outside of
sharp bends and on bridge approaches, as well as hazardous roadside objects that may
need protecting )

8.7 Is the type, detailing, and placement of proposed crash barrier in accordance with
RSED standards ?

8.8 Where crash barrier is provided does it protect all roadside objects ? (Check that
there are no signs, lighting columns, etc in front of the barrier)

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

24
Appendix C Example of an Audit Report (extract only)

Scheme: Upgrading of N4 Tetteh Quarshie Circle to Mamfe

(see overleaf for relevant extract from scheme drawings)

Safety concerns regarding features at specific locations

1. Observation: Highly Desirable

The junction at ch. 4660 (IPS junction) is of an unusual type, being a combination of roundabout and normal
priority junction.
Reasons for concern:
Unfamiliar and complicated junction designs can confuse drivers (especially those who are not local to the
area).
Suggested response:
Replace with a standard junction design. U-turning movements can be catered for by having a wide median.

2. Observation: Desirable
At ch. 4850 on the northern approach to the IPS junction the road widens gradually to accommodate two
extra lanes for left-turning vehicles; the lanes for the straight ahead traffic diverge to the right.
Reasons for concern:
Drivers in lane 1 southbound going straight ahead may drift into the left-turn lanes by mistake if they are not
alert.
Suggested response:
If this junction design is to be retained (see Observation 1), the start of the left-turn lanes should be made
clearer using hatch markings. Drivers wishing to turn left must have to deliberately turn out of the straight
ahead lane into the left-turn lane.

3. Observation: Highly Desirable

At ch. 4550 on the southbound exit from the IPS junction the southbound traffic from the side-road merges
with the straight ahead traffic. The merge is on the offside. There is a single Give Way sign (MS31) on the
splitter island with a warning sign (WS3) a short distance in front of it.
Reasons for concern:
Offside merges are hazardous because drivers (especially van and truck drivers) have difficulty in seeing
whether the main road is clear for them to enter. Drivers are also unfamiliar with them. The single Give Way
sign is on the offside (instead of the nearside as usual) and will be obscured by the warning sign;
consequently drivers may not realise that they have to give way.
Suggested response:
Remove the offside merge, and have the southbound traffic from the side road join the main road in the
conventional manner. If this is not possible, additional signing and markings must be provided to make it
more clear to drivers that they have to give way. Signs must be positioned where they will not be obscured .

4. Observation: Highly Desirable

At ch. 4640 on the southern approach to the IPS junction there is a filter lane for traffic turning right into the
side road. This filter lane is not under control by signals, so vehicles can use it freely. When so doing they
may come into conflict with other traffic movements, such as traffic from the north turning left into the side
road, but there is no Give Way sign or Give Way line.
Reasons for concern:
This is hazardous because it is unclear which traffic movement has priority.
Suggested response:
Install a Give Way sign (MS31) and Give Way line marking (L8) at the point where the filter lane enters the
roundabout circulatory area.

(Note that these are only a few of the many safety concerns at this junction)

_____________________________________________________________________________

MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - JANUARY 2002

25