Establishing Road Safety Monitoring Roles and Resources

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Government of Uttar Pradesh, India
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROADS PROJECT

Under IBRD Loan No. 4684-IN
Technical Assistance for Implementation of

Institutional Reforms in the Road Sector of Uttar Pradesh
REPORT ON ESTABLISHING ROAD SAFETY

MONITORING ROLES AND RESOURCES IN
HQ AND FIELD UNITS
(FINAL)
Report No. 46
October 2007
LEA International Ltd., Canada

in joint venture with
LEA Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd., India
in association with
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Canada
Technical Assistance for Implementation of Institutional
Reforms in Road Sector of Uttar Pradesh Report No. 46
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................... 1
2. SCOPE............................................................................................................................................. 3
3. TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AND BLACK SPOTS................................................................................ 4

3.1 ACCIDENT DATA ............................................................................................................... 4
3.2 BLACK SPOTS ................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REMEDIAL MEASURES...................................... 7
3.4 TRAFFIC CALMING.......................................................................................................... 10
3.5 MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................................. 11
4. ROAD SAFETY AUDIT AND ROAD SAFETY REVIEW .............................................................. 13

4.1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT / REVIEW PRINCIPLES ............................................................. 13
4.2 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT ..................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1. Benefits of Road Safety Audits ............................................................................ 17
4.2.2. Stages of a Road Safety Audit............................................................................. 18
4.2.3. Road Safety Audit Team...................................................................................... 21
4.2.4. Key Issues to Consider in Audit Reports ............................................................. 22
4.2.5. Using Checklists and Prompt Lists ...................................................................... 23
4.3 ROAD SAFETY REVIEW ................................................................................................. 28
4.4 AUSTRALIAN STUDY OF ECONOMICS OF ROAD SAFETY AUDITS / REVIEWS ...... 31
4.4.1. Literature Review Findings .................................................................................. 31
4.4.2. Methodology for Estimating the Benefits of Road Safety Audit ........................... 32
4.4.3. Benefits of Road Safety Audits ............................................................................ 33
4.4.4. Recommendations ............................................................................................... 34
5. INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE OF ROAD SAFETY AUDITS AND ROAD SAFETY REVIEWS 36

5.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 36
5.1.1. United Kingdom.................................................................................................... 36
5.1.2. Australia and New Zealand.................................................................................. 39
5.1.3. Canada................................................................................................................. 40
5.1.4. United States of America ..................................................................................... 41
5.1.5. Ireland .................................................................................................................. 46
5.1.6. Italy....................................................................................................................... 46
5.1.7. Other Countries with Road Safety Audits ............................................................ 46
5.1.8. International Training ........................................................................................... 47
October 2007 i
6. WORK ZONE SAFETY.................................................................................................................. 48

6.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 48
6.2 COMPONENTS OF WORK ZONE ................................................................................... 50
6.3 ROAD WORK ZONE SAFETY OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES................................... 54
6.4 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ....................................................................................... 60
6.4.1. General ................................................................................................................ 60
6.4.2. Signs .................................................................................................................... 62
6.4.3. Delineators ........................................................................................................... 64
6.4.4. Flagmen ............................................................................................................... 66
6.4.5. Layout .................................................................................................................. 67
7. ROAD SAFETY MONITORING ROLE OF UPPWD ..................................................................... 69

7.1 HEAD QUARTERS ........................................................................................................... 74
7.2 ZONAL / FIELD OFFICE................................................................................................... 75
8. FOCUS GROUP DELIBERATIONS : ROAD SAFETY POLICY FOR U.P. ................................. 77
9. PROPOSED ROAD SAFETY POLICY FOR UTTAR PRADESH................................................. 78

9.1 RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT ROAD SAFETY ISSUES ............................................. 78
9.2 PROVIDING ENABLING LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENT
FOR ROAD SAFETY ........................................................................................................ 78
9.3 ROAD SAFETY INFORMATION DATABASE .................................................................. 79
9.4 SAFER ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE................................................................................. 79
9.5 SAFER VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 80
9.6 SAFER DRIVERS ............................................................................................................. 80
9.7 SAFETY FOR VULNERABLE ROAD USERS.................................................................. 80
9.8 ROAD TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION AND TRAINING ............................................... 81
9.9 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT .............................................................................................. 81
9.10 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR ROAD ACCIDENTS .................................... 82
9.11 HRD AND RESEARCH FOR ROAD SAFETY ................................................................. 82
10. ACTION PLAN (SHORT TERM) ................................................................................................... 83
11. PRESENTATION TO PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE......................................................... 84
October 2007 ii
ANNEXURES
Annexure – A : Identification and Rectification of Accident Prone Location (Black Spots)

Using 10-Step Procedure
Annexure – B : List of Black Spots and Countermeasures Included in UPSRP
Annexure – C : List of State-wide Black Spots – 2005
Annexure – D : Checklists for Road Safety Audits (U.K.)
Annexure – E : Recommendations of International Seminar, New Delhi, 1998
Annexure – F : Draft National Road Safety Policy
Annexure – G: Sikkim State Road Safety Policy Document
October 2007 iii

Glossary
3R Recycling, Restoration and Resurfacing NHAI National Highways Authority of India

ADB Asian Development Bank ODR Other District Road
ADT Average Daily Traffic PAC Public Accounts Committee
AE Assistant Engineer PCC Project Coordinating Consultant
BOOT Build Own Operate Transfer PCI Pavement Condition Index
BOT Build Operate Transfer PCU Passenger Car Unit
CBR California Bearing Ratio PMS Pavement Management System
CE Chief Engineer PWD Public Works Department
CEO Chief Executive Officer RAAS Road Accident Analysis System
CRF Central Road Fund RES Rural Engineering Services
CRRI Central Road Research Institute RIDF Rural Infrastructure Development Fund
DBC Dense Bitumen Concrete RMMS Road Maintenance Management System
DRDA District Rural Development Authority RSA Road Safety Audit
EE Executive Engineer RSAR Road Safety Audit Review
E-in-C Engineer in Chief RSPEU Road Safety Planning and Engineering Unit
FHWA Federal Highway Administration RSC Road Safety Cell
GO Government Order RSR Road Safety Review
GOI Government of India RSAR Road Safety Audit Review
GoUP Government of Uttar Pradesh RTO Road Transport Officer
GSDP Gross State Domestic Product SDBC Semi Dense Bitumen Carpet
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle SE Superintending Engineer
HQ Head Quarter SH State Highway
HR Human Resource SRF State Road Fund
HRD Human Resource Development SRP-II State Road Project-II
HRM Human Resource Management SRSB State Road Safety Board
International Bank for Reconstruction and
IBRD SRSC State Road Safety Council
Development
IDS Institutional Development Strategy SRSF State Road Safety Fund
Institutional Development And Strengthening
IDSP TA Technical Assistance
Plan
IRC Indian Road Congress TAC Transport Accident Commission
IT Information Technology TCE Tata Consulting Engineers
ITS Intelligent Transport System ToR Terms of Reference
ISAP Institutional Strengthening Action Plan TTC Temporary Traffic Control
JE Junior Engineer TTZ Terminal Transition Zone
MAAP Microcomputer Accident Analysis UP Uttar Pradesh
MDR Major District Roads UPSBCC Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Construction Corporation
MLA Member of Legislative Assembly UPSRP Uttar Pradesh State Road Project
MIS Management Information System UPSHA Uttar Pradesh State Highway Authority
MOST Ministry of Surface Transport UNDP United Nations Development Programme
MoSRTH Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways VOC Vehicle Operating Cost
MoRTH Ministry of Road Transport and Highways VR Village Roads
MSS Mixed Seal Surface WB World Bank
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices WBM Water Bound Macadam
National Institute for Training of Highway
NITHE
Engineers
NH National Highway
1. BACKGROUND
India has the dubious distinction of having the highest number of traffic fatalities in the world. Of
the approximately one million deaths in road accidents per year in the world, more than 100000
take place in India, and of these over 10000 occur in Uttar Pradesh alone. Although road safety
is of paramount importance to the road agencies, in Uttar Pradesh, unfortunately, it does not get
the attention it deserves and is relegated to the bottom of priority. This was one of the findings of
the ‘Policy Support and Institutional Development Strategy (IDS) study’ carried out by the TCE
Consulting Engineers Limited in 2000-2002. The primary reason being that the “roles and
functions pertaining to road safety are spread across different agencies having other primary
tasks and hence road safety does not get the required attention. This is further compounded by
lack of interagency coordination and specific accountability for each agency. Further there seems
to be no separate budget for road safety works. Similar issues and concerns exist at the national
level.”
The IDS study report, in addition, identified three specific concerns as follows:
• No dedicated monitoring for safety related aspects on highway network;

• Currently PWD’s safety measures are limited to works towards rail-road crossing
improvements. No standardized procedures are in place to receive feedback from the
road users and stakeholders (Police, RTO, Hospitals) on the occurrence of road
accidents in order to identify and examine the accident black spots for necessary
remedial measures.
• Insufficient and substandard road signs and road makings on urban, suburban and rural
sections of the state road network.
The IDS report made the following recommendations to rectify and improve the abysmal road
safety situation in U.P. and more specifically in UPPWD:
• A Road Safety Unit should be created at the State and District level.
• Information on road accidents should be collected through secondary sources such as
police and hospitals. This should include the nature of accident, type of vehicles involved,
location of the accident etc. the Department should use the Road Accident Reporting
Formats prescribed by IRC (Form A1 and Form A4) for scientific analysis of the data;
• A feedback mechanism should be put in place to collect data from road users on road
conditions and related problems. One option is to install suggestion boxes at major
roadside amenity centers like dhaba hotels, petrol stations, which will invite suggestions
from road users on the condition of the road with respect to safety. The concerned
departmental engineers would be responsible for collecting such suggestions and
sending the reports to the HQ Road Safety Unit for further processing and action:
October 2007 1
• Smoothen road geometry: A dedicated monitoring team should be formed within the
division to identify accident-prone locations and identify road geometry deficiencies. The
condition of shoulders particularly on the major road corridors that are passing through
the rural areas need to be regularly monitored. The suitable remedial measures to be
identified and implemented to enhance road safety;
• Improve safety at highway rural road intersections through better signage, barrier gates
and greater enforcement measures giving priority to urban/suburban areas first, and
• Enforce regulation better- Plan and implement statewide Road Safety Education
programs for all categories of road users to gain wider compliance to traffic regulations.
Subsequently, as part of the World Bank assisted U.P. State Roads Project, a project titled
‘Consultancy Services for Institutional Support and Technical Assistance to the Road Safety
Sector in the State of Uttar Pradesh’ was awarded to Span Consultants Private Limited in April
2005. The above project title is often abbreviated as ‘U.P. Road Safety Study’. The main
objective of the Study was to critically examine the existing road safety scenario in U.P. and to
suggest suitable action plan to improve the road safety by minimising the road accidents on U.P.
roads. The final report and action plan was submitted in September 2006.
In the U.P. Road Safety Study the framework for road safety was considered under the following
three heading:
(i) Institutional and organisational
(ii) Legal , ands
(iii) Financial
In addition, the Study included a detailed treatment of Road Safety Policy for Uttar Pradesh,
Accident Reporting, Black Spots, and Road Safety Audit.
For an in-depth analysis of the institutional and organisational strengths and weaknesses of the
departments having a significant role in the delivery of road safety the following six departments
were identified:
1. Public Works Department
2. Home Department (Police)
3. Transport Department
4. Urban Development Department
5. Medial and Public Health Department
6. Education Department
In fact, during the course of the Study a 5-day training was imparted to about 50 police officers in
‘Road Accident Investigation and Reporting’, and a 2-day training to about 25 engineers from
PWD in ‘Road Safety Review’ of major maintenance projects.
October 2007 2
2. SCOPE
The U.P. Road Safety Study was fairly comprehensive in scope and even included an action plan
for implementation of its recommendations. While the Study report covered the involvement of all
six concerned departments, this Report will concentrate on UP PWD’s role and resources
required at HQ and field units for road safety monitoring activities and processes. The pertinent
observations and recommendations from the UP Road Safety Study and applicable to the role of
UP PWD will be considered and supplemented in this Report.
There are primarily three areas where the PWD plays a significant role in road safety related
monitoring. These area’s are :
1. Traffic accidents related, i.e., black spots
2. Roadway related, i.e., its design, marking, signage, lighting and condition.
(Road safety audit / review)
3. Construction zone related.
October 2007 3
3. TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AND BLACK SPOTS
There are two elements of traffic accidents which are intimately connected to road safety. The
first is the accident data itself and the second is the location of accident prone sites commonly
termed as ‘black spots’.
3.1 ACCIDENT DATA
Data is the cornerstone of all road safety activity and is essential for the diagnosis of the road
crash problems and for monitoring road safety efforts. It is important to identify what categories of
road users are involved in crashes, what manoeuvres and behaviour pattern lead to crashes and
under what conditions the crashes occur, in order to focus on safety activities.
Analysis of traffic accident data has been the basis for many successful road safety
countermeasures including those amied at changing human behaviour and those which focus on
engineering development. Road safety will improve if we continue to investigate and learn from
accidents to understand more about why they occur. The challenge is to ensure collection of the
most useful information and to make best use of that data to identify measures to reduce the
risks of collision and the likelyhood of serious injury. For most road safety projects, real-world
accident data provides the starting point in the chain or loop of events. It provides the evidence in
terms of priorities with respect to the number and type of road user casualties and highlights the
mechanisms which have resulted in crashes and injuries. Road safety experts then use this
information to identify the most effective countermeasures.
Essential components of an accident data are a standardised report form and a means of storing
and analysing the data.
On the issue of accident data, however, both the IDS Study by TCE Consulting and the U.P.
Road Safety Study by Span Consultants have expressed very serious concern as follows.
“No standardised procedures are in place to receive feedback from the road users and
stakeholders (Police, RTO, Hospitals) on the occurrence of road accidents in order to identify
and examine the accident black spots for necessary remedial measures.” (IDS Study)
“The accident details are recorded on a First Information Report………the quality of details is not
encouraging.”
“The level of detail currently reported in the accident records is just enough to identify locations
but not sufficient to carry out in-depth analyses required to determine possible solutions.”
“Accidents in U.P. except …………..those involving fatalities are grossly under reported.”
(U.P. Road Safety Study)
In addition to the poor quality of reporting, the accident data is not shared with the P.W.D. There
is no central depository of data nor is there a computerised system to store and analyse the data.
This is a most serious shortcoming which must be remedied. The P.W.D. need to monitor
accident data much more closely than has been the case in the past.
October 2007 4
The UK Transport Research Laboratory has developed a Microcomputer Accident Analysis

Package (MAAP) to enable users obtain good data for diagnosis, planning and evaluation
purposes and is in use around the World. In India, Karnataka is using this package. During the
course of U.P. Road Safety Study, a pilot project to test the feasibility of MAAP was undertaken
in the area under Chinhat police station. It will be in the interest of the PWD to explore the means
to share this data and eventually expand the system to the state level. This will, however, require
a network of computers in the PWD as well as in the Police Department and a mechanism to
connect the two networks, and using a common identifier to describe the location of accident.
One obvious solution would be to use GIS and obtain the location using a GPS equipment.
3.2 BLACK SPOTS
Highway engineers and traffic police generally know of the tendency for road accidents to cluster
together at certain locations, commonly termed accident ‘black spots’. In fact, the origin of black
spot is a map maintained by the police on which a fatal accident was marked by a black pin.
Many pins formed a ‘black spot’. The straight forward process of plotting accidents on maps
reveal the clustering and this method remains an important means of identifying accident black
spots in many countries. Reasonably accurate and compete records are essential for this.
Without precise location data, accidents cannot be plotted with any certainty, and remedial
measures instituted in an objective and effective manner.
Road intersections are often accident black spots. It is important to distinguish between
accidents occurring at intersections or on the sections of road between intersections, as the
factors contributing to the accidents and possible treatments are generally very different for each.
While in many cases the location will be clear, there will be accidents near the intersections that
might fall into either category. In such cases, depending upon the quality and extent of data, it is
desirable to examine the factors contributing to the accident in order to establish whether the
features of the intersection were important, and if so to classify the accident accordingly as an
intersection accident. Generally, accidents that occur within 30 metres of an intersection can be
regarded as ‘intersection’ accidents.
Research has shown that the numbers of accidents at a particular site will vary widely from year
to year, even if there are no changes in traffic or in the road layout. In statistical terms, road
accidents at individual sites are rare, random, multifactor events. This means that comparison
between the numbers of accidents at particular sites must be made with respect to a fixed time
period, typically one year. Furthermore, a single year’s data will be subject to considerable
statistical variation. Ideally, several years’ data are required, from which a mean, annual accident
rate can be calculated. Three years is generally regarded as a practical minimum period for
which a reasonably reliable annual average rate can be calculated.
Whilst the annual number of accidents at an intersection or other location is a straightforward

concept, but in considering the links in the highway network, it is helpful to think in terms of
accident density. There will generally be specific locations at which accidents occur, for example
an unexpected, sharp bend. Elsewhere, accidents may occur along a section of road without any
obvious single factor. Here it is necessary to think in terms of accidents per kilometre, that is, the
accident density along a particular link.
October 2007 5
Given these data, it is then possible to rank sites in terms of their accident history. For
intersections, this would be in terms of average numbers of accidents per annum; for links it
would be in terms of average accidents per km per annum.
The severity of accidents should also be taken into account, as accidents with fatal and serious
injuries are more costly in both social and economic terms. If sufficient research has been carried
out to identify the costs of accidents of different types and with different severity, then they can
be weighted relative to their cost. Thus, if a fatal sideswipe accident costs a society 20 times
more than a similar slight injury accident, then it can be counted as 20 accident units. Using
weightings, however, has the disadvantage that a few, random fatal accidents can sometimes
dominate the selection.
Where possible, the effects of traffic volume should also be considered. In simple terms, more
traffic would be expected to lead to more accidents. If traffic flow data are available it can be
helpful to compare sites in terms of accidents per unit of traffic. Such accidents rates are often
expressed as accidents per million vehicles entering an intersection or accidents per million
vehicle km on a link. If such data are available sites can be compared in terms of these rates that
gives an indication of their relative safety, given their traffic volumes.
Traffic flow data are rarely available in sufficient quantity or accuracy to justify this approach. It is
recommended that effort be concentrated on collecting comprehensive and accurate accident
data, and that black spots be identified initially on the basis of annual accident totals, where
possible averaged over a three-year period. If sufficient data are available, these can be
weighted to reflect severity.
There are four basic strategies for accident reduction at hazardous locations. These are, as
follows:
1. Single sites or black spot programs: the treatment of specific types of accidents at
a single location, where large numbers of accidents occur;
2. Mass action plans: the application of a known remedy to locations with a common
accident problem;
3. Route action plans: the application of known remedies along a route with a high
accident rate; and
4. Area-wide schemes the application of various treatments over an area of usually a
town or city.
Perhaps the most important part is to recommend remedial measures for the location and justify
them on a cost benefit basis. This is done by estimating the cost of the improvements and
predicting the accidents that will be prevented to ensure “value for money”.
Once all black spot sites have been investigated, a prioritised list for action over the road network
can be established and the implementation process set in motion.
October 2007 6
3.3 DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REMEDIAL MEASURES
It is important to recognise, however, that the circumstances under which a particular remedial
measure will, or will not be appropriate, can vary quite widely. Often there will be a choice of
countermeasures and that choice must be based on an analysis of the common features and the
identification of contributory factors, as discussed in the preceding sections. Countermeasures
are problem-oriented and the choice of measure(s) for a particular set of contributory factors
must be aimed at resolving problems. Ideally, some knowledge of their likely effectiveness in
similar conditions is required. Many low-cost engineering measures have proven very successful
in developed countries.
The main objective in deciding on remedial measures is to consider solutions that ideally will
remove the main accident patterns identified. This can involve one or more of the following:
1. Removing the conflict causing the problem;
2. Improving the situation (e.g., give earlier warning) so that road users can cope better;
or
3. Reducing speeds, thus reducing the chance of the accident happening or its severity.
However, if we consider the case of pedestrian/vehicle conflict at pedestrian crossing

accompanied by a poor visibility problem, drivers would prefer removing the conflict, i.e.,
stopping pedestrians from crossing, while the pedestrians would like speeds reduced. Improving
visibility may give drivers and pedestrians more chance of avoiding conflict, but could result in
vehicles travelling faster. Thus, a balance must be struck, depending upon traffic volumes,
between the extent of pedestrian demand and the cost-effectiveness of remedial measures.
Each accident site will have its own set of contributory factors which define the problem(s) to be
overcome. General prescriptions for treating black spots must therefore be taken with caution.
Nevertheless, there are a number of commonly occurring situations which have been dealt with
successfully in the past - mostly in industrialised countries. In many of these, accident numbers
have been reduced substantially, often by 40 to 50 per cent, and in some cases by as much as
80 per cent.
The table below lists typical accident situations along with the proven remedial measures known
to have been effective in both developing and industrialized countries.
October 2007 7
General Accident Situation Remedial Measures

Restoring surface texture
Skidding Resurfacing
Improve drainage
Better delineation
Guardrails or fencing
Collisions with roadside objects
Frangible posts
Remove objects
Pedestrian /vehicle segregation
Pedestrian /vehicle conflicts Pedestrian crossing facilities
Pedestrian fences or other protection
Bigger or better road signs
Road markings
Loss of control Speed controls
Safety fencing
Superelevation
Reflective signs
Delineation
Night time accidents
Road markings
Street lighting
Trim or remove vegetation
Poor visibility Improved sightlines
Realignment
Road markings
Poor driving behaviour or lane Enforcement
discipline Median barriers
Overtaking lanes
October 2007 8
Rural Accident Potential Remedy

JUNCTIONS
- turn prohibition
Turning movements - channelisation
- acceleration/deceleration lane
- protected turns
Overtaking - makings
- advance warning
- junction conspicuity
- channelisation / road markings
Overshoot from minor road
- speed reducing devices
- junction control
LINK
- prohibition / lane markings
- overtaking zones
Overtaking
- median barriers
- well maintained hard shoulders
- enforcement / control
Roadside stalls - provision of off road facilities
- relocation
Ribbon development - bypass
Urban Accident Potential Remedy

JUNCTIONS
- channelisation
- signals
Turning movements
- turn prohibitions
- roundabouts
- channelisation
Overtaking
- makings
- refuges
- crossing facilities
Pedestrian/ vehicle
- underpass / overbridge
- guardrails / fences
Poor Visibility due to parting - parking controls
- lighting
Darkness
- reflective signing / marking
LINKS
- parking controls parking
Parked vehicles
provision
- speed limits
Speeding - enforcement
- speed control devices
- access controls/ road closures
- crossing facilities
Pedestrians - guardrails/ fences
- wider footways
- underpass / overbridge
October 2007 9
Often the remedial measures relate in detail to the type and positioning of all the road furniture.
This is particularly true in urban areas and at intersections. Further measures that are relevant in
city centers include:
1. Turn prohibition, channelization, or protected turns;
2. Traffic signals, roundabouts, or revised intersection designs;
3. Refuges, pedestrian crossings, bridges, or underpasses;
4. Segregated bicycle tracks or defined bicycle lanes;
5. Parking restrictions or controls;
6. Traffic calming
The most important part of this whole process is a mechanism that ensures the following:
1. Up-to-date data are available to the engineers investigating hazardous locations; and
2. Their recommendations are implemented either by a specific budget being set aside
or by ensuring that the remedial measures are implemented within existing
maintenance or other budgets.
3.4 TRAFFIC CALMING
In recent years, speed reduction or traffic calming has developed as almost a separate science
to accident remedial work, as it can produce significant environmental improvements as well as
accident reduction. Because of this, it has proved to be popular with engineers and residents.
Traffic calming can be defined as the improvement of the traffic situation by reducing traffic
speeds and perhaps numbers of vehicles, particularly in residential areas, with emphasis on the
safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and vulnerable road users, such as children or the elderly. It has
been shown that when pedestrians are hit by vehicles travelling at a given speed:
95 percent survive at speeds up to 32 kilometers per hour (km/h);
55 percent survive at speeds up to 48 km/h;
15 percent survive at speeds up to 65 km/h;
and so the use of traffic calming to ensure low speeds can have a pronounced effect on reducing
the severity of injury in accidents.
Traffic calming commonly includes:
1. Speed humps;
2. Road narrowing;
3. Gateway features;
October 2007 10
4. Footway widening;
5. Pedestrian crossing areas;
6. Landscaping and environmental features;
7. Special warning signs;
8. Possible reduced speed limits;
9. Miniroundabouts;
10. Horizontal carriageway deflection; and
11. Priority systems
Traffic calming is particularly useful for area-wide schemes and particularly so in residential
areas.
It is also, however, increasingly being used to slow traffic on rural routes in many countries,
particularly on the approaches to villages,
Traffic calming is one way of avoiding the increased road safety problems that can occur when
major roads are rehabilitated, often via aid-funded projects. Speed though settlements and
villages along the route often increase dramatically and result in increased deaths and injuries.
Such gateways on entry to traffic calmed sections of route have been implemented in Fiji and are
being used in Samoa.
Not all the traffic calming techniques listed above will be relevant to all countries and all locations
because of different traffic mix and pattern. What is important, however, is that speed reduction
reduces accident occurrence, and countries need to discover what traffic calming methods work
best for their particular road users and traffic mix.
3.5 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
While many of the countermeasures listed above are well-tried remedies that have been used for
many years all around the world, it is still important that all treated accident sites are monitored
for actual accident reduction and then the true cost and benefit evaluated. It is important to use
equivalent before and after periods (ideally two to three years) when making comparisons or
evaluations and the construction period should be treated separately. This has at least two
beneficial effects; first, it helps determine what remedial measures are most effective and
appropriate for local conditions; and second, it is an excellent way of illustrating the benefits to be
obtained in a manner that can readily be understood by the policy makers responsible for
allocation of workforce and financial resources.
October 2007 11
Span Consultants in their U.P. Road Safety Study have devoted an entire chapter (Chapter 8) to
accident data collection and analysis and another Chapter 9 to identifying the locations of black
spots and rectification of black spots. The ‘identification and rectification of accident prove
locations (black spots) using 10 – step procedure’ from U.P. Road Safety (Chapter 9) is included
in Annexure ‘A’.
Uttar Pradesh Police sends a detailed quarterly and half-yearly accident report to the Union
Government. Another important improvement had been the introduction of India Road Accident
Report Form to collect data in a uniform format. According to the U.P. Road Safety Study, the
filling of information on the form leaves a lot to be desired. Obviously, the police needs more
training in this regard.
As part of the UPSRP-II there were 51 black spots identified in 13 districts. Of these 31 have
been selected for improvements at a cost of Rs. 221.8 lakh. The other 20 sites were not located
on the SRP roads or were already covered under other projects. The list is included in
Annexure ‘B’. It is worth noting that the remedial measures recommended in 21 of these cases
consist of ‘speed limit / cautionary board’, which is a very high preponderance. There is no
analysis of accident data, no diagnosis or findings, only recommendation, probably due to lack of
knowledge and training in this field.
A list No. DT-454-2005/239, dated Feb. 2, 2007, issued by Additional Director General Police /
Director, Traffic, U.P. and included in Annexure ‘C’, shows number of accidents, fatalities and
injuries for the year 2005 at a very large number of black spots. These need to be evaluated and
appropriate remedial measures for each of the site needs to be determined. This should be one
of the early and urgent monitoring activity for the field staff. However, before this can be done it is
important that proper training be imparted to the engineers undertaking this task. This is the
subject of Report No. 36. In 1996, Ross Silcox, in association with Transport Research
Laboratory of UK prepared an ‘Accident Investigation and Prevention Manual’ for the Ministry of
Surface Transport as part of a Technical Assistance Program funded by the Asian Development
Bank, which would be of utmost use in training of engineers as well as in analysing the data, and
designing and implementing of the remedial measures.
October 2007 12
4. ROAD SAFETY AUDIT AND ROAD SAFETY REVIEW
Many developed countries have discovered that even when highway and traffic schemes were
professionally designed to the latest accepted standards they could still lead to unnecessary
accidents. A common finding was that accidents tended to occur at the ends of projects where
there was a transition to a road of a different standard, or related to pedestrians or other
valuerable road users whose particular needs had not been given sufficient attention. These
design deficiencies can best be reduced or eliminated by an independent road safety specialist
reviewing the designs at various stages in design process. The specialist identifies any potential
problems and makes recommendations for improvements. There then needs to be a system that
rigidly reviews the recommendations and follows up with the required design changes.
This system of checking the design is called ‘road safety audit (RSA). The first documented use
of road safety audit was in the United Kingdom in the 1980s. It involved the modification of a tool
used by railway engineers to examine safety issues on railways. The United Kingdom published
the first set of road safety guidelines in the early 1990s. This was followed shortly in Australia
and New Zealand. These countries have continued to refine, modify and enhance their road
safety audit practices. Since then it has been made mandatory in these and other developed
countries. It is also being increasingly used in developing countries, such as, China, Malaysia,
Fiji, and Nepal where it is commonly a requirement for and funded road projects. The road safety
audit is now perceived as a tool that could enhance safety and reduce the number and severity
of roadway accidents. Design teams do not necessarily include staff with accident investigation
or road safety experience and may therefore not adequately understand the nature of accident
causation.
4.1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT / REVIEW PRINCIPLES
It is important to bear in mind that road safety audit considers only road safety matters. It is not a
technical check that the design conforms to standards nor does it consider structural safety.
Another important safety tool that offers promise in reducing traffic accidents and fatalities is
‘road safety review’.
The most commonly accepted definition of road safety audit, as developed by Transportation
Association of Canada, is, “ a road safety audit is a formal and independent safety performance
review of a road transportation project by an experienced team of safety specialists, addressing
the safety of all road users. “On the other hand a road safety review is defined as “ an evaluation
of an existing roadway section by an independent team, again focussing solely upon safety
issues.” The operative difference, between the two is that while the road safety audit pertains to
before the opening stage, the road safety review refers to after opening of the roadway stage.
Internationally, this distinction between the evaluation of a plan on design and the evaluation of a
roadway already open to traffic is becoming more pronounced. “ Terms such as road safety
review (RSR), road safety audit review (RSAR), road review, roadway inspection, roadway
assessment and infrastructure assessment have been used to differentiate the ‘review’ of an
existing roadway from an ‘audit’ of a plan or design.
October 2007 13
It is important to clearly state at the outset what is generally understood to be true about safety in
road design.
There are no safe roads
A road would be completely safe if no collisions occurred on it. But crashes occur on all roads in
use. It is, therefore, inappropriate to say of any road that it is completely safe. However, it is
correct to say that roads can be built safer or less safe. Consider two alternative road designs,
connecting the same two points and carrying the same traffic. The road design that is likely to
have fewer or less severe crashes would be deemed to be the safer one.
The nature of safety improvements
It is generally known how to make a road safer. Building a wider median, placing obstacles
farther from the travelled lanes, providing more pavement friction, designing curves with larger
radii, etc., all make for safer roads. Typically, safety changes gradually as some dimension of the
road or of the roadside changes, Therefore, it makes little sense to say, for example, that if
obstacles are 9 metres from the edge of the travelled lane the road is unsafe, but if they are 10
metres from it, the road is safe. What is true is that the farther an obstacle is from the edge of the
travelled lane, the fewer and less severe collisions with it are likely to be.
Some safety improvements are not gradual. Thus, for example, the decision to illuminate the
road will cause an abrupt drop in night time collisions and a (usually smaller) increase in daytime
collisions with light poles or the barriers in front of them.
Diminishing marginal benefits
Safety improvements are usually subject to the law of diminishing marginal returns. This means
that for every improvement of a fixed amount, the safety benefit gained decreases a little each
time. For example, increasing the width of the median from 50m to 60m will decrease the number
of collisions less than increasing it from 10m to 20m. Eventually, a width will be reached at which
widening the median further cannot be justified because the improvement in safety is too small.
A possible objections?
Some people may object to the judgement that a point exists beyond which further improvement
in safety is not justified, claiming that any improvement in safety is worthy. This position is not
tenable. Expenditure of public money can save life and limb in many places. However, spending
the budget where it saves few lives means that some lives will be unjustifiably lost by not
spending it where more lives could have been saved.
Knowledge, judgment and standards
Knowledge of how the features of a road affect safety is imperfect. Some road features are well-
researched and their effect on safety can be expressed by numbers. For other, less well-
researched features, only the direction of their effect on safety is known. There are even road
features the effect of which on safety is at present unclear. It must be understood that the
relationship between road features and safety is not known with the kind of precision that is
customary in the physical science and in engineering disciplines that allow experimentation.
October 2007 14
As a result, one must leave room for judgment and legitimate differences of opinion. One must
not think that it is always possible to determine by calculation the point beyond which further
improvement in safety is not cost-effective. The hope is that the collective professional judgment
about safety, economics and other matters is reflected in the engineering standards and
practices used in road design. Indeed, road design standards and practices are the product of
accumulated experience and written by committees of experts in road design. As such, road
design standards capture what is agreed upon to be good practice by the members of the
committee at the time the standard is written.
Road design standards and safety
At this point, a difficult problem of communication arises. In English, “meeting a standard” is

understood to be a guarantee of quality; conversely, if something is “substandard”, it is
understood to be deficient. This meaning does not apply to safety in road design standards.
To explain why, three essential aspects of the complex relationship between road safety and
road design standards are discussed below.
First, as mentioned earlier, the safety of a road does not change abruptly when some road
feature changes slightly. Consider, for example, the design standard stipulating that the length of
an overtaking lane has to be at least 1000 m. An overtaking lane that is 990 m long is not unsafe;
it will be, perhaps, only slightly less safe than a 1000 m - long overtaking lane. Thus, not
meeting a standard does not necessarily make a road unsafe.
Second, many highway design standards are limit standards, which means that for a certain
class of road, the radius of a horizontal curve has to be at least “x” metres long, a roadside
obstacle must be at least “y” metres from the edge of the outer lane, the grade must be at most
“z” percent, and so on. Just meeting such a standard does not make the road as safe as it can
be; if a radius larger than “x” is chosen, if obstacles are placed further than “y” from the travelled
lane and if the road grade is less than “z”, the road would be safer. Thus, the aim of good
design practice is to exceed the limit standard, not just to meet it.
Third, road design standards evolve with time. Roads used to be made with lanes 3.25 - 3.50 m
wide; now the standard calls for 3.75 m - wide lanes. This does not mean that the entire old stock
of roads with less than 3.75 m lanes is unsafe. Similarly, crest vertical curves over hills used to
be designed, and is still the case in India, so that the driver could see in time to stop safely
before hitting an obstacle more than 150 millimetres (mm) high in the path of the vehicle.
Nowadays, in other countries the standards say that only obstacles 380 mm or higher need to be
seen in time. Thus, by the current standard, obstacles less than 380 mm high in the path of a
vehicle may not be visible in time for a safe stop. This does not mean that roads designed with
the 380 mm obstacle in mind are unsafe. It means only that the information, judgments and
economic considerations that go into formulating design standards change over time.
Road design standards are not the demarcation line between safe and unsafe. They are a
reflection of what a committee of professionals of that time considers to be good practice.
October 2007 15
Prevention, not fault
Consider the following invented sequence of events. A driver was going north on road at 70
km/h, where the speed limit is 50 km/h. He intended to take the ramp onto an expressway to
travel west. This ramp has a tight curve, turning right, that has a 50 km/h design speed. The
posted advisory speed on the curve is 30 km/h. The driver apparently misperceived how much
deceleration was needed to negotiate the curve and the vehicle skidded to the left. Since there is
no guiderail at this point, the vehicle rolled down the embankment. The embankment is a drop of
5 m over a horizontal distance of 15 m. The rear door opened, an unbelted child was ejected and
severely injured.
Clearly, the driver was “going too fast for the conditions “and the child should have been wearing
a seat belt. But fault or culpability is not the issue here. For the highway designer, the question
would be: “What might help prevent accidents of this kind or reduce their severity? “ If we could
make drivers go slower at this site and help them perceive that deceleration is needed, and if the
curve were built less tight, (i.e., had a higher design speed been chosen), fewer vehicles would
run off the road on this ramp. If a guiderail were placed along the entire curve, some skidding
vehicles would be prevented from tumbling down the embankment. Even if there were no
guiderail, but the embankment had been built to be less steep, some vehicles might not overturn
going down the slope. If vehicles were made so that we could induce more occupants to wear
seat belts, this, too, would reduce the chance of ejection and injury. All of these and several other
actions might have altered the course of events and the final outcome. However, only some of
these actions would be within the direct purview of the highway designers. At this site, the
designer should examine at least:
1. The choice of the design speed (and the resulting minimum radius of the ramp curve);
2. The decision of where guiderails would be placed; and
3. The design of embankment slopes.
Obviously, the driver’s “human error” played a major role in this invented story, as it does in most
real accidents. This leads many to think that road users ought to be the sole target of preventive
measures. Among road safety professionals, however, such thinking is widely recognized as
incorrect. The fact that almost all accidents could have been prevented had those involved acted
differently does not mean that the most effective way to reduce accidents is to alter people’s
behaviour or tendency to make errors. Effective action must aim jointly at the human element,
the vehicle and the road. Road design can reduce the incidence of human error and the chance
that human error will result in accident and can ameliorate the severity of the consequences of
accidents that are initiated by human error.
In summary, roads can be built safer or less safe, but that a road cannot be classified simply as
being either safe or unsafe. Meeting minimum standards does not guarantee that a road is
sufficiently safe. Conversely, not meeting a minimum standard does not necessarily imply that
the road is unsafe.
October 2007 16
We often know the direction in which safety is likely to change if some road design feature is
altered. However, current knowledge about the amount of safety gain or loss that comes from a
change in some road feature is imprecise. Also, the design choices engineers make imply trade-
offs between life, limb and economics, a judgment that is at best difficult.
4.2 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
A road safety audit (RSA) is a formal examination of a future roadway plan (or project plan) by an
independent, qualified audit team, which then reports on safety issues. The key elements of this
definition are that the road safety audit:
• Is a formal examination with a structured process and not a cursory review;

• Is conducted independently, by professionals who are not currently involved in the
project;
• Is complete by a team of qualified professionals representing appropriate disciplines; and
• Focuses solely on safety issues.
Road safety audit is proactive, done before an accident history indicates a problem exists. It
considers all road users - for example, drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists - and it considers all
environmental conditions, including daylight, night time, and inclement weather.
Road safety audit is not a means to rank or rate a project, nor is it a check of compliance with
standards, in addition, it does not attempt to redesign a project; it results in recommendations or
findings that should be considered when a project is reviewed. Audits conducted early in the life
of a project - in the planning or initial design stages - have been shown to be the most beneficial
and the easiest to integrate with an agency’s existing safety program.
4.2.1. Benefits of Road Safety Audits
The safety benefits of road safety audits have been documented primarily in international
applications, which are summarized later in the Section. International assessments focus on the
value added by proactively implementing the road safety audit findings. Several studies
compared benefits of similar projects where road safety audits were conducted with projects in
which road safety audits were not conducted.
Generally, the road safety audit is most likely to be a local agency tool for evaluating a complex
situation. This is not intended to limit the use of the tool, but rather reflects the local situation and
expresses a view similar to that used in applying advanced reactive safety analysis. The
personnel at most local agencies have not received the training nor do the agencies have the
resources to apply the tool except on a limited basis. It is, however, an excellent and proven
safety tool with widely accepted application internationally.
October 2007 17
In an unpublished study of road safety audit pilot studies assessed, in 1997, by the Federal
Highway Administration of the U.S.A., a number of important benefits were identified. Audits
were found to :
• Provide safety beyond established standards;

• Identify additional improvements that can be incorporated into the projects;
• Create consistency among all projects;
• Encourage personnel to think about safety in the course of their normal activities,
throughout all stages of a project;
• Invite interdisciplinary input;
• Enhance the quality of field reviews;
• Provide learning experiences for the audit team and design team members;
• Provide feedback to highway designers that they can apply to other projects as
appropriate;
• Provide feedback that helps to affirm actions taken and to work through outstanding
issues; and
• Ensure that high quality is maintained throughout a project’s life cycle.
A detailed treatment of the quantified benefits of road safety audits resulting from an Australian
study is given later in Section 4.4 of this Report.
4.2.2. Stages of a Road Safety Audit
Road safety audits can be performed at one or more stages of a new roadway project (3):
• Planning or feasibility study,

• Preliminary or draft design,
• Detail design,
• Pre-opening
The different emphasis at each stage principally relates the level of detail addressed.
Pre-opening audit could also be constructed as road safety review rather than an audit. Thus it
straddles both. Each stage is described below.
Planning or Feasibility Study
Road safety audits conducted during the planning stage occur early in a project and generally
evaluate the basic project scope, route location and layouts, intersection types, access control,
interchange locations and types, and impacts on the existing infrastructure. Some of those items
also receive attention during audits conducted during other stages. As more details of the project
become available, safety considerations become more focused.
October 2007 18
Preliminary or Draft Design
During the preliminary or draft design stage, the audit team evaluates general design standards.
Some factors that the team might consider include horizontal and vertical alignment; intersection
and interchange type and layout; sight distances; lane and shoulder widths; super elevation; and
provisions for pedestrians, including children, the elderly, the disabled, and bicyclists.
Detail Design
All elements of the final design should be in place during the details design stage. During this
stage, the audit team reviews the final geometric design features; traffic signing and pavement
marking plans; lighting plans; landscaping; and intersection and interchange details such as
tapers, lengths of acceleration and deceleration lanes, and turning radii. The team also reviews
provisions for special users such as elderly pedestrians, children, the disabled, and bicyclists;
drainage, and other roadside objects; and constructability.
Pre-opening
Shortly before opening, it is essential to drive, cycle and /or walk through the scheme, as
appropriate, in order to see it as the road user sees it. The scheme should be examined during
the hours of darkness as well as in daylight, and possibly in inclement weather. This stage is
often found to reveal potential problems that are difficult to detect at the previous stages.
The concept of “drive, ride, walk” is vital to understanding the scheme in relation to all road
users. Even when there are only initial plans available, the auditor should imagine driving, riding
and walking through the scheme, as this will ensure that the needs of vulnerable road users such
as pedestrians and cyclists are considered at an early stage and given the same consideration
as motorised vehicles.
For some schemes it may be possible to omit or combine stages. For example, stages 1 and 2
can be combined for smaller improvements, or for traffic management schemes stages F and I
combined. The Table below sets out guidelines for organising the road safety audit system.
Guidelines for organising the road safety audit system
Scheme Type Stage F 1 F+1 2 1+2 C 3

Major road schemes * * * * *
Major rehabilitation schemes * * * * *
Minor road schemes * * *
Traffic management schemes, including traffic * * *
calming
Accident remedial schemes * *
Major maintenance schemes * * *
Major development schemes * * * *
Minor development schemes * * *
Temporary traffic management of major schemes * * *
Note : C during construction
October 2007 19
Although it would be desirable to subject all schemes to a safety audit, both financial and
personnel resources will be limited and it may not be achievable. It is, therefore, important for
there to be a clear procedure for prioritising schemes, which defines the types of schemes and
the appropriate level of audits required.
It is suggested that initially safety audit procedures be applied only to all new roads and all
rehabilitation road schemes on national, state and other major roads. Eventually as experience is
gained and more safety auditors become trained/available, the safety audit process could be
extended to all the following :
• Major new road scheme;

• Major new rehabilitation schemes;
• Minor improvements;
• Traffic management schemes;
• Development schemes;
• Maintenance works; and
• Existing roads.
An road safety audit is a systematic process that can be tailored according to an agency’s
specific organizational culture and safety issues. Generally, an audit involves the following steps:
• Select the road safety audit team

• Provide the relevant data and documentation
• Hold a kickoff meeting
• Assess the data and documents
• Inspect the site
• Discuss audit safety issues with the designer or internal client
• Write the road safety audit report
• Hold a completion meeting
• Respond to the report
• Implement agreed-on changes
• Share lessons learned.
The project designer or an appropriate internal client who is requesting the audit provides all
available relevant data and documents to the audit team, as well as a statement of the scope of
the audit. The individual supplying the information reflects the type of project being audited, the
stage of the audit, and the organization of the audit process within each agency.
October 2007 20
Relevant data and documentation include, but are not limited to the following:
• Plans and drawings;

• Design standards used;
• Traffic volume data;
• Crash records, if applicable (only on a redesign or an RSR)
• Public input;
• Videotapes ; and
• Data concerning utilities, railroads, schools, and businesses, among others.
4.2.3. Road Safety Audit Team
The road safety audit team consists of trained and experienced transportation professionals and
others with special skills. The team members also should be chosen independent of the project
being audited and therefore able to look at the project without bias. A team leader who has
experience in conducting audits is identified. A core team comprising a highway and traffic safety
specialist, highway designer, and traffic engineer is usually used effectively on most projects. To
that core team others may be added as needed to provide expertise pertinent to the project being
audited. Specific disciplines that can be added include experts in planning, enforcement,
pedestrians and bicyclists, and human factors, as well as local residents. Diverse perspectives of
the team members foster the exchange of ideas that can enrich the audit. Of utmost importance,
the audit team members should have the time and desire to conduct the audit.
There are a number of ways that a road safety audit process can be organised within a highway
authority. Resources will generally dictate the most appropriate approach. Larger highway
authorities such as the Ministry of Surface Transport may choose to establish their own safety
audit arrangements. AUSTROADS 1994 outlines three approaches to organising a road safety
audit. They are (from the most preferred to the least preferred):
• Audit by a specialist Auditor or Audit Team;

• Audit by other road designers; or
• Audit within the original design team.
Safety problems in the design are more likely to be identified and reported by an Auditor or audit
team with a high level of expertise and independence. The specialist auditor or team should not
play a part in the design of a project.
In a similar model, six organisational arrangements are suggested
October 2007 21
(i) Specialist Audit Team
A specialist team audits each design and is responsible for formal approval (i.e. issue of a safety
certificate) before the scheme can advance to the next stage. This system is demanding on
manpower resources and, because of its approval role, the audit team must be suitably
experienced and have the full support of senior management. Only the Director of the
Department can override the team’s recommendations.
(ii) Specialist Auditor / Team, reporting to an Independent Project Manager
A specialist safety auditor/ team prepares and submits an audit report this to a third party (usually
an independent senior manager) who decides on the action to take and directs the design team if
changes are needed.
(iii) Specialist Auditor / Team, reporting to the Designer
A specialist safety auditor/ team prepares and submits a audit report to the designer who
determines what action to take. The reasons for accepting/ rejecting any of the audit report
recommendations must be documented by the designer, who remains accountable for the
decisions, and this document is sent to the safety team as feedback.
(iv) Audit by Second Design Team, reporting to an Independent Assessor
Resource constraints may make it impossible to have a specialist safety team in an organisation.
If that is the case, a second design team can audit the first design team’s work, and pass its audit
report to an independent assessor who decides on the actions to take and who also documents
these decisions in a written report.
(v) Second Design Team Auditing
The second design team audits the first design team’s work, and reports back to the first team
which then decides, in a written report, whether to accept or reject each part of the audit advice.
(vi) Own team Auditing
An individual within the design team acts as auditor, and an audit report is prepared and
documented. While this is not ideal in achieving the required independence of the auditor, it is
generally considered to be better than no road safety audit at all.
4.2.4. Key Issues to Consider in Audit Reports
A key to the road safety audit is that the evaluation be a formal document reporting solely on
safety issues. As mentioned earlier, road safety audit is a proactive tool designed to ensure that
safety considerations and the concerns of all users have been addressed before the project is
constructed. The road safety audit report is presented to the local agency, which then uses it to
direct additional safety considerations, if needed. The costs of conducting a road safety audit
have been most often stated as minimal, given the added value of increasing the safety of a
project. The cost will vary depending on the project scope, stage of the audit, and size and
makeup of the audit team.
October 2007 22
Because the audit report is important, it deserves special attention. The audit report should be
concise and to the point. It should contain at least the elements that were listed earlier. However,
the audit report need not be too long; 2 to 10 pages would be ideal for most projects. Agencies
appear to be divided on whether the reports should contain findings or recommendations.
Recommendations suggest further specific actions or improvements, whereas findings address
the results of the audit. It is important that the report’s contents be discussed during the kick-off-
meeting to determine the objectives of the client.
Another consideration is the disposition of the report after the audit has been completed. Each
agency should establish procedures for maintaining road safety audit reports. If the agency has a
central road safety audit coordinator, that person should maintain the records. Another option is
to house the reports at a district office. In all cases, a copy of the audit report should be included
with the documentation of the specific project that is audited.
4.2.5. Using Checklists and Prompt Lists
One tool that has been a key component in conducting road safety audits is a checklist.
Checklists have been developed to aid auditors in reviewing projects to ensure that all issues
that can affect safety are addressed.
Checklists should not be used so rigidly that the audit team allows the checklist to dictate the
audit. Instead, the checklists should be flexible guidelines and reminders of things to look for in
steering the team to a comprehensive evaluation of the project. Checklists should be viewed as
only one tool available to the audit team, just as the project data and documentation are tools.
Many international agencies are now using prompt lists. Those tools are less prescriptive than
checklists and identify broader areas for the audit team to examine during the field review.
It is recommended that an audit team develop a checklist or prompt list tailored to the specific
project and stage of the audit being conducted. This should be accomplished during the kick-off
meeting and the list then taken to the site inspection. The team can use an existing list and
modify it to fit the project. Checklists have been developed for specific audit stages and for
specific types of projects. Essential to using a checklist or prompt list is to include relevant local
safety concerns and issues. Tailoring a checklist to specific facility types or project types may
have benefits in advancing the application of road safety audits and road safety reviews.
The use of checklists is highly recommended as they provide a useful “aide memoire” for the
audit team to check that no important safety aspects are being overlooked. They also give to the
project manager and the design engineer a sense of understanding of the place of safety audit in
the design process. The following lists have been drawn up based on the experience of
undertaking systematic safety audit procedures overseas and is taken from the Manual for Safety
in Road Design prepared for the Ministry of Surface Transport. This experience indicates that
extensive lists of technical details has encouraged their use as “tick” sheets without sufficient
thought being given to the processes behind the actions. Accordingly, the checklists provide
guidelines on the principal issues that need to be examined during the course of the safety
audits.
October 2007 23
Stage F- During Feasibility Study
1. The audit team should review the proposed design from a road safety perspective and
check the following aspects
CONTENTS ITEMS
A. Safety and operational implications of proposed alignment and
junction strategy with particular references to expected road users
and vehicle types likely to use the road.
B. Width options considered for various sections.
Aspects to be checked
C. Departures from standards and action taken
D. Provision for pedestrians, cyclists and intermediate transport
E. Safety implications of the scheme beyond its physical limits; i.e.
how the scheme fits into its environs and road hierarchy
¾ Departures from standards
¾ Cross-sectional variation
¾ Drainage
¾ Climatic conditions
¾ Landscaping
¾ Services apparatus
¾ Lay-byes
A1 : General ¾ Footpaths
¾ Pedestrian crossings
¾ Access (minimise number of private accesses)
¾ Emergency vehicles
¾ Public Transport
¾ Future widening
¾ Staging of contracts
¾ Adjacent development
¾ Visibility
A2 : Local Alignment ¾ New / Existing road interface
¾ Safety Aids on steep hills
¾ Minimise potential conflicts
A3 : Junctions ¾ Layout
¾ Visibility
¾ Adjacent land
A4 : Non-motorised road users ¾ Pedestrians
Provision ¾ Cyclists
¾ Non-motorised vehicles
¾ Lighting
A5 : Signs and Lighting
¾ Signs/ Markings
¾ Buildability
A6 : Construction and Operation ¾ Operational
¾ Network management
October 2007 24
Stage 1- Completion of Preliminary Design
1. The audit team should review the proposed design from a road safety perspective and
check the following aspects.
CONTENTS ITEMS
A. Safety and operational implications of proposed alignment and
junction strategy with particular references to expected road users
and vehicle types likely to use the road.
B. Width options considered for various sections.
C. Departures from standards and action taken
D. Provision for pedestrians, cyclists and intermediate transport.
E. Safety implications of the scheme beyond its physical limits; i.e.
how the scheme fits into its environs and road hierarchy
¾ Cross-sectional variation
¾ Drainage
¾ Landscaping
¾ Lay-byes
B1 : General ¾ Footpaths
¾ Pedestrian crossings
¾ Access (minimise number of private accesses)
¾ Emergency vehicles
¾ Public Transport
¾ Future widening
¾ Staging of contracts
¾ Visibility
B2 : Local Alignment ¾ New / Existing road interface
¾ Minimise potential conflicts
B3 : Junctions ¾ Layout
¾ Visibility
¾ Adjacent land
B4 : Non-motorised road users ¾ Pedestrians
¾ Lighting
B5 : Signs and Lighting
¾ Signs/ Markings
¾ Buildability
B6 : Construction and Operation ¾ Operational
October 2007 25
Stage-2 Completion of Detailed Design
1. The audit team should satisfy itself that all issues raised at Stage I have been resolved.
Items may require further consideration where significant design changes have occurred.
2. If a scheme has not been subject to a Stage 1 audit, the items listed in Checklists B1 to
B6 should be considered together with the items listed below.
CONTENTS ITEMS
B. Any design changes since Stage 1.
C. The detailed design from a road safety viewpoint, including the
Aspects to be checked road safety implications of future maintenance (speed limits;
road signs and markings; visibility; maintenance of street lighting
and central reserves).
¾ Drainage
¾ Landscaping
C1 : General ¾ Lay-byes
¾ Access
¾ Skid-resistance
¾ Agriculture
¾ Safety fences
¾ Visibility
C2 : Local Alignment
¾ New / Existing road interface
¾ Layout
¾ Visibility
¾ Signing
¾ Lighting
C3 : Junctions ¾ Road markings
¾ T, X, Y- junctions
¾ All roundabouts
¾ Mini roundabouts
¾ Traffic signals
¾ Adjacent land
C4 : Non-motorised road users ¾ Pedestrians
¾ Advanced direction signs
¾ Local traffic sings
C5 : Signs and Lighting ¾ Variable message signs
¾ Other traffic signs
¾ Lighting
¾ Buildability
C6 : Construction and Operation ¾ Operation
October 2007 26
Stage 3- Completion of Construction (Prior to Opening)
1. The audit team should check that the design drawings have been accurately translated
into the scheme as constructed and that no inherent safety defect has been incorporated
into the works.
2. Particular attention should be paid to design changes which have occurred during
construction.
CONTENTS ITEMS
A. That previously agreed recommendations have been
incorporated.
B. That there are no previously unidentified problems, so far as is
possible (signs obscuring visibility, misleading information
conveyed to motorists / pedestrians etc.
D. Check to be carried out in day light and at night
¾ Drainage
D1 : General ¾ Access
¾ Skid-resistance
¾ Safety fences
¾ Bridge parapets
¾ Visibility
D2 : Local Alignment
¾ New / Existing road interface
¾ Visibility
¾ Road markings
D3 : Junctions
¾ Mini roundabouts
¾ Traffic signals
¾ Adjacent land
D4 : Non-motorised road users ¾ Pedestrians
¾ Signs
D5 : Signs and Lighting
¾ Variable message signs
¾ Maintenance
D6 : Operation
October 2007 27
4.3 ROAD SAFETY REVIEW
A road safety review (RSR) or road safety audit review (RSAR) is a safety assessment of an
existing roadway section or a newly completed section. In a road safety review an independent,
qualified audit team reports on the safety issues of these roads / sections. The road safety review
is a practical safety tool for road agencies with typically limited resources, whose primary
responsibilities are the maintenance and operation of existing roadway networks. The road safety
review can also be used as part of an agency’s overall safety program or in conjunction with
other ongoing activities such as a rehabilitation program. The RSAR differs from the conventional
safety analysis and scoping study because it is proactive and not dependent solely on crash
statistics. The road safety review concentrates on a specific roadway section to address safety
issues, and therefore, is different from traditional scoping studies. Road safety reviews may be
used as planning tools to identify safety issues to be considered in improvement projects.
Highway departments and local agencies are continuously faced with the need to consider how
the safety of an existing road or street may be enhanced. Because the uses of a roadway
change over time, roads that fully complied with all safety standards at the time, roads that fully
complied with all safety standards at the time they were built may no longer provide a high
degree of safety for the travelling public. Typical approaches used by most highway departments
include an analysis of crash data, generally focusing on high-crash locations.
The use of reactive crash data to help identify local sites or sections of roadway in need of safety
improvements is often difficult. This is primarily due to two factors. First, although crash rates are
often the highest for local facilities based on functional classification, the low volume on many
local roads and the random nature of crashes often will not result in a large number of crashes at
a particular location. Second, many local crashes go unreported unless there are major
damages. This is particularly true in low-volume rural areas. Frequent clusters of crashes may,
however, become readily apparent at higher-volume intersections. Given these observations, an
analysis emphasizing the safety improvement issues is often more appropriate. Applying
proactive evaluations through the use of the road safety review is another method. The road
safety review may be performed
• During the preopening stage of a new project to ensure that the safety concerns of all
road users have been addressed,
• On a road section just opened to traffic, and
• On an existing road to identify safety deficiencies.
The concept of road safety review is based on an analysis technique that formalizes
documentation of safety issues. Proactively considering safety is the value of the road safety
review tool.
Because there are several key elements to road safety review that provide value beyond an
unstructured safety review, locally needed modifications to the concept are after needed. The
road safety review, like road safety audit, also results in a formal written report that is short,
simple, and proactive. Orally communicating the report is also important, as is the local agency’s
formal written response to the report. Independence is another key to the road safety review.
These actions imply that, preferably, the review should not be performed by the agency’s local
staff. The local agency becomes the client for the road safety review report and provides the
review team with the roads to be audited, plus information on them.
October 2007 28
The review team should a variety of expertise. Core knowledge is generally considered to be the
knowledge of local road safety and maintenance issues. Other skills of the team members may
vary depending on the issues associated with the road users and issues associated with the
complexity of the environment of the facility. Potential skills of review team members should
include traffic engineering, human factors, construction, design, and operations. Knowledge
concerning bicycles, trucks, or pedestrians is also desirable. The need for these skills may vary
from review to review. A check list for road safety review is given on the next page.
October 2007 29
Existing Roads
1. The audit team should check the existing road from a road safety perspective and check
the following aspects.
CONTENTS ITEMS
A. Safety and operational implications of alignment and junctions,
with particular reference to road users and vehicle types
currently using road.
Aspects to be checked B. Departures from current standards.
C. Provision for pedestrians, cyclists and intermediate transport.
D. Road safety implication on maintenance.
E. Check to be carried out in day light and at night.
¾ Drainage
¾ Landscaping (maturity)
E1 : General
¾ Access
¾ Skid-resistance
¾ Safety fences
¾ Bridge parapets
¾ Visibility
E2 : Local Alignment ¾ New / Existing road interface
¾ Layout
¾ Visibility
¾ Road markings
E3 : Junctions ¾ T, X, Y- junctions
¾ All roundabouts
¾ Mini roundabouts
¾ Traffic signals
¾ Adjacent land
E4 : Non-motorised road users ¾ Pedestrians
¾ Lighting
E5 : Signs and Lighting ¾ Signs
¾ Variable message signs
¾ Maintenance
E6 : Operation
October 2007 30
4.4 AUSTRALIAN STUDY OF ECONOMICS OF ROAD SAFETY AUDITS /

REVIEWS
The road safety audit / review process is designed to pro-actively improve road safety through
formal independent review of designs and inspections of new and existing roads and traffic
operation plans.
In recent years, road authorities in Australia and New Zealand have recognised the potential of
road safety audit as a means of preventing crashes or reducing their severity, and have
embraced the process as an effective road safety tool.
As road safety audit has developed in Australasia and overseas over the past decade, the
process has been subject to monitoring and review. However, there ahs been no evaluation of
the expected safety benefits of road safety audit in Australasia. As safety practitioners seek to
minimise road trauma, it is important to know what ‘value for money’ road safety audit can
deliver.
In order to identify and measure the benefits achieved by road safety audit in Australia, in 2003
Austroads commissioned ARRB Transport Research to undertake a major investigation to
determine the economic value of road safety audit. The key tasks of the study were:
• to review recent international literature;

• to develop an appropriate methodology enabling the benefits of road safety audit to be
estimated; and
• to apply this methodology to a variety of detailed design stage audits and existing road
audits.
4.4.1. Literature Review Findings
In general, the literature suggests the road safety audit process is cost effective. While a number
of reports quote various qualitative benefits of road safety audit such as safer roads, better
design practice and reduced whole of life project costs, only four studies were identified where
the economic benefits of road safety audit were quantified.
• Surrey County Council in the UK undertook a study of 19 audited and 19 non-audited

traffic schemes. Comparisons were made between the casualty crash reductions
achieved as a result of the projects. For sites with audited schemes, the average number
of casualties dropped 1.25 per year (from 2.08 to 0.83) while the change in casualty
crashes at the unaudited sites dropped by only 0.26 per year (from 2.60 to 2.34).
• The UK Highways Administration commissioned a study of 22 trunk road projects audited
at the design stage. The project considered the cost of implementing the audit
recommendations after construction was complete as opposed to addressing them at the
design stage. The average saving from implementing changes at design stage was
£11,373 or $19,600.
October 2007 31
• In Denmark, a study was undertaken on 13 projects utilizing crash predication methods to

estimate expected crash rates had road safety audit recommendations not been
implemented at the design stage. The results of the analysis demonstrated a first year
rate of return of 146%. Recognizing that these types of analysis are often questioned, a
sensitivity analysis of input data was conducted. That analysis involved multiplying the
input data by magnitudes of 2 and 4. The following conclusions were given : With a
sensitivity of input estimate of 4, a 7% positive benefit still occurred. When a factor of 2
was applied as a multiplier to the input estimates, the analysis resulted in a positive
benefit of 37%.
• A study in Jordan focused on investigating newly constructed sites with demonstrated
crash problems. The study considered the potential benefits had the sites been audited,
assuming the audit would have identified the underlying safety problem and the changes
made at the design stage. Based on these assumptions the first year rate of return of
conducting design stage audits was estimated to be 120%.
4.4.2. Methodology for Estimating the Benefits of Road Safety Audit
The approach taken to evaluate road safety audit has focussed on quantifying the benefits and
costs of the proposed actions that have emanated from deficiencies identified through the audit
process.
Following assessment of the various options available, the development of a method based on
the use of the Austroads Road Safety Risk Manager developed by ARRB Transport Research
was progressed. The Road Safety Risk Manager allows an assessment of the risk of a wide
range of hazards and their associated treatments to provide a measure of the risk reduction
potential of particular actions.
To enable an evaluation of the economic benefits of road safety audit a method to equate risk
reduction to monetary benefits was required. This was achieved through consideration of a
sample of projects from the 1995/96 Transport Accident Commission (TAC) Blackspot Program
in Victoria.
The analysis involved using the Road Safety Risk Manager, to calculate the expected risk
reduction for each blackspot project. Actual before and after crash statistics were then evaluated
to determine the actual crash savings that occurred as a result of the treatment. Reduction in risk
was then equated to the actual project benefits realised to give the benefit in crash savings per
unit of risk reduction.
The outcome of the analysis was an equivalent valuation of $20 in safety benefits for each unit of
risk reduction achieved.
October 2007 32
4.4.3. Benefits of Road Safety Audits
In evaluating the proposed actions emanating from road safety audits a significant level of
estimation was required to predict the crash savings accrued. Individual audits also varied
considerably in the number and crash cost reduction potential of the issues that were identified.
As a result, the valuation of benefits identified in this project should be considered indicative and
not definitive. A sensitivity analysis of key assumptions was also undertaken and the results
reported.
In considering the proposed actions only the safety related benefits were quantified. The study
did not included an analysis of the wider economic implications of the proposed actions. When
developing a works program based on audit findings an asset owner should ensure actions taken
work in synergy with other transport objectives, and where required undertake a full economic
evaluation of proposed treatments.
The evaluation of recommendations emanating from design stage audits resulted in the
following findings:
• Of the nine design stage audits assessed, the benefit cost ratio (BCR) of implementing
the recommendations from individual audits ranged from 3:1 to 242:1.
• Individual recommendations within the design audits exhibited BCRs between 0.06:1 and
2,600:1.
• Over 90% of all implemented recommendations had BCRs>1.0.
• The majority of design audit findings required only very low-cost responses (65% of
recommendations had a cost < $1,000). Of these low-cost responses 85% had BCRs>10.
The evaluation of the proposed actions emanating from existing road audits resulted in the
following findings:
• The analysis of a range of existing road safety audits indicated BCRs between 2.4:1 and
84:1, when considering the value of completing the proposed actions identified in
response to the audit findings.
• The BCRs of individual proposed actions within the existing road audits ranged between
0.003:1 and 460:1.
• Over 78% of all proposed actions had BCRs>1.0.
• Approximately 47% of all proposed actions had BCRs>5.0.
• Over 50% of all proposed actions had a cost <$5,000. 87% of these actions had BCRs>1.
• If one life is saved as a result of an audit, the benefits will far exceed the audit costs. It is,
however, difficult to attribute savings lives to any one audit or audit recommendation or
action. Over time, monitoring audited projects and the actions taken should help to
reinforce the value of an audit.
October 2007 33
When the benefits and costs of audits were discussed during the IHT 2003 conference, several
factors were generally accepted. Analysis of audit costs generally included the audit fee or
personnel costs, costs of changes required as a result of the audit, and any costs associated with
additional project delays and audit time. To date, studies that have used benefit- cost analyses
have compared the accident characteristics of designs that have audit recommendations with
those of designs that do not have such recommendations. The approach of monitoring, which is
beginning to occur in the United Kingdom, should advance the state of road safety audit benefit-
cost project analysis. The crash data from the U.K. requirement to monitor road safety audit
projects after 12 and 36 months should become key input to future analyses and to providing the
benefits of the road safety audit, at least internationally.
The completion of design and existing road safety audits will also result in many qualitative
benefits. In addition to the safety related benefits of pro-actively identifying and treating specific
hazards at the design stage, or on the existing road network, the asset owner should also
consider the other benefits of the audit process, including:
• Identification of improved design, construction and maintenance standards that influence

safety performance on an ongoing basis;
• The role the audit plays in improving the general road safety awareness of operational
staff; and
• The role the audit plays in providing the designer/asset owner with confidence in the
safety performance of the proposed project or road network.
An important element of the audit process is the recognition that an audit with no deficiencies
identified will still retain significant value in providing assurance of safety. As with all audit
processes an audit with no deficiencies identified is a positive and desirable outcome.
4.4.4. Recommendations
While the study was restricted to a finite number of audits, a variety of deficiencies and
associated treatments emanating from road safety audits was assessed. The findings confirmed
the current belief that the audit process is a valuable and beneficial process in maximising the
safety of the road network and minimising road trauma.
Key recommendations from this study were:
• The road safety audit process should be supported and progressed. In addition to the
qualitative benefits that can be realized, the return on investment of implementing Road
Safety Audit is high.
• The focus of asset owners should be on identifying the audit recommendations that are
most likely to return high value and investing funds in the appropriate treatments.
Budgetary constraints may not allow all recommendations to be treated, however this
study has highlighted that with a targeted approach to addressing audit findings the
reduction in road trauma can be maximized.
October 2007 34
• The road safety audit process as it relates to the design stages of a proposed project
should be encouraged and implemented for all projects. Regardless of the planned
project cost, the audit process has the potential to identify deficiencies and associated
treatments with a significantly high return on investment. This is equally possible for minor
and major projects.
• Documentation of the responses to audit findings should be made high priority by all
asset owners. Development of tools that facilitate the traceability of audit findings,
assessment of audit findings and corrective actions undertaken should be further
investigated.
Reduction in road trauma is a key challenge facing society. Whether through a reduction in
exposure, removal or reduction of the mechanisms that lead to a crash, or through treatments
that reduce the severity of crashes, road safety audits are a valuable tool available to road safety
professionals.
October 2007 35
5. INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE OF ROAD SAFETY AUDITS

AND ROAD SAFETY REVIEWS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
As mentioned earlier, the first documented use of road safety audit practices was in the United
Kingdom in the 1980s. It involved the modification of a tool used by railway engineers at the turn
of the century to examine safety issues on railways. The United Kingdom published the first set
of road safety guidelines in the early 1990s. The use of road safety audits followed shortly after in
Australia and New Zealand. It was the applications in these countries that attracted the attention
of the United States and other countries. They perceived the road safety audit as a tool that
could enhance safety and reduce the number and severity of road accidents.
During the past decade, the global application of road safety audits has expanded. The United
Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand have continued to refine, modify, and enhance their road
safety audit practices. The following text gives a brief description of the state of practice in many
countries around the world.
5.1.1. United Kingdom
It is important to remember that road safety audits have been used for more than 20 years,
beginning with the United Kingdom. There are consulting firms in the Untied Kingdom that have
conducted literally thousands of road safety audits. The United Kingdom has advanced the
applications of road safety audits to the point where it is mandatory for all trunk road highway
improvement projects and also mandatory to conduct a road safety audit monitoring process of
all projects that have involved a road safety audit. Monitoring the effects of road safety audits on
those facilities began in 1990. The requirement to monitor the effects of road safety audits was
added to the 2003 edition of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges in the “Road Safety Audit”
section, HD 19/03, which became effective in November 2003. Projects are now required to be
monitored after 12 and 36 months.
Several practice issues regarding road safety audit contained in HD 19/03 are briefly highlighted
here. There are three stages of audits required separately or in combination for improvement
projects, unless excluded for small projects within the same alignment. The required U.K. audit
stages are :
• Completion of the preliminary design

• Completion of the detailed design, and
• Completion of construction; in the Untied States referred to as a road safety audit review.
In addition to those three types of audits, an interim stages audit has been being introduced as a
new concept for road safety audit application anytime during the first two audit stages. The
interim audit is not a requirement. The concept is to provide input into the design process while
the plans are being developed. The independence of the formal audit process is still stressed.
The trial applications of an interim audit have been found to aid in reducing road safety problems
earlier and thereby reducing program and design costs.
October 2007 36
The requirements for an accident monitoring report using both 12 and 36 month crash data have
also been introduced as part of HD 19/03. Such a monitoring process focuses on linking crash
characteristics and audits to help future road safety audit activities to reduce crashes.
Through HD 19/03, many issues of practice can be recognized that should aid in road safety
applications worldwide. HD 19/03 also offers samples of all audit stage reports, stage checklists,
issues and monitoring reports. The checklists for each audit stage are contained in Annexure ‘D’.
In the United Kingdom, audit teams are identified as requiring minimum of two members.
Suggested guidelines specify that the team leader have these qualifications:
• A minimum of 4 years of accident investigation or road safety engineering experience;

• Completion of at least five audits in the past 12 months;
• A minimum of 2 days of continuing professional development in the field of road safety
audit accident investigation, or road safety engineering in the past 12 months; and
• Meets the requirements of a team member.
Suggested guidelines concerning qualifications for team members are:
• A minimum of 2 years of the previously cited associated skills;

• Completion of at least five audits in 24 months as a member, leader, or observer in the
past 24 months. The audit team member should have undertaken at least 10 days of the
previously cited skills; and
• A minimum of 2 days of professional development.
Two additional categories of expertise are identified to assist in auditing, although they are not
specifically identified as being possessed by team members. They are an observer and a
specialist. It is suggested that the observer have a minimum of 1 year experience and a minimum
of 10 days of formal training. The observer assists in the audit process; the intent is to develop
the pool of new audit team members. In addition, there is provision for specialist advisors. The
use of a specialist requires approval of the project sponsor. The specialist is not a member of the
team but advises the team on matters relating to their expertise. Such requirements indicate that
the audit process is very formal, which certainly is the case.
The design team provides a brief to the project sponsor, who may instruct the design team to
delete unnecessary items or to add information. Any changes must be documented. In the United
Kingdom the road safety audit information proceeds from the team that design the project to a
supervisor or project sponsor. The brief consists of the following 10 items:
1. The alternative design showing full geographical extent and including areas beyond
the project;
2. Details of the approved departures and relations from standards; this is, design
exceptions;
October 2007 37
3. General details, purpose, speed limits, forecasts of traffic flow, nonmotorized flows,
and desired lines and environmental constraints;
4. Other relevant factors such as adjacent land uses, proximity to schools, and
emergency vehicle accesses;
5. Accident data for design alternative and adjacent sections;
6. Details of changes introduced at previous audits;
7. Plan sheets;
8. Previous road safety audit reports and a copy of the interim file if an interim audit has
taken place;
9. Contact details for transmitting maintenance defects (telephone call or separate

written message from audit report); and
10. Details of appropriate police contact.
The audit team submits the road safety audit report to the project supervisor, not directly to the
design team. The initial submittal is in draft from so that any issues agreed to be outside the
scope of the project can be identified and removed. The audit team includes only issues relevant
to safety. Any items such as observed maintenance defects are addressed separately.
The detailed requirements of the audit report are also specified in 10 separate items:
1. Brief project description;
2. Audit stage team members and other members;
3. Site details, who was present, and conditions of weather and traffic on day of site
visits;
4. Specific road safety problems identified, with supporting documentation;
5. Recommended actions for removal and mitigation;
6. Location maps marked and reference to problems;
7. Statement signed by the audit team leader, in a required format;
8. List of documents and diagrams considered for the audit;
9. Separate statement for each identified problem describing the location, nature, and
types of accidents likely to be considered as a result of the problem; and
10. Associated recommendations (checklists are not to be included)
October 2007 38
Integral to the audit process are the implementation of the audit recommendations and
identification of the exceptions, to ensure that the problems raised by the audit team were given
consideration.
“The project team may wish to consult the design team at this stage of the audit. If the Project
Sponsor considers any problem to be outside the scope of the project or not suitable given the
relevant environmental or economic constraints, the project sponsor shall prepare an Exception
Report giving the reasons and proposed alternatives for submission to the Direction, with whom
the final decision rests. The project sponsor shall provide copies of each approved Exception
Report to the Design Team and to the Audit Team Leader for action and information respectively.
Finally, the project sponsor instructs the design team with respect to any changes required
resulting from the audit. Prompt action and continued communication are required. Closing the
loop is feedback to the auditors regarding the actions taken as a result of the audit.
The brief overview of U.K. practice indicates the strong history, continuing belief in the benefits of
the road safety audit as a safety tool, and continued commitment to advancing the state of the
practice. In the United Kingdom, road safety audit practice has continually led to safety
improvements implemented in projects as an initial safety benefit and not as a needed safety
retrofit after a project has been completed.
The following snapshots of various countries’ experiences raise key issues for advancing the
practice of road safety audits and road safety reviews.
5.1.2. Australia and New Zealand
The experiences of Australia and New Zealand formed the basis for audit practices in the United
States. It is interesting to follow the development in those countries and contrast their progress
with that of the United States. In 1990, Transit New Zealand (Transit), which is responsible for
managing the national road network (state highways), began examining the road safety audits.
The initial efforts emphasised awareness programmes, which were followed by pilot road safety
audits exercise. Experienced auditors from the United Kingdom and Australia assisted the pilot
audits, which were used as training exercises. Australia underwent a similar but earlier
development in the states of Victoria and New South Wales.
U.S. states were encouraged to pilot the road safety audits. Approximately 20% of the states did
so in the first years after the Federal Highways Administration’s 1996 scanning tour in Australia
and New Zealand. The scanning tour focussed on the development activities of the states of New
South Wales and Victoria in Australia and of Transit in New Zealand. New South Wales,
VicRoads, and Transit all had road safety audit Manuals, and by 1993 had all adopted road
safety audit practice. Australia and New Zealand worked together in 1994 developing the
Austroads Road Safety Audit Manual, which was the focus of the U.S. scanning tour. The second
edition of Austroads guide, Road Safety Audit, was completed in 2002 and is today one of the
more authoritative document.
October 2007 39
Transit’s policy in 1993 was to apply road safety audits to a 20% sample o its state projects. By
1993, the United Kingdom, New South Wales and Victoria in Australia, and Transit were the
world leaders in road safety audit practice. That statement applies today, although other counties
including the United States are actively following similar paths to road safety audit development.
As road safety audit development continued in New Zealand, there was no initial requirement for
local agencies to undertake audits. However, Transit demonstrated road safety audits using
several local authority projects in the early learning stages (pre-1993) and encouraged local
agencies to adopt road safety audits. Transit has incorporated a revision to its early road safety
audits practice by now referring to road safety audits as audits of projects being developed to
project construction; audits of existing roads are now excluded in the revised manual. This is
similar to the current U.S. philosophy and the use of the term “RSAR” for the audits of existing
roadways.
Today in New Zealand, the current policy of Transit is to apply road safety audits to all projects
and to allow for exceptions if the project manager believes that road safety audits is not
necessary. Documentation is required if the decision not to conduct road safety audit is made. In
the United Kingdom, the road safety audit Standard HD 19/03 has a similar provision.
The similarities of development patterns for those countries that are the world leaders in road
safety audit practice is continuing. Today, certification, continuing requirements for auditor
training, and liability are common issues.
A major reason for the international acceptance of road safety audit activities is that accident
investigators initially found design faults that should have been identified before new facilities
were built. The added value of proactively preventing crashes is the primary reason that the two
Australian states and the United Kingdom continue to apply road safety audits as an operational
practice. In New Zealand, the road safety audit is recognised as an essential safety management
tool.
5.1.3. Canada
Canada has been a leader in North America in the implementation of road safety audit concepts.
The first formal audit was completed in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1997. Since that initial
audit, several provinces and local governments have conducted audits. One impetus for their use
was the support of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in the development and
application of audit techniques as a tool to reduce the number and severity of traffic crashes. The
Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) has developed The Road Safety Audit Guide to aid
safety professionals in the application of the audit process.
The typical size of an audit team is five to six people. Disciplines represented included planning,
construction, and traffic engineering, Consultants may also used as part of the audit team.
Audited projects include interchange design, freeway design, and upgrading from two-lane
arterial to a four-lane arterial.
October 2007 40
The recommendations are implemented and the concepts identified in the audits are
incorporated into the design.
Use of Checklists
Provinces use checklists on prompt lists.
Organizational Issues
The resources made available to the team include staff time and funding for external consultants.
Institutional barriers include the lack of staff resources and difficulty in implementation if the
recommendations were considered too costly or impractical. The audits do address the needs of
pedestrians and bicyclists, except on freeway projects. Programs are funded through a municipal
tax base and capital budgeting.
Administration of RSAR Activities
More of the road safety reviews are conducted in urban areas. The size of the audit teams varies
from two to eight individuals. Disciplines included traffic operations, planning, police, and
consultants with road safety audit expertise.
The road safety reviews are carried out with both local staff and consultants and resulted in spot
improvements. Projects are selected on the basis of crash data and operational concerns.
The audit may include input from motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and the handicapped as
observers.
Benefit- cost evaluations of road safety reviews are just beginning to be developed. All
established road safety reviews programs have top management support. The biggest
successes identified to date included buy-in from engineers and management, identification of
tangible safety benefits, and increased visibility and acceptance by the public and at the political
level.
5.1.4. United States of America
Four state that have adapted either an road safety audit or road safety review program or have
developed a tailored approach for their Departments of Transportation (DOT) to assess those
safety tools are highlighted in this section
Iowa
Iowa has developed a modified approach to employing road safety audit concepts. The program
is administered by the Office of Traffic and Safety. The state safety engineer has program
responsibility. Audits are conducted in conjunction with corridors scheduled for resurfacing. The
audits focus on 3R projects. Project concept statements are reviewed and a detailed summary of
the corridor’s crash history is prepared. The crash history in each corridor includes geographic
information system analyses of fatal and injury crashes, fixed-object crashes, crashes grouped
by roadway characteristics, crashes linked to geometric features, and crashes by type- single
vehicle, rollover, right angle, etc. Collision diagrams are also prepared.
October 2007 41
The audit consists of a field review by central office safety staff and district personnel. A typical
team may consist of safety personnel from the DOT and Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), as well as district design, maintenance, and construction staffs. Local law enforcement
is asked to identify and perceived safety deficiencies, but those officials are not part of the audit
team. In addition, an older driver (an outside paid consultant who is a retired safety engineer) is
added to the team to provide a unique perspective. A trip summary is prepared for the FHWA
district administrator and the DOT district engineer. The FHWA safety engineer has the lead
program responsibility.
Before initiating the road safety review program, district staff participated in a 3R (Resurfacing,
Restoration and Rehabilitation) safety workshop. This workshop was developed and is presented
in-house by Iowa DOT and Iowa State University Center for Transportation Research and
Education Staff
Both the proposed and recently completed 3R projects are reviewed in each district. These
district road safety reviews are proposed as being completed once every 3 years in each district.
Among the safety deficiencies and recommended treatments identified in the audits are
• Substandard curves - add or correct superelevation, add pavement, remove fixed objects,
delineate curves, pave shoulders, install shoulder rambler strips, and use larger or
brighter chevrons.
• Safety dikes (escape ramps) - install opposite “T” intersections and remove fixed objects.
• Daylighting of intersections and driveways - cut vegetation, remove fixed objects, and
flatten driveway cross slopes.
• Other intersection needs - add turn lanes and signal enhancements.
• Roadside features - add or undertake guardrails, culvert and inlet modifications, cattle
crossings, tree removal, and improvements of cross slopes, and riprap; relocate and
delineate utility poles.
• Other - install larger stop signs and center and shoulder rumble strips.
The audit team uses a checklist to identify key safety is sues to be evaluated during the filed
inspection.
The audits have identified low-cost safety improvements. As a result, district and central office
personnel have a greater awareness about safety.
The 3R safety workshop are offered to country staff.
New York
The state of New York has developed and implemented a comprehensive, modified road safety
review process to incorporate safety considerations in its existing pavement preventive
maintenance program. The program, SAFETAP (Safety Appurtenance Program), involves
maintaining existing safety features and adding appropriate, implemental, low-cost safety
features at preventive maintenance project locations before, during, or after resurfacing as part of
a joint effort.
October 2007 42
The impetus for the project was the observation in the 1980s that simple resurfacing without
roadside improvements contributed to increases in the number of crashes in the 3 years
following resurfacing. The program existing at the time did include a safety screening process,
but safety improvements were not implemented so that funds would be conserved for maximizing
the number of miles resurfaced.
The SAFETAP initiative included the following elements :
• Team of auditors with the expertise to assess existing and potential crash problems,
• Review of existing crash data and a site inspection,
• Recommendations of cost-effective solutions by the audit team to agency leaders with the
responsibility for implementing crash countermeasures, and
• Reports to the Traffic Engineering and Highway Safety Division describing the disposition
of recommendations and implemented actions.
Program Implementation Issues
Given the limited resources and the competing concerns of different elements within the New
York State DOT, an implementation strategy was developed to obtain management buy-in for the
program. The chief engineer’s support was an essential factor in the program’s success. The
program was first presented to main office managers, then to regional mangers, and then to
executive management. In this manner, the supporters of the program were able to address the
concerns of affected parties.
Audit Process
Projects are selected in accordance with the criteria established for pavement resurfacing
priorities. When a site is selected, the regional director assigns an RSA team consisting of
experts from the regional traffic, design, and maintenance groups and others as appropriate. The
team analyzes crash data, makes a site visit, and develops recommendations for safety work.
The team uses a checklist for guidance in identifying potential safety issues. Safety treatments
identified include those necessary to avoid degrading safety and those that are practical and
necessary to address existing and potential safety problems. Procedures are established for
conducting the audit and reporting the audit results. The audit forms become part of the paving
project file and are also maintained at regional offices.
The timing of safety work is coordinated with the paving process on the basis of need,
complexity, and resource availability. In general, recommendations pertaining to sign
replacement are done before paving. Superlevation, shoulder treatments, and edge of pavement
drop-off-problems are addressed during the paving contract; pavement markings, rumble strips,
guiderails, delineation, fixed objects, and new signing are done during or as soon as possible
after completion of paving. Other items such as guide signing, major treatment of fixed objects,
and other features of concern not specifically covered are done in a timely manner following the
completion of paving.
October 2007 43
SAFETAP Results
During the first year of the program, 216 safety treatment sites were identified, and 107 safety
improvements were implemented. Predictions based on past safety activities were that the
program would cost from $15 to $25 million each year, would result in 1,000 fewer crashes per
year, and would result in a savings of $25 to $50 million in crash costs. The actual results after
the first few years indicated that the estimated savings were conservative. Crash reduction
occurred at more than 300 high-crash locations treated with low-cost improvements; crash
reductions ranged from 20% to 40% depending on the type of improvement implemented.
Pennsylvania
PennDOT began a pilot program of road safety audits in 1997. the goals of this program were to
answer these questions:
• Does the road safety audit process add value?

• Can the road safety audit process be implemented by using existing resources?
• Will the road safety audit process delay project delivery?
The pilot project was initiated in one district with procedures developed based on the Australian
audit model. Particular attention was paid to developing a process that differentiated the audit
process from safety reviews.
For the pilot projects, a safety audit team of five people was selected from the following six
discipline areas: traffic engineer (coordinator), construction services, project design, highway
safety maintenance, risk management, and comprehensive safety (human factors). All were in-
house, except for the human factors person. Projects to be audited were selected by the road
safety audit coordinator and the assistant district engineer for design. Eleven projects were
selected in all phases of project development. To date, 60 projects have been audited.
Typical safety issues identified in the audits included the need for left-turn lanes, daylighting of
intersections, presence of fixed objects, roadway realignment, lengths of acceleration and
deceleration lanes, pedestrian needs, and sigh distance. The estimated costs of the audits,
exclusive of the cost of the improvements, ranged from $ 2,000 to $5,000.
The recommendations developed by the audit team were submitted to the audit coordinator, who
reviewed the report, forwarded the report to the assistant district engineer for design, and met
with the project manager to discuss concerns and possible improvements.
• Maintaining a safety focus,

• Identifying safety concerns early in the design process,
• Achieving interdisciplinary cooperation,
• Developing consistency in design,
• Enhancing communication, and
• Recognizing safety improvements that were beyond the scope of the original project.
October 2007 44
The pilot projects generated a number of challenges and opportunities related to implementation
of the audit process. Some of the major challenges were time demands on the coordinator, team
members’ changing positions, the need for audits to be conducted early in the design process,
dealing with changes that affect the project’s environmental footprint, dealing with stakeholders
and controversial recommendations, identification and selection of projects to be audited, liability
concerns, and gaining buy-in from top administrators and others involved in the process.
A set of recommendations was developed that included the following :
• Get buy-in at all levels early in the process,

• Establish a coordinator’s position,
• Select an audit team that is interdisciplinary and has the required expertise,
• Provide training to team members,
• Separate the audit process from safety reviews,
• Conduct the audits early in the design process,
• Cite audit safety concerns and not provide recommendations, and
• Ensure that the process involves multiple opportunities for communication.
The pilot audit project concluded that :
• The road safety audit process definitely added value by identifying safety issues,
• Road safety audit could be completed without draining existing resources – not
accounting for the additional cost of the safety improvements that were identified, and
• Road safety audits will not affect project delivery time if conducted early in the process.
Since the pilot program, PennDOT has continued its audit program. The agency has conducted
audits in all its 11 districts. The central office has an road safety audit coordinator who provides
training to the districts. There is also an open-ended consulting contract to provide assistance to
the districts.
South Carolina
The road safety audit program in South Carolina is administered by the South Carolina DOT
safety office. The program has buy-in from top administrators, because they approved
implementation and funding for the effort. The director of safety is responsible for the overall
program administration. The program is housed in the safety program unit of the safety office and
the director of safety is responsible for the overall administration of the program. The road safety
audit coordinator handles the day-to-day operations of the program. The road safety audit
program is supported by an road safety audit advisory committee that includes the deputy state
highway engineer, the engineering directors (e.g. traffic, construction, maintenance, pre-
Construction, etc.), and the director of safety. The committee approves operating procedures for
the program and selects projects for audit.
October 2007 45
The South Carolina DOT has established a procedures manual for the audit process. The
manual includes information on the management of the process, procedures for selecting
projects to be audited, and instructions for distributing audit results.
The program is funded with federal set-aside monies. Projects are solicited annually by the road
safety audit coordinator from the deputy state highway engineers, the engineering directors, the
district engineering administrators, and the director of safety. The road safety audit coordinator
complies a list of the project’s along with additional information on the project cost and crash
history, if available. The coordinator prepares a prioritized list of recommended projects for
approval by the road safety advisory committee. Project selection includes new infrastructure
projects, projects under construction, and existing infrastructure projects. Projects include
Interstate projects, rural and urban system upgrades, and innovative projects listed in the STIP
pertaining to existing roads.
The road safety audit plan calls for 10 audits to be conducted each year; 11 audits were
conducted in 2003. Five audits were conducted on projects under construction, two on new
infrastructure projects in the final design stage, and four on existing roadways (road safety
reviews. Each audit involved a team of four to five people representing construction, road
design, traffic engineering, maintenance, and safety. The teams used checklists to aid in
conducting the audits. The teams used checklists to aid in conducting the audits. Because the
projects have not yet been finalized, benefits have not been documented. However, it is
anticipated that the response to the audit reports will address benefits.
5.1.5. Ireland
In Ireland nationally and 33 major cities in the country, the design manual procedures have
incorporated road safety audits. The road safety audit process is required for all projects
involving a change, and approximately 75 projects are audited each year. Training of auditors is
stressed in the program. The subject of international auditor training is presented in a separate
section in this chapter.
5.1.6. Italy
In 2000, a pilot program to assess road safety audits in Italy was undertaken. From 2001 to
2003, the emphasis has been on existing routes. Currently, a process is being developed to
combine crash data and safety inspections. Design stage audit road safety audits are required
for urban areas with populations of greater than 30,000 and in high-risk areas. Education is
another major area of focus.
5.1.7. Other Countries with Road Safety Audits
A number of other countries are involved in conducting road safety audits. The World Bank has
championed the use of road safety audits, providing funding for consultants, performance of
audits, and training. The following list is not intended to be all inclusive, but is provided to indicate
global acceptance of the practice. Other road safety audit participants include:
October 2007 46
• India, Thailand, and others in Southeast Asia;

• South Africa;
• Eritrea in Northeast Africa; and
• Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, The Netherlands, and Switzerland in Europe.
5.1.8. International Training
The following points primarily highlight the road safety audit training as reported at the 2003
Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) Conference on Road Safety Audits. It is
included to show the importance that various countries have placed on audit activities as well as
the level of effort. Several courses have been offered in Australia, and New Zealand has a 5-day
course. In the United Kingdom there are courses for basic and advanced audits consisting of 3-
day workshops for each; in Germany a 10-day training program over a 6-month period; and in
Ireland 3-day courses on auditor training.
Two related topics being discussed are auditor skills requirements and certification of auditors.
Several countries have skill guidelines for auditors, which are similar to those discussed
previously in the U.K. section.
October 2007 47
6. WORK ZONE SAFETY
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In the United States, in 2005, there were more than 1000 people killed and 40,000 injured in
motor vehicle traffic accidents in highway work zone. Over four out of every five of these fatalities
were motorists. This is despite the standardization of work zone areas which set by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) for both traffic control and work zone safety devices. All national
safety standards to control traffic through work zones are contained in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
No similar figures are available for India. However, India Roads Congress did bring out
‘Guidelines on Safety in Road Construction Zones’ in 2001 (IRC : SP : 55-2001).
While work zone related fatalities have been on the increase in the United States, from 717 in
1996 to 1078 in 2005, in Japan it has declined from 1001 in 1996 to 487 in 2005, as a result of
improved measures.
Other facts worth noting about work zone accidents are :
• Most of the fatalities (85% in US) were drivers and occupants of the vehicle and not the
workers.
• Over 40 percent of work zone crashes occur in the transition zone before the work area.
• Drivers not paying attention is the biggest cause of crashes.
• Speeding is the next biggest problem
• Most of the crashes were multi-vehicle crashes, 40 percent involving heavy trucks.
• Improved traffic control and speed control are the most direct method to reduce highway
work zone fatalities.
While elaborate precautionary measures are undertaken at work sites in the developed
countries, in India it is a sorely neglected area. In the United States the MUTCD procedure is not
only mandatory but it is a statutory requirement at all road work zones. The same is the case in
Europe, where work zone safety measures are a pre-requisite at any work site.
The principles that have been shown to enhance the safety of motorists and workers in the
vicinity of construction and maintenance work areas are referred to in the MUTCD as
Fundamental Principles.
The MUTCD stresses that work zones present to the motorist unexpected or unusual situations
in traffic operations and special care must be taken “in applying traffic control techniques in these
areas.” The primary management principles include the following :
October 2007 48
1. Traffic safety in construction zones should be an integral and high priority element of
every project from planning to design and to construction. Similarly, maintenance
work should be planned and conducted with the safety of the motorist, pedestrian,
and worker foremost at all times. The basic safety principles governing the design of
permanent roadways and roadsides should also govern the design of work zones.
The first principle also requires a traffic control plan be “prepared and understood by
all responsible parties before the site is occupied. “The MUTCD also requires that any
changes to the traffic control plan be approved by an official “trained in safe traffic
control practices.”
2. Traffic movement should be inhibited as little as is practical. This principle addresses

such issues as minimizing the time construction and maintenance operations occupy
the roadway, and making transitions as smooth as practicable with recognition that it
is difficult to get motorists to reduce their speed unless a real need is perceived. Thus,
zones designed for overly restrictive reductions in speeds may result in hazards for all
individuals.
3. Motorists should be guided in a clear and positive manner while approaching and
traversing work areas. Traffic control devices to guide the motorist should be installed
and old makings that are obsolete and could misled the motorist should be removed.
4. The fourth principle is extremely important. It provides for monitoring the traffic control
plan and identifying and correcting problem areas. It emphasizes the need for
reviewing and analyzing accident reports and using the expertise of the police. This
principle requires that persons “trained in traffic control should be assigned
responsibility for safety at work sites.”
5. The last principle addresses the need for constant attention to maintain roadside
safety. This includes the safe storage of equipment, materials and debris.
Little progress will be made in safety improvements until training for all involved with work zones
is provided. “Each person whose action affects maintenance and construction zone safety, from
upper level management personnel through construction and maintenance field personnel,
should receive training appropriate to the job decisions each individual is required to make”. The
management of all organizations responsible for work zone operations must be committed to this
basic concept if the hazards of work zones are to be significantly reduced.
In India, before starting the construction work, which will influence traffic, the contractor has to
get the legal permission of the road traffic authority and local police about the means and extent
of securing the work zone. The implementation of the required safety measures is, however, lax
as is its monitoring.
October 2007 49
6.2 COMPONENTS OF WORK ZONE
A road work zone also referred to as construction zone or temporary traffic control (TTC) zone is
defined as the part of a road facility influenced by works occurring on, near or above it. Besides
the area actually occupied by the roadworks, a road work zone thus defined also includes:
• the complete road section(s) where signs, markings and other roadwork-related traffic
control are effective.
• the roadside area used for the physical placement of traffic control devices and other road
equipment (such as protective devices)
• the buffer area(s) separating the work area from traffic.
A road work zone extends from the first advance warning sign through the last traffic control
device where traffic returns to its normal path and conditions.
Most work zones or temporary traffic control (TTC) zones can be divided into four areas / zones
(see figure on the next page):
October 2007 50
Component Parts of a Temporary Traffic Control Zone
October 2007 51
1. the advance warning area / zone

2. the transition area or approach transition zone
3. the activity area or working zone, and
4. the termination area or terminal transition zone
These four areas are described in more details in the following sections.
Advance Warning Area / Zone
The advance warning zone, is the area to warn the road user of the approaching hazard and to
prepare them for the change in driving conditions. It is essential for traffic control in the
construction zone. It should provide information on:
(i) the presence of the hazard through the “Road Works Ahead” sign, accompanied by
the distance to the hazard;
(ii) any changes affecting traffic arrangements (such as a reduction in the number of
lanes and / or in the speed limit) within the traffic control zone;
(iii) extent of the hazard (for example; the length of restriction); and for general
information;
(iv) the type of hazard.
The advance warning area is also where the reduction in speed of vehicles should be notified.
The drivers should be advised to reduce their speed so as to achieve the desired approach
speed before reaching the transition area. The information in this zone is conveyed through a
series of traffic signs along the length of the area. It ends at the point where the first physical
alternation of the travelled way is encountered (e.g., a narrowing).
Transition Area
The transition area is the area in which the traffic is redirected out of its normal path into the
altered traffic flow pattern preceding the activity area working. This is one of the most crucial
areas as far as safety aspects are concerned because most of the movements involved are
merging / turning movements.
The initial part of the transition area, i.e., narrowing area or taper should further reduce the
approach speed of vehicles and channel them into the narrower and / or restricted number of
lanes. The following part, i.e., stabilizing area serves the purpose of stabilizing traffic flow after
the narrowing.
The traffic is taken across the transition area mostly with the help of signs, barricades,
channelisers and pavement markings. The various types of barricades and channelisers are
discussed in detail in later paragraphs. The guiding principle for their design is that they should
convey the message clearly and unambiguously. The colour and shape of the signs should also
be as per the standards to eliminate the confusion caused by use of different signs for the same
purpose.
October 2007 52
All the signs / barricades are to be maintained properly and kept clean of dust at all times.
Sufficient stock of these should be maintained at the site so as to replace the damaged or
vandalised signs / barricades. Proper lighting arrangements for illuminating these signs must be
made during the night hours. Most of the accidents at night involve collision between vehicles
and objects rather than vehicle to vehicle collision. Reflective paints / sheets must therefore be
used for making the signs / barricades so that these are visible at all times.
Very often the road width available through the transition and the activity area that follows it is
quite insufficient for simultaneous passage of both the up and down traffic. Traffic control has,
therefore, to be provided for these areas. The control may be by manual flagging or by traffic
signals. In both the cases a waiting area with a properly demarcated stop line has to be provided
for the vehicles.
Activity Area / Working Zone
The activity area is that section of the road where the actual work activity takes place. It is
composed of :
(i) the work space

(ii) the traffic space, and
(iii) the buffer space
Work Space
The work space is that portion of the roadway closed to traffic and set aside for workers,
equipment and material. Work space may be fixed, or may move as work progresses. Long-term
work spaces are usually delineated by channelizing devices or shielded by barriers to exclude
traffic and pedestrians.
Traffic Space
The traffic space is the portion of the roadway on which traffic is routed through the activity area.
Buffer Space
The buffer space is the feature in the activity area that separates traffic flow from the work
activities or a potentially hazardous area and provides recovery space for an errant vehicle.
Neither work activity nor storage of equipment, vehicles or material should occur in this space.
Buffer spaces may be positioned longitudinally and laterally with respect to the direction of traffic
flow.
• Longitudinal Buffer Space

The longitudinal buffer space may be placed in the initial portion of a closed lane in advance
of the work space. When a protection vehicle is placed in advance of the work space, only
the space upstream of the vehicle constitutes the buffer space.
The longitudinal buffer space should be used where a closed lane separates opposing traffic
flows. Typically, it is formed as a traffic island and defined by channelizing devices.
The length of longitudinal buffer depends upon the posted speed.
October 2007 53
• Lateral Buffer Space

The lateral buffer space may be used to separate the traffic space from the work space, or a
potentially hazardous area such as an excavation or pavement drop-off. A lateral buffer
space also my be used between two travel lanes, especially those carrying opposing flows.
The width of the lateral buffer space should be determined by engineering judgment.
• Incident Management Vehicle Storage Space
When work occurs on a high-volume, highly congested facility in an urban area, it is optional
to allow space to store emergency vehicles (e.g. tow trucks) to respond quickly to traffic
incidents. The storage space is typically provided at the beginning or end of the work space,
or both. An emergency vehicle storage area should not extend into any portion of the buffer
space.
Speeds should continue to be controlled in this zone because of the close proximity of moving
construction plant and site operatives. Further, there may also be a difference in the elevation of
the road and the diverted path in this zone.
The path of the traffic must be very clearly delineated the traffic control zone to avoid vehicle
intruding into the work area. Delineators and channelisers discussed below must be used
effectively for this purpose. Where the work site uses machinery with revolving booms like cranes
or excavators the intrusion of moving parts must be taken into account when determining the
lateral clearances for the buffer or safety zone.
Termination Area / Terminal Transition Zone
The termination area / terminal transition zone (TTZ) is used to clear the work area and to return
traffic to normal traffic path. It extends from the downstream end of the work area to the sign
indicating the end of works.
A downstream or closing taper may be placed in the TTZ. It may be useful in smoothening the
flow of traffic. However, it may not be advisable when the trucks carrying material move into the
work area by reversing from the downstream end of working zone. The length of the down
stream taper may be 25-30 m.
There may be occasions when TTZ could include a transition. For example, if a taper is used to
shift traffic into opposing lanes around the work area, then the TTZ should have a taper to shift
back to its normal path. This taper would then be in the TTZ for the opposing direction of traffic.
If the construction zone is situated on a divided-carriageway, there will need to be a smaller

length termination area to return the traffic to the original lanes.
6.3 ROAD WORK ZONE SAFETY OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES
The international review of accident studies have revealed that work zone areas have, typically,
higher accident rates in comparison with equivalent non-works sections. Studies on road user
behaviour in work zones reveal that speeding, abrupt deceleration and inadequate distances
from preceding vehicles occur frequently in road work zones. Such behaviour is reasonably
characterized as high-risk behaviour and assumed to influence traffic safety negatively.
October 2007 54
Driver perception and behaviour
Road work zones constitute traffic situations that are unexpected and unusual for the majority of
drivers. The often inconsistent and sometimes inadequate implementation of road work zones
can be a source of confusion, leading to driver error and accidents. The situation is complicated
when taking into account the fact that cross-border traffic in Europe is constantly increasing,
leading to possible comprehension problems regarding verbal messages or different traffic
control conventions.
A cause of real concern regarding driver behaviour at road work zones is the fact that drivers
believe they take sufficient caution, choose the right speed and decelerate properly.
Experimental studies have shown that the majority of drivers in fact approach road work zones
driving too fast for the circumstances, and usually well above the posted speed limit. Moreover,
they do not decelerate until just before an abrupt change in the conditions (for example, a
crossover point), and then in an extremely abrupt manner.
Safety objectives
In order to avoid or mitigate road work zone safety problems, the following main safety objectives
can be defined:
• Assist road users by relevant, reliable, correctly-timed and updated information, warning
and guidance, to ensure proper adaptation of their behaviour:
¾ Inform them about traffic disruptions, restrictions and alternative routes.
¾ Warn them about the work zone and unusual conditions or hazards.
¾ Guide them to the path must be followed.
• Apply traffic regulations at the work zone to achieve appropriate driver behaviour - and
ensure the enforcement of regulations.
• Provide adequate protection for road workers (safe working environment) - as well as for
road users, especially the more vulnerable ones (avoidance of hazardous elements and
conditions).
Information, warning and guidance of road users
In general, the basic safety principles governing the design of permanent roads should also
govern the design of the road work zone areas. Transitions to sections where lower speeds are
necessary should be smooth and adequately signed. Moreover, available sight distances should
correspond to the expected operating speeds of traffic; if this cannot be achieved – for example,
if the work zone is situated near or on a bend – approaching drivers should be adequately
warned well in advance.
General prerequisites for effectiveness
To be effective in achieving the desired behaviour of road users, measures used to promote
safety at road work zones should be:
October 2007 55
1. Accurate : Safety measures should correspond closely to what will be experienced.

The presence of workers should be clearly indicated. The safety measures should
follow the evolution of works in time and space and be removed when and where they
are not needed anymore. They should provide all the necessary and critical
information in a credible manner. Moreover, they should not give conflicting
messages.
2. Properly - spaced and properly - timed : The sequence of road work zone safety
measures should be positioned with enough separation to enable road users to
process the messages decide and react. The separation of decision points for the
driver is important : as far as possible, decisions should be taken one at a time. The
required distance between successive points depends on the operational speed and
on the road type; the larger the average speed the sparser the spacing of the
messages should be. Moreover, information should be given well in advance of the
roadworks (“pre-information’), telling the road users what to expect and for how long
(in time and distance), and enabling them to be mentally prepared; this information
should also be repeated (confirmed) along the work zone. Cooperation with mass
media in publicizing work zones is important, as is informing residents and road users
(especially public transport operators).
3. Perceptible and “readable”: The road work zone should be self-explanatory; its
layout should make it obvious how to interact with workers and other road users.
Safety measures should be easily detectable and visible, to make road users act in
the desired manner and according to the given information, warnings and guidance.
4. Comprehensible : Safety measures should make obvious to the road users how they
should act. To meet the needs of the increasing cross-border traffic in Europe, it is
necessary to take into account the language problem: non-verbal information
messages are preferable to text.
5. Ensuring alertness : Since driving is, to a large extent, an “automated” behaviour (at
least concerning experienced drivers), it is important to design the approach to the
work zone so that drivers are notified that they are entering a road section requiring
more “active” driving. The actual start and end of the work zone must be identified by
appropriate elements (e.g. signs), so that motorists are aware that the utmost care is
called for – and can adjust their driving behaviour accordingly.
6. Reasonable : It is essential to prevent divided attention, distraction and mental

overload of road users. Therefore, safety measures should not be excessive. A
fundamental principle is to use “as few signs as possible but as many as
necessary. “
October 2007 56
Specific requirements for traffic control
The following requirements are important for road work zone traffic control :
• Compatibility / standardization : The general design of different types of road signs,

such as warning, regulatory and information signs should be followed at roadworks.
• Physical properties and condition : Higher – quality materials should be used for traffic
signs and markings in road work zones than in normal signing, especially in difficult
situations, such as unfavourable weather characteristics, pedestrian crossings, school
area, and night driving. Examples of such materials are fluorescent retro reflective signs
and self-adhesive retroreflective tapes. Maintaining the good quality (e.g. cleanness) of
road work signs, markings and devices is important and should be secured by procedures
and protocols for maintenance / operation.
• Minimum signing : The traffic signs that should be used as a minimum in work zones
are : (a) those that warn on the existence of the work zone (workman with shovel) ; (b)
those indicating the reduced speed limits; and (c) those showing the type of deviation (to
the right, to the left, contraflow, lane closure, etc.) caused to the normal traffic flow by the
work zone.
• Consistency with travel paths and adaptation to local situation: Signing, markings
and other safety devices used should be consistent with intended travel paths; generally,
they should be adapted to the local situation / conditions. The inconsistent signs,
markings and devices should be replaced, covered or altered to suit the circumstances –
ensuring that at all times the signing represents the prevailing conditions accurately.
• Consideration of traffic requirements : For the safety of road workers, it is important to
provide adequate space in the work and buffer areas. For this purpose, it may be
necessary to reduce the number of lanes. However, if it is possible to keep the original
number of lanes, in one or both streams – without compromising on the safety
requirements for workers – then it is preferable to avoid lane closure. In that case, the
lanes could be narrowed, without going below a specified minimum width. Lane reduction
could result not only in congestion and queuing problems (especially on higher-volume
roads) but also in increased probability of accidents, since the merging of traffic streams
constitutes a potential traffic conflict point.
Regulation and enforcement
Even if the utmost care has been taken in selecting and applying proper measures for the
warning, information and guidance of road users in work zones, it will be necessary to support
these measures with traffic regulations. In many cases, the need for regulations is self-evident,
such as – for example – in the case of alternate one-way traffic, where the remaining
carriageway width is simply too narrow for two-way flow. However, in almost all work zone cases,
certain changes in driver behaviour are necessitated for safety reasons; since drivers may not
automatically make these changes, corresponding restrictive regulations are necessary.
Typically, these regulations concern speed limits and prohibition of overtaking.
October 2007 57
Speed limits
There are several reasons why speed limits at work zones should be lower than at non-work
sections. Important factors in determining appropriate speed limits are:
• Adjustment to reduced roadway standards : Narrowed lanes, deviations (e.g. to / from

the contraflow) or reduced shoulders are common changes in highway geometry at road
work zones, necessitating lower speeds in order to avoid running off the roadway (and
colliding with fixed objects).
• Protection of road workers : Even if there is no effect on the geometric standards of the
roadway (i.e. no narrowing or deviation), the presence of workers calls for a reduction in
traffic speeds, for reducing the probability or severity of vehicle-worker collisions.
• Queuing : On motorways and other higher-volume roads, lane closures may result in
queuing, which could increase the probability of rear-end crashes due to vehicles
unexpectedly approaching a queue – unless speeds are reduced well in advance.
Speed limits should be realistic, reasonable and justifiable. Commonly, nation specific maximum
speed limits for work zones are defined. These can be adjusted downwards if necessary for
safety reasons. However, low speed limits should not be prolonged through extremely long
stretches. Moreover, to achieve smooth traffic flow, road work zone speed limit values should not
be extremely low.
It is possible to use signs that inform drivers of the upcoming speed limit reduction; these are
positioned in advance of the work zone and repeated as necessary, permitting traffic to reduce
speed comfortably to the desired level. If information signs are placed too far in advance and not
reinforced, there is a risk that they will be judged as premature by the drivers – and thus ignored
at the critical point. A recommended technique is to use successive, gradually – reduced speed
limits, in properly – spaced steps of no more than 20 km/h.
The layout of roadworks and the feedback given when passing should contribute to low speed
levels. Motorists’ acceptance of (and compliance to) speed limits may be enhanced through:
• compatible dimensioning (reduction) of lane width;

• dynamic speed limits adaptable to the situation (e.g. through variable – message signs);
• wall-like portable systems at the edges of the reduced-width carriageways or lanes;
• techniques such as “convoy-working” or “pace cars”, giving drivers no choice other than
to travel at the required speed.
Enforcement is an important accompanying measure for supporting speed limit regulation; it is

discussed later separately.
October 2007 58
Overtaking prohibitions
Overtaking prohibitions are necessary in cases where it is important that vehicles should stay in
their lane. Examples of such cases include:
• Narrowing and / or transition areas of multi-lane roads, such as motorways to avoid side-
swipe accidents.
• Contraflow areas without physical separation of the opposing traffic streams to avoid
head-on collisions.
Overtaking prohibitions are applied by using the no-overtaking sign and / or continuous road
markings.
Enforcement
Enforcement at a road work zone may concern various aspects of driver behaviour but is
primarily focused on traffic speed. Even if work zone speed limits are appropriately chosen, there
is still the danger that a significant proportion of drivers will ignore them, or that other important
traffic rules, such as overtaking prohibitions, will be disregarded.
Protection
At road work zones, protection is necessary against a number of risks and hazards, including:
• Different types of collisions, involving traffic participants, road workers and / or works
vehicles.
• Obstacles within the work area, such as trucks, materials and construction machines
• Other hazards within the work area, such as removed surface or holes for the renewal of
cables
• Emergency situations, disabled vehicles or dealing with run-off-road incidents
Protection is applied by means of the following types of measures:
• Protective road equipment
• Provision and maintenance of roadside recovery areas / buffers
• Proper design of entering / exiting areas – where possible, using dedicated slip roads and
parking spaces
• Provision of adequate space for pedestrian movement
• Appropriate storage of works vehicles, material, debris etc.
• Preventing obstruction of sight lines
• Warning clothing for road workers
• Safe design of works vehicles (e.g. equipping them with rear-view cameras or audio
warning devices)
• Safe operation of works vehicles
October 2007 59
Protection of road workers is of special importance. The road as a working place should be
ranked equal with other working places. The following principles are important regarding the
safety of road workers:
1. Avoid exposure of workers to traffic : the risks for collisions with through traffic are
large when work is done outside the work area. When it is necessary to proceed
outside the work area, one should always carefully estimate the traffic amount and
wait for a quiet movement. While working it is important to face the through traffic as
much as possible; this applies especially when setting up or dismantling a work zone.
In addition, flagging or hand-signalling practices should be avoided.
2. Make workers visible to road users : both by ensuring adequate visibility for drivers
and by providing suitable clothing (e.g. retroreflective fluorescent jackets) for road
workers.
3. Provide physical protection of workers from traffic : Even in short-term road work
zones, buffer zones should be foreseen as a minimum. Work should not begin before
all the foreseen safety measures have been installed.
4. Protect workers from accidents involving works vehicles : The movements of

works vehicles – either within the work area or while entering / exiting the work area –
should be adequately perceived by workers. An especially critical manoeuvre of works
vehicles is reversing – this should be carried out only when all-round visibility is
assured. Exposure of workers to works vehicles should be avoided.
5. Avoid excessive work hours : European and national legal requirements regarding
work hours (and working conditions in general ) must be observed. Fatigue can
contribute to increased risk for road workers.
6.4 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
6.4.1. General
Traffic control devices are the equipment and installations over and on the road, which
individually and collectively perform the following tasks:
(i) warn the road user;
(ii) inform the road user;
(iii) guide the road user;
(iv) modify road user behaviour;
(v) protect the road user and the vehicle;
(vi) ensure safe passage to the road user; and
(vii) provide a safe working area.
October 2007 60
A traffic control device in order to be effective should,
(i) fulfil the intended need;
(ii) command attention and respect of road users;
(iii) convey the message in a simple and clear manner;
(iv) allow adequate time for proper response from road users; and
(v) have adequate conspicuity both in day and night.
The primary traffic control devices used in work zones are signs, delineators, barricades, cones,
pylons, pavement markings and flashing lights. The following general rules should apply to all
traffic control devices within the traffic control zone.
(i) Comprehension : All traffic control should be capable of being easily understood. A
particular device must convey one and only one meaning. Good and clean condition
of the device aids comprehension.
(ii) Visibility and Stability : Devices should be within the cone of vision of the driver and
be placed such that it allows adequate response time at the average approach speed
or the desired speed through the traffic control zone. All traffic control devices should
be clearly visible both by day and night, at these speeds and under the usually
prevailing climatic conditions. They should be kept properly aligned and legible at all
times. Foliage or any other obstruction should not be allowed to impede the view of
these devices, nor should wind, road dirt or the like be allowed to obscure their face.
The traffic control devices must be able to resist the local wind pressure, rain and the
vibrations etc. of the passing traffic but these should not act as rigid obstacles in the
event of a collision;
(iii) Installation and Removal : All traffic control devices should be installed for the
minimum required time. Traffic control devices by their nature are a hindrance to the
normal traffic flow and should be removed immediately after the need, being met by
these is fulfilled. Existing devices like signs or lane markings should be removed
during the temporary works and reinstated thereafter or covered while the temporary
devices are in operation. The installation and removal of the temporary traffic control
devices and the reinstatement of the pre-existing or new (where the scheme improves
the road) traffic control devices must, therefore, be meticulously supervised to ensure
the minimum period when there are no signs or markings; and
(iv) Maintenance : All traffic control devices must be serviced and maintained correctly.
Spare devices, parts or paints for road markings must be available at site during the
entire period of construction.
October 2007 61
6.4.2. Signs
The Road construction and maintenance signs fall into the same three major categories as do
other traffic signs, that is Regulatory Signs, Warning Signs and Direction (or Guidance) Signs.
The IRC : 67 - 2001 (Code of Practice for Road Signs) provides a list of traffic signs. Where
possible, the size, colours and placement of sign should conform to IRC : 67 - 2001. This also
covers signs that are not included in IRC : 67 - 2001 but are considered desirable to aid drivers’
comprehension of the route through the road works. Each sign should be well located so that its
message is seen and is clear, which will be assisted if the surroundings are devoid of
“unnecessary” signs and other clutter. These signs should be of retroreflective sheetings of high
intensity grade or engineering grade depending upon the importance of the road as directed by
the Engineer.
The correct positioning and size of sign will ensure that it can be observed and recognised,
thereby providing the driver with more time to react and take action.
The following principles should govern the positioning of signs:
(i) their location should have clear visibility;
(ii) they should be so placed that driver would have adequate time for responses;
(iii) as a general rule, signs should be placed on the left-hand side of the road. Where
special emphasis is required, duplicate signs should be installed on the left and right
side of roadway. In case of hill roads, the signs shall generally be fixed on the valley
side of the road unless traffic and road conditions warrant these to be placed on the
hill side; and
(iv) the signs should be covered or removed when they are not required.
On kerbed roads, the extreme edge of the sign adjacent to the road shall not be less than 600
mm away from the edge of the kerb. On un-kerbed roads, the extreme edge of the sign adjacent
to the road shall be at a distance of two to three metre away from the edge of the carriageway
depending on location conditions but in no case, shall any part of sign come in the way of
vehicular traffic. Where signs are in position for some time and pedestrians are expected, the
lower edge of the lowest sign (plate) should not be less than two metre above the surface on
which it stands. Where pedestrians are not expected, signs may be mounted on trestles (tripod)
but during wet conditions should be mounted away from the traffic “splash” zone so that they do
not become obscured by dirt. Trestle mounted signs are particularly for short temporary works.
These should be so placed that pedestrians movements are not obstructed. In urban conditions,
it may not be possible to erect new sign poles in footways crowed with public utilities and “A”
frames may be the only alternative. Signs for longer terms works should follow normal rules for
the mounting of permanent signs.
October 2007 62
Regulatory signs
Regulatory signs impose legal restriction on all traffic. It is essential, therefore, that they are used
only after consulting the local police and traffic authorities. The most likely type of regulatory
signs to be used in traffic control zones are: STOP, Give Way, Do Not Enter, One Way, Straight
Prohibited, Vehicles Prohibited in Both Directions, Left Turn Prohibited, Right Turn Prohibited, ‘U’
Turn Prohibited, Overtaking prohibited, No Parking, No Stopping and No Standing, Keep Left,
Compulsory Left Turn, Compulsory Right Turn, Compulsory Straight, Compulsory Straight or
Right Turn, Compulsory Straight or Left Turn, Priority to Vehicles in Other Direction, Priority to
Vehicles in this Direction, Weight Limit, Axle Limit, Height Limit, Length Limit, Restriction Ends,
Speed Limit.
Various other signs that are needed to regulate traffic may be required which have not been
standardised. They should confirm with the general requirements of shape and colour, and their
message should be brief, legible and clearly understandable. These signs are mostly round in
shape.
Warning signs
Warning signs in the traffic control zone are utilised to warn the drivers of specific hazards that
may be encountered. Drivers should be altered to potential hazards in sufficient time to adjust
their movement and speed. The most common type of warning signs for the use in the traffic
control zone are: Men At Work, Road Narrows (Single File Traffic), Right Lane Diverted, Left
Lane Diverted, Right Lane Closed, Left Lane Closed, Right Lane Closed, Median Closed,
Diversion to Other Carriageway, Traffic Signal Ahead, Two Way Traffic, Rough Road, Slippery
Road, Loose Chippings, Divided Road and Divided Road Ends.
Wherever it would be advisable to make the meaning of a sign suitable and more explicit, an
inscription is placed below the sign in a rectangular definition plate of width appropriate to the
size of warning triangle. Definition/supplementary plate has white background and black letters
and black border 20 mm wide. This definition plate is placed (below) 150 mm from the bottom of
the triangle.
Table : Minimum sightline distances and the minimum size of the signs
Distance of first sign Minimum number of

Size of warning sign
Av. Speed km/h in advance of the first signs in advance of
(mm)
channelising device in the hazard
Under 50 100 600 3

51 - 60 100 - 300 750 3
61 - 80 120 - 300 900 3 or 4
81 - 100 300- 500 1200 4
Over 100 1000 1200 to 1500 4
October 2007 63
In case of divided carriageways, the signs should be provided both adjacent to the shoulder and
on the central median so as to be visible from all lanes. Larger sign sizes than IRC : 67 are
recommended for higher speed roads.
Direction signs : Direction or Guide signs are required at traffic control zones to provide the
necessary information and guidance for the alternative route and work being done. These signs
are mostly rectangular and have black letters, arrows on yellow (Indian Standard Colour No. 368:
Traffic Yellow, of IS : 5 - 1978) background. The commonly used guide signs are : Diversion,
Detour Traffic.
6.4.3. Delineators
The delineators are the elements of a total system of traffic control and have two distinct
purposes:
(i) To delineate and guide the driver to and along a safe path.
(ii) As a taper : to move traffic from one lane to another.
These channelising devices such as cones, traffic cylinders, tapes, drums are placed in or
adjacent to the roadway to control the flow of traffic. These should normally be retro-reflectorised.
Some delineators for the roadway edges have been discussed in IRC:79 - 1981 (Recommended
Practice for Road Delineators). Other delineators are discussed below.
Traffic cones and cylinders
Traffic cones are 500 mm, 750 mm and 1000 mm high and 300 mm to 500 mm in diameter or in
square shape at base and are often made of plastic or rubber and normally have retro-
reflectorised red and white band. Their advantages are that they :
(i) cause minor impediments to traffic flow and capacity,
(ii) are well recognised and understood, without damaging vehicle when hit,
(iii) can be easily stored and transported,
(iv) can be fastened to the pavement and self-restoring when hit.
Their disadvantages are that they have minimal respect of drivers, can be equally penetrated,
displaced and knocked over and require special treatment for night times.
Cones and cylinders are easily blown over or displaced unless their bases are loaded with ballast
or anchored. It may, therefore, be sometimes necessary to double the cones in order to provide
added weight, use the cones with special weighted bases, use heavier weighted cones or use
weights such as sand bag rings to provide increased stability but this weight should not present a
hazard. The cones should be placed close enough together to give an impression of continuity.
The spacing of cones should be 3m (close) or 9 m (normal) or 18 m (wide). Where cones have to
be used at between 450 and 900 to the line of traffic, their spacing should be 1.2 m. Larger size
cones should be used where speeds are relatively high or wherever more conspicuous guidance
is needed.
October 2007 64
Drums
Drums about 800 mm to 1,000 mm high and 300 mm in diameter can be used as either
channelising on warning devices. These are highly visible, give the appearance of being
formidable objects and therefore command the respect of drivers.
The drums are normally metal drums e.g. empty bitumen drums cut to the required height. They
can be made of plastic also. Plastic drums are lighter, pose fewer hazards to vehicles and
workers and can be needed for easy transportation and storage and generally have one or more
flat sides to preclude rolling. Drums may be filled up with earth or sand for stability. They are be
painted in circumferential stripes of alternate black and white of 100 mm to 150 mm width. Drums
should be reflectorised for use at night and should never be placed in the roadway without
advance warning signs.
Barricades
Barricades are intended to provide containment without significant deflection or deformation

under impact and to redirect errant vehicles along the barrier. They are designed to be easily
relocated and have four specific functions to :
(i) prevent traffic from entering work areas, such as excavations or material storage
sites;
(ii) provide protection to workers;
(iii) separate two-way traffic; and
(iv) protect construction such as false work for culverts and other exposed objects.
Barricades can be portable or permanent. Portable barricades should be stable under adverse
weather conditions and appear substantial but not so much as to cause excessive damage to the
vehicle if they are struck. Types I and II are portable whereas Type III is permanent.
Table : Barricades characteristics
Type/Components I II III
Width of Rail 200 mm - 300 mm 200 mm - 300 mm 200 mm - 300 mm

Length of Rail 2 m - 2.5 m 1 m - 1.2 m 1 m min. - variable max.
Width of Strip 200 mm 200 mm 200 mm
Type of Frame Heavy ‘A’ Frame Light ‘A’ Frame Fixed, Demountable
Flexibility Essentially movable Essentially movable Essentially Permanent
October 2007 65
The horizontal members of Type I and II barricades may be of wooden planks, metal or other
suitable material. These should be 300 mm wide and should be painted in alternate yellow and
white stripes of 150 mm width. The stripes should slope away at an angle of 45 degrees in the
direction traffic is to pass. Where the barricade extends entirely across the carriageway, the
stripes should slope downward towards the direction the traffic must turn in detouring. Where
both left and right turns are provided for, the chevron stripes should slope downward in both
directions from the centre of the barricade. The entire area of chevrons should be reflectoised so
as to be visible from safe distance. Type I or Type II barricades shall be used when traffic is
redirected. These barricades can be used inter-changeably, and are more useful in repair work
that is generally initiated on emergency basis. The support should be of an “A” frame
configuration or hinged or otherwise flattened at the top to permit convenient folding and stacking
for transportation. Since these barricades are susceptible to overturning in wind, their stability
can be improved through ballast.
Type III barricade is the permanent type and can be made of wood, metal or other suitable
material like masonry. These are erected at the point of closure when a road section is closed to
traffic on construction projects. They may extend completely across a roadway and its shoulders
or from kerb to kerb. Where provision must be made for the access of construction and
supervision vehicles, type III barricade must be provided with a gate or movable section (e.g. of
drums) that can be opened and / or closed as required. Signs such as ‘ROAD CLOSED’ and
‘DETOUR ARROW’ should be erected on the fixed barricades.
Where the works are to be undertaken which will continue for some time or where the space is
limited and there is a need for the protection of the work force, particularly where the speed of
passing traffic section of a New Jersey Barrier or rectangular and they are some 1.5 m to 2.0 m
long with shaped ends that can be interlocked and connected. Plastic barriers available in
trapezoidal shape of about 80 cm to 100 cm length can also be tried. Their use should be
carefully controlled until more experience is gained with them but they offer advantages to the
workforce will feel more secure. They will enable narrow traffic lanes and buffer zones to be
employed where space is a premium and vehicle speed likely to be high.
6.4.4. Flagmen
The control of traffic through work area is an essential part of road construction and maintenance
operations. Flagmen with hand signalling devices such as flags and sign paddles play crucial role
in this direction. Red Flags, STOP, SLOW paddles and lights are used in controlling traffic
through work areas.
Flags used for signalling should be minimum 600 mm by 600 mm in size, made of a good red
cloth and securely fastened to a staff of approximately 1 m in length. Sign paddles should be at
least 600 mm wide and provided with a rigid handle. The background colour of STOP is red and
its shape is octagonal conforming to IRC: 67 - 2001. The word STOP is in white, in the middle of
the sign. The background of SLOW is yellow with black letters and borders.
October 2007 66
Since Flagmen are responsible for human safety, it is important that qualified personnel be
selected. A flagmen should have at least average intelligence, be mentally alert and in good
physical condition. He should have the sense of responsibility for the safety of public and
workmen and therefore, be cautious but firm in manners. The use of yellow vest and / or yellow
cap is desirable for flagmen. The flagmen at the work sites are expected to stop traffic
intermittently and to maintain continuous traffic past a work site at reduced speeds to help protect
the workmen. For both of these functions, the flagmen must, at all times be clearly visible to
approaching traffic for a distance sufficient to permit proper response by the drivers to the
flagging instructions and to permit traffic to reduce speed before entering the work site. This
distance is basically related to approach speed and site conditions; however 60 m to 100 m is
desirable. In urban areas, this distance shall be reduced to 20 m to 50 m.
6.4.5. Layout
Though each construction zone will pose unique problems depending upon the situation, the
work zone safety layout will have to be tailor made for each situation, and will be influenced by:
(i) environment : rural, urban;
(ii) type of carriageway such as single lane, two lanes, four lanes, multi lanes, divided
carriageway;
(iii) traffic volume and speed with and without work in progress on road;
(iv) type of traffic such as mixed or segregated;
(v) available sight distance in construction zone; and
(vi) mobility of work zone, that is, for minor pot hole repair, lane marking, etc., the workers
an equipment may move along the road.
(vii) location of the work
(viii) duration of work
A typical example for the layout of signs and control devices for change in carriageway usage is
shown on the Figure on the next page.
October 2007 67
Layout of signs and control devices for change in carriageway usage
October 2007 68
7. ROAD SAFETY MONITORING ROLE OF UPPWD
A Road Safety Policy for Uttar Pradesh was adopted by the U.P. State Road Safety Council
(SRSC) at their meeting on 20th September, 2005. Incidentally, this was the first meeting of the
SRSC, in eight years. This is a reflection of the priority that the State places on road safety. The
adopted policy addressed eleven issues, of which the following directly concern U.P.P.W.D. and
is relevant to this Report, and is reproduced below:
ROAD SAFETY INFORMATION DATABASE
Policy Statement
The Government will establish a state-wide road safety information system. In doing this
the government will seek increased help and assistance for the Union Government as
provided for in the National Road Safety Policy.
Strategies
1. Improve the reporting of important details at the scene of the accident shortly
after the occurrence of the accident.
2. Improve the storage and accessibility of all data relevant to an accident such as
vehicles person involved, and road environment.
3. Contribute to the development of the comprehensive road safety information

database included in the National Road Safety Policy.
October 2007 69
SAFER ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
Policy Statement
The Government will undertake additional steps to promote road safety measures at
local as well as at state level. Safety conscious planning and design of roads and road
network will be encouraged whilst undertaking new as well as up gradation and
rehabilitation road schemes through application of road safety audits. Continuing
application of ITS to achieve a safe and efficient transport system will be encouraged.
Strategies
1. Review the design standards, codes, guidelines, etc. access and development
control procedures currently in use in the state and ensure best practices in road
safety are incorporated and also develop highway maintenance guidelines to
ensure that there is no deterioration of road safety during the ‘life’ of the road.
2. To facilitate quality improvement of practicing highway engineers on various road

safety aspects through training and dissemination of appropriate road safety
knowledge.
3. Adopt accident reduction strategies for existing roads through black spot
improvement programmes.
4. Require all proposed new and rehabilitation road schemes to be checked from a
safety perspective for all types of road users during the planning and design
stages through Road Safety Audit.
ROAD TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Policy Statement
The Government will encourage all professionals undertaking road design, road
construction, road network management, traffic management and law enforcement to
obtain adequate knowledge of road safety issues
Strategies
Planning, designing and implementing training programmes for various specific

professional groups having responsibility of road safety management such as traffic
personnel, highway engineers, town planners etc.
The U.P. Road Safety Study, in their analysis of the organisations examined the strengths and
weaknesses of institutions delivering road safety sub-tasks in Uttar Pradesh. The following tasks
/ activities related to UPPWD are of interest to this Report :
October 2007 70
Tasks / Activities Weaknesses
1. Presence of Road Safety in the mind-set of • Dormant, not reflected in the project
key decision planning,
• Not reflected in the organisational
structure design; no specific staff for
Road Safety, Road Safety Audit
2. Use of Road Safety Audit on the existing • Not being carried out
roads
3. Sanction of projects submitted for black • Not sanctioned

spot mitigation measures (Subordinate • Separate allocation of budget for Road
staff prepared and submitted schemes) Safety not there
4. Reflections of claimed knowledge on Road • Random Road Safety Audit reveals

Safety in the existing roads presence of a large number and types of
defects affecting Road Safety
5. Mitigating measures projects programmed • WB project is the first effort where this
would start.
6. Change in the task space • Confined to traditional area of

constructing bridges and roads
• Areas such as traffic engineering, super
highways, and traffic signalling yet to be
undertaken
7. Changes in the major procedures followed • No separate detailed and recorded

appraisals of project reports from
engineering, cost and Road Safety
angles.
8. Changes in the work culture • Only Rajkiya Nirman Nigam/Bridge

Corporation and UPSHA have changed
work cultures.
• PWD has only opened new divisions for
existing projects funded by the World
Bank (roads, sodic). These are
somewhat open-minded, energetic and
using innovative inputs from outside
agencies
9. Effectiveness of PWD in Road Safety • Yet to undertake the task in all

earnestness
October 2007 71
The above clearly shows that ‘road safety’ is a component missing from the function of UPPWD,
even though it has such a profound affect upon the lives of road users and even on the public at
large such as pedestrians.
Unfortunately, this is not unique to Uttar Pradesh alone. At the International Seminar on Highway
Safety Management & Devices, New Delhi, November 1998, this type of situation was found to
be prevailing all over India. Road safety is neglected at every stage of road’s life span, beginning
from planning, design, construction, maintenance to operation of the facility. As an outcome of
the Seminar, seventeen recommendations were made, which are included in Annexure ‘E’. Of
these seventeen, the following recommendations are relevant to this Report:
1. Professionals to incorporate road safety features in the design.
2. Road safety audit must be made mandatory fro all road project at the design stage.
3. Accident black spots should be identified and schemes formulated to improve the
features of the road at those sports.
4. Accident reporting containing necessary information should be developed in English

as well as in regional languages. This accident data may be collected at district level,
state level and compiled in form of data bank at central level.
5. The primary accident data should be collected and stored at regional levels and
coordinated at control level by a nodal agency. Further, network coding with grid
coordinates for easy referencing of accident locations on Survey of India maps be
prepared using Global Positioning System (GPS).
6. Traffic Safety Management during construction is a neglected area in the country

now. The situation must be remedied by making suitable provisions in the contract
agreements for road construction projects making it mandatory for the contracting
agency to observe safety procedures.
7. Safety devices such as traffic signs, traffic signals, delineators, barricades, impact
attenuators, crash barriers and reflectorised road markings should be included in all
roads.
8. Certain percentage of budget provision should be dedicated exclusively for safety.
9. Recent technical advances in the area of Intelligent Transport System (ITS) must be
utilised in traffic management in the country.
In most of the developed countries, their road traffic acts specify that local highway / road
authorities must provide a road safety service. In other words, they must try to prevent as well as
to cure road accidents. Road authorities have to provide an infrastructures corresponding to the
latest state of safety, albeit within budgeting constraints. Road users are paying more attention to
the quality and level of safety of roads. Road authorities can be sued by citizens who have
suffered injuries in road accidents.
October 2007 72
Present road designs result from many decades of experience in road construction and
maintenance, in a time when safety issues were not always considered to the same extent.
Today several road features no longer meat the latest safety requirements. Moreover, traffic
conditions may have changed since the road was designed and built. While roads are usually
designed according to criteria concerning urban or regional planning travel time, user comfort
and convenience, construction cost and environmental impact, safety is often implicitly assumed
to be achieved by simply adhering to prescribed standards of alignment and layout. Experience
shows that abiding by those standards is not sufficient to avoid hazardous features. According to
a recent study, in the European Union, road infrastructure and design are a contributing factor in
one out of three fatal accidents. Therefore, in order to increase safety of road infrastructures, the
Commission of European Communities introduced a comprehensive system of road
infrastructure safety management focusing on the following four procedures :
• Road safety impact assessments

• Road safety audits
• Network safety management
• Safety inspections
The objective of this package of instruments is to ensure that safety is integrated in all phases of
planning, design and operation of road infrastructure. It will ensure that safety is regarded in its
own right and separately from economic and environmental analysis. A Directive to this effect
was issued to all member countries in 2006.
In India, the right to life is guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court of
India has held that Article 21 casts an obligation on the State to preserve life. Where it is found
that the State, through its engineers and road planners has been negligent in designing roads,
highways and structures etc., it can be held liable under the Tort Law for negligence. The State
cannot escape its liability in Tort even if it is the contractor or the engineer who is found guilty to
have been responsible for ‘faulty’ road construction.
While the State, engineers, road planners etc. can be held liable in tort law for committing a
wrongful act or for omitting to do an act, the above can also be sued in Contract Law under the
principle of Vicarious Liability where the road designing and construction have not conformed to
specifications made in the contract between the State and the road designers and builders.
There is a third situation in Tort Law under which the State, engineers, road designers and
planners can be held liable in case of accidents caused due to the faulty construction of roads,
flyovers etc. This third situation is governed by the principle of absolute liability which has been
propounded by the Supreme Court applicable to whoever is engaged in any hazardous activity.
The principle of absolute liability can also be extended to road construction cases because
engaging in road construction is a hazardous activity. And, if while engaging in the hazardous
activity, road accidents are caused, or after the construction is complete accidents are caused,
due to some ‘faulty’ designing or construction, the State along with the engineers and road
designers can be held liable on the principle of Absolute Liability.
October 2007 73
The principle of absolute liability is a creature of Indian jurisprudence and its application is more
strict in nature than the application of the principle of strict liability under the English Law.
It must be mentioned here that the ‘duty to take care’ in road designing and construction activity
continues from the time the project is conceived until its completion and continues, even after
that, in matters involving maintenance and repair.
Apart from holding the road planners liable under Civil Law (as explained above) they can also
incur criminal liability under the criminal law of the country for endangering human life, affecting
public health and safety and for creating public nuisance (Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and
the Indian Penal 1860 Code).
Uttar Pradesh PWD should provide the following services in order to fulfil its role in the scheme
of road safety in the State. It should have staff on its roles who are competent in and capable of
providing there services :
7.1 HEAD QUARTERS

• To help develop the Uttar Pradesh Road Safety Code / Manual obtain the approval of the
state government through the SRSC and SRSB and publish its short and simple versions
for different users.
• To formulate road safety action plans for the State and where necessary for city and local
levels conforming to state road safety policies.
• To monitor and review the implementation of the road safety action plans.
• To evaluate and report effectiveness of road safety action plans and to submit proposals
for newer initiatives on road safety to the SRSC and SRSB.
• To identify areas of research on different aspects of road safety, to appraise research
proposals from carefully selected and competent research institutions / researchers and
to allocate resources for their prosecution and to ensure the utilization of their findings in
recalibrating road safety plans.
• To help organize road safety audit/ review training to the Engineering officials of all the
departments / agencies engaged in the formulation, planning, construction and
maintenance of roads in the state and to act as source of advanced / newer information
for them on road safety audit / review.
• To assess current needs of road safety data management system by making a need
analysis to define the system architecture of Road Accident Analysis System (RAAS) and
specify the details of data collection, data entry, data management and quality control,
data security, data analysis, frequency and types of standard reports (ranging from 24
hour reports to annual reports), report distribution, and access conditions.
• To help implement the RAAS in key Departments (i.e. Traffic Police, Transport, PWD,
etc.) / agencies of the State of Uttar Pradesh by either obtaining it from others or through
customized development of a computerized road accident analysis system.
• To help filling of available data in to RAAS.
October 2007 74
• To arrange training to concerned staff in the use and maintenance of RAAS.

• To help analyze compiled data and help its use in formulating new / recasting current
road safety action plans.
• To undertake any other road safety related responsibility on the directions of the SRSC
and SRSB.
7.2 ZONAL / FIELD OFFICE

• To liaise with district police authorities to improve accident data collection.
• To obtain, review and analyze accident data to identify black spots
• To inspect black spots, analyze the problem, identify cause (s) of accidents, recommend
remedial countermeasures.
• To ensure that funds for remedial measures are requested and obtained and remedial
measures are carried out.
• To monitor the countermeasures sites to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of
measures.
• To design package focusing on the traffic planning in different districts from the present
haphazard to the ones based on specific data of specific geographical unit and its traffic
load, direction, mode mix, destinations, convergence of different modes of transport at
different geographical locations, and capacities of the public and private sector service
providers.
• To advise and assist in development and implementation of specific traffic management
plans and traffic signaling management plans for different districts in consultation with
the officers of the Transport, Traffic Police, and concerned Municipal / local authorities
with the objective of reducing accident rates and facilitating smoother movement of
vehicles, goods and other flows.
• To carry out competent and unbiased road safety audit / review of national, state
highways and major district roads in a phased manner and to recommend the specific
mitigating measures for each road safety audit / review.
• To oversee the technical appropriateness of the exercise of road safety audit / review of
national, state highways and major district roads by the farmed/ contracted agencies.
• To liaise with the concerned road maintenance department / agencies to prepare action
plans and implement the mitigating recommendations made in the specific road safety
audit / review reports and to review their non-acceptance by the concerned agencies.
• To monitor the implementation of the recommended mitigating measures and to ensure
their compliance if monitoring indicates any deviations from the set of steps
recommended in road safety audit / review report.
• To implement and monitor work zone safety plans
October 2007 75
The PWD must have expertise on its staff to fulfil the above-mentioned role. This would require
the services of the staff who is knowledgeable in traffic engineering, accident data analysis and
road safety audit. This expertise needs to be available both at the head quarter and in the field.
In view of the specialized nature of the work this expertise can be made available only at zonal
level, which should be adequate to take care of the anticipated work land.
The PWD is expected to be a major player in road safety in the State and is thus have a seat at
the proposed State Road Safety Council (SRSC) and State Road Safety Board (SRSB). In order
to protect the interest of UPPWD. It needs to have a senior and knowledgeable representation at
the State level. Therefore, the recommendation contained in Report No. 12 (Report on
Establishing a Dedicated PWD Road Safety Planning and Engineering Unit at Head Quarters) is
reiterated here, that :
1. The Road Safety Unit should be headed by a Superintending Engineer at Head

Quarters.
2. There should be a senior and experienced Assistant Engineer in each zone to look
after road safety issues.
Few people working in road safety have had any formal or comprehensive training in safety.
They may have been trained in associated disciplines, such as civil engineering or traffic
engineering. However, in the traffic course most of the time will be devoted to capacity and delay,
in highway design course to geometric design standards. The road safety consequences, i.e., the
crash frequency and severity that will follow of their engineering design decision will not be
mentioned. Therefore, it is necessary that they should attend training courses designed for this
specific purpose. This is the subject of Report No. 36. (To Provide Program for PWD Training for
Skill Enhancement Based on Training Needs Assessment)
It is expected that after completion of training the engineer should be able to undertake a safety
audit, accident investigation and assess potential user risks. He should also possess the ability to
visualise 3-dimensional layout from 2-dimensional plans.
October 2007 76
8. FOCUS GROUP DELIBERATIONS : ROAD SAFETY POLICY FOR U.P.
The Focus Group met on September 18, 2007 and agreed in principle with the Report. It,
however, asked the Consultants to propose a Road Safety Policy for U.P., and provide
examples, if any, from other state(s) of their policies. This is being done as below.
The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways developed an 11- point Draft National Road Safety
Policy. Though submitted to the National Road Safety Council in January, 2005, the policy is yet
to be finalized.
A Draft Road Safety Policy for Uttar Pradesh was prepared based, on the Draft National Policy,
and was presented at a Workshop held on July 4, 2005 attended by more than 170 stakeholders.
After incorporating the comments received, the proposed Road Safety Policy for Uttar Pradesh
was adopted by the U.P. State Road Safety Council on September 20, 2005. Since then,
however, no progress has been made to put it through the legislature and get it approved as the
government policy.
Like Uttar Pradesh, the Draft National Road Safety Policy (Annexure F) has also been the basis
for the Draft Road Safety Policy for Sikkim (Annexure G). The proposed Policy, adopted by the
UP State Road Safety Council is as follows:
October 2007 77
9. PROPOSED ROAD SAFETY POLICY FOR UTTAR PRADESH
9.1 RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT ROAD SAFETY ISSUES
Policy Statement
The Government will make increased efforts to promote awareness about the seriousness of the
road safety problem, its social and economic implications and the necessity to curb the rising
menace of road accident. This will facilitate various stakeholders to play their rightful role in
promoting road safety.
Strategies
1. Raising awareness among key decision-makers and stakeholders to facilitate them for
planning and promoting road safety.
2. Raising awareness about the gravity of road safety issues among all citizens of the
state to enable them to treat it as an important state problem.
3. To enlighten the various road user groups with respect to their roles and
responsibility.
9.2 PROVIDING ENABLING LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL

ENVIRONMENT FOR ROAD SAFETY
Policy Statement
The government will clarify the institutional responsibilities for the various stakeholders in road
safety and take appropriate measures to ensure that the required legal, institutional and financial
environment for road safety is put in place. The reforms in these areas would take into account
an active and extensive participation of the community at large and of private and business
sector as well as of NGOs.
Strategies
1. To create enabling legal framework for road safety at all levels.
2. To create enabling institutional framework for managing road safety.
3. To create enabling financial framework for road safety
October 2007 78
9.3 ROAD SAFETY INFORMATION DATABASE
Policy Statement
The Government will establish a state-wide road safety information system. In doing this the
government will seek increased help and assistance for the Union Government as provided for in
the National Road Safety Policy
Strategies
1. Improve the reporting of important details at the scene of the accident shortly after the
occurrence of the accident.
2. Improve the storage and accessibility of all data relevant to an accident such as
vehicles person involved, and road environment.
9.4 SAFER ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
Policy Statement
The Government will undertake additional steps to promote road safety measures at local as well
as at state level. Safety conscious planning and design of roads and road network will be
encouraged whilst undertaking new as well as up gradation and rehabilitation road schemes
through application of road safety audits. Continuing application of ITS to achieve a safe and
efficient transport system will be encouraged.
Strategies
1. Review the design standards, codes, guidelines, etc. access and development control
procedures currently in use in the state and ensure best practices in road safety are
incorporated and also develop highway maintenance guidelines to ensure that there is
no deterioration of road safety during the ‘life’ of the road.
2. To facilitate quality improvement of practicing highway engineers on various road

safety aspects through training and dissemination of appropriate road safety
knowledge.
3. Adopt accident reduction strategies for existing roads through black spot improvement
programmes.
4. Require all proposed new and rehabilitation road schemes to be checked from a
safety perspective for all types of road users during the planning and design stages
through Road Safety Audit.
October 2007 79
9.5 SAFER VEHICLES
Policy Statement
The Government will take steps to increase the effectiveness of the control of operation and
maintenance standards and the means by which it can be assured in order to minimize adverse
safety and environmental effects of vehicle operation on road users and infrastructure.
Strategies
1. To promote the statutory periodic inspection as an essential check on the

roadworthiness of all vehicles.
2. To minimize adverse contribution of vehicle conditions on roads and road users.
3. Adopt more stringent standards for the registration and use of agricultural vehicles
and trailers.
9.6 SAFER DRIVERS
Policy Statement
The Government will continue to encourage the provision of infrastructure and tools for setting up
proper driver training. Testing and evaluation systems will be acquired to provide uniformity in
driver training and licensing procedures.
Strategies
1. To facilitate the development of systems that ensure only safe and competent new
drivers are permitted to use the roads.
2. To improve manpower both quantitatively and qualitatively, to test and evaluate the
driving ability of all license applicants.
3. To qualitatively improve the safety performance of the existing identified driver groups
contributing to road safety problems.
9.7 SAFETY FOR VULNERABLE ROAD USERS
Policy Statement
The design and construction of all road facilities will take into account the needs of vulnerable
and physically disadvantaged in an adequate and equitable manner. The government will seek to
identify the current “best practices” in this area and disseminate widely to town planner,
architects and highway and traffic engineer.
Strategies
1. Recognize vulnerable road users (VRU) as equally important elements as the

motorized vehicle in the planning, designing, construction and operation of roads and
to provide for their special needs.
2. To encourage NGOs to work with vulnerable road users to increase their awareness
of the dangers from vehicle traffic.
October 2007 80
9.8 ROAD TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Policy Statement
Road safety knowledge and awareness will be created amongst the population through
education, training, and publicity campaigns. Road safety education will focus on school children
and college going students, while road safety campaigns will be used to propagate good road
safety practice among the community. The government will encourage all professionals
undertaking road design, road construction, road network management, traffic management and
law enforcement to obtain adequate knowledge of road safety issues.
Strategies
1. Development of formal and informal road safety education systems and learning aids
for children of various age groups.
2. Planning and implementing community based road safety programmes to engage

local people as well as NGOs in areas of road traffic safety that most affect their daily
lives. This would cover urban, sub-urban and rural areas.
3. Planning, designing and implementing training programmes for various specific

professional groups having responsibility of road safety management such as traffic
personnel, highway engineers, school teachers, town planners, NGOs etc.
9.9 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
Policy Statement
The Government will seek to improve the quality of their traffic enforcement agencies and
respond positively to the Union Government initiative to establish Highway patrol forces on
National and State Highways.
Strategies
1. To undertake appropriate steps to ensure the traffic police are adequately manned,
trained and equipped to carry out their function ensuring safe road use and orderly
traffic flow.
2. To undertake appropriate steps to ensure the transport department officers are

adequately manned, trained and equipped to carry out their function ensuring vehicles
are safe including being overloaded.
October 2007 81
9.10 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR ROAD ACCIDENTS
Policy Statement
The government will continue to strive to achieve its target that all persons involved in a road
accident benefits from speedy and effective trauma care and health management. The essential
functions of such a service would include the provision of rescue operation including pre-medical
care and first aid at the site of the accident, the transport of the victim to an appropriate hospital
and the subsequent provision of definitive treatment.
Strategies
1. To improve communications between the police and emergency services as a means

to reduce response times and to assist in the planning and implementation of highway
patrol and traffic aid post scheme.
2. To train police, fire and other emergency personnel such as those from ambulances
and paramedics in basic first aid to accident victims.
3. To develop local and regional trauma plans based on the study of post accident
assistance and consequences for road traffic accident causalities.
4. To provide appropriate information to assist accidents victims to gain their rightful
compensation for their injuries.
9.11 HRD AND RESEARCH FOR ROAD SAFETY
Policy Statement
To Government will whenever possible support the Union Government efforts to improve road
research activities and seek to ensure that any problem areas in the state receive appropriate
attention in the research activities. Efforts will be made to ensure that research establishments in
Uttar Pradesh are given fair share of increasing research activities.
Strategies
1. To set up a system for identifying areas worthy for research.

2. To develop a system for the wide spread dissemination of the results of research
among road safety professional in the State.
If the Road Safety Policy in to have any impact a lot more needs to be done to implement
measures that are known to be effective in reducing road traffic deaths and injuries. Since these
measures require active participation of other government departments besides the PWD, it will
be discussed in Report No. 25 “Report to initiate a GOUP multi-agency road Safety Improvement
study to identify new policy, sector roles, processes and needs “.
Another comment from the Focus Group was regarding the design of junction. It was suggested
that at the junction where two roads of dissimilar classification, say SH and ODR, meet then the
treatment on the road of higher classification, i.e. SH in this case, should also be carried on the
100 m of either side of the junction on the other road, i.e. ODR in this case. This suggestion
should be considered by the Road Safety Cell in the preparation of the Road Safety Code/
Manual for U.P., and appropriate provision should be made in Section relating to junction design.
October 2007 82
10. ACTION PLAN (SHORT TERM)
11 01 03 05 07 09
07 08 08 08 08 08
Arrange training in road safety and road safety audit for the members of
1
the Road Safety Cell at NITHE Jan. 7-11, 2008.
Arrange training of Road Safety Cell at the following courses :

2 Traffic Management & Safety – CRRI
Construction Safety Management – NICMAR ? ?
3 Coordinate efforts with other departments to establish SRSC and SRSB
Coordinate with other departments to put UP Road Safety Policy through

4
the legislature
Jointly, with other departments, formulate U. P. Road Safety vision,

5
targets and action plan.
6 Help develop the U.P. Road Safety Code / Manual
Establish Road Safety Units at Zonal level, appoint Zonal Safety

7
Engineers
8 Train Zonal Safety Engineers at NITHE, CRRI, NICMAR

? ?
Zonal Safety Engineers to obtain, review and analyze accident data to

9
identify black spots.
Inspect black spots, analyze the problem, identify cause(s) of accidents,

10
recommend remedial measures
11 Ensure that funds for remedial measures are requested and obtained.
12 Ensure that recommended remedial measures are carried out
Carry out road safety audit of the projects under design. This includes
13
rehabilitation and new construction projects.
Carry out road safety review of state highways, and major and minor
14 district roads in a phased manner and recommend mitigating measures,
wherever required.
? Dates yet to be finalised
October 2007 83
11. PRESENTATION TO PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE
October 2007 84
UPSRP IDS
Report No. 46: Report on Establishing Road Safety Monitoring
Roles and Resources in HQ and Field Units
PWD Focus Group - J
Ram Avtar Chief Engineer [NH], IDS and Computerisation
Umesh Chandra Agarwal Maha Prabandhak, UPSBC
Gauri Shanker Thakur EE MD-1 Lucknow
Martand Kumar Singh EE Barabanki
Pravez Ahmad Khan Ty DCU [NH] Lucknow
Anil Khare Maintenance Division-III Lucknow
Sandeep Saxena AE, IDS Cell, Lucknow
Anay Kumar Srivastava AE, IDS Cell, Lucknow
LEA International Ltd. & LEA Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd.
Anand Prakash Deputy Team Leader

UPSRP IDS
IDS Report (2002) by TCE – Concerns :
1. No dedicated monitoring for safety related aspects on highway network

2. No feedback from road users and stakeholders re: road accidents
3. Insufficient and substandard road signs and markings
UPSRP IDS
Recommendations of TCE :
1. Create Road Safety Units at state and district levels

2. Collect proper road accident information for scientific analysis
3. Collect data from road users on road condition and related problems
4. Smoothen road geometry
5. Improve safety at highway rural road intersections
6. Enforce regulation better
UPSRP IDS
Black Spots – Things to do
1. List accident-prone black spots taking into account number and severity
2. Prioritize the list
3. Inspect, design and implement remedial measures
Lists of accident situations and potential remedies given in the Report

UPSRP IDS
Example of Black Spots Remedial Measures
General Accident Remedial Measures

Situation
Restoring surface texture
Skidding Resurfacing
Improve drainage
Better delineation
Collisions with roadside
Guardrails or fencing Frangible posts
objects
Remove objects
Pedestrian /vehicle segregation
Pedestrian /vehicle
Pedestrian crossing facilities
conflicts
Pedestrian fences or other protection
UPSRP IDS
Road Safety Audit
Checking the road design for safety issues (at various stages) by an
independent road safety specialist is called road safety audit.
It is a standard practice in developed countries, rarely done here

UPSRP IDS
Road Safety Audit Principles
1. There are no safe roads, only safer or less safe

2. “Meeting a standard” or “substandard” does not apply to safety in road
design standards
3. Meeting minimum standards does not guarantee that a road is sufficiently
safe
4. Not meeting a standard does not necessarily make a road unsafe
5. Aim of good design practice is to exceed the limit standard, not just to
meet it
6. Information, judgments and economic considerations that go into
formulating design standards change over time.
UPSRP IDS
Road Safety Review
It is a safety assessment of an existing roadway section or a newly

completed section.
Principles of road safety audit apply here also
Checklists for Road Safety Audit / Review is given in the Report

UPSRP IDS
Design Issues
Sl. No. Item Issues to be Considered Check Comments
Check that the horizontal and vertical design of the

project fit together comfortably.
Geometry of Check the design for adequacy having regard to the
1 horizontal and function of the road
vertical alignment Check the possibility of drivers not being able to road
the road characteristics, i.e., visual illusions,
subliminal delineation, etc.
Are the lane widths, shoulders, medians and other
Typical cross
2. cross section features in accordance with standard
sections
design or adequate for the function of the road?
Check that there are no variations in cross section
design which could affect safety, particularly where
sections of existing highway have been utilized, or
Effect of cross-
3. there have been compromises to accommodate
sectional variation
accesses, etc.
Check where compromises have been made, e.g., at
bridges or to avoid physical features.
UPSRP IDS
Benefits of Road Safety Audit
International experience shows that benefit cost ratio (BCR) of implementing

audits generally vary from
3 : 1 to 242 : 1
47% had BCR > 5.0
Auditors should be trained and qualified
Road safety not taught in schools

UPSRP IDS
Work Zone Safety
IRC has brought out (IRC : SP : 55-2001)

“Guidelines on Safety in Road Construction Zone”
Report describes the general principles and requirements.
Japan has reduced work-zone related fatalities by more than 50%

(1001 in 1996 to 487 in 2005) as a result of improved measures.
UPSRP IDS
11 01 03 05 07 09
Action Plan Arrange training in road safety and road safety audit for the members of
07 08 08 08 08 08
1
the Road Safety Cell at NITHE Jan. 7-11, 2008.
Arrange training of Road Safety Cell at the following courses :

2 Traffic Management & Safety – CRRI
Construction Safety Management – NICMAR ? ?
3 Coordinate efforts with other departments to establish SRSC and SRSB
Coordinate with other departments to put UP Road Safety Policy through

4
the legislature
Jointly, with other departments, formulate U. P. Road Safety vision,

5
targets and action plan.
6 Help develop the U.P. Road Safety Code / Manual
Establish Road Safety Units at Zonal level, appoint Zonal Safety

7
Engineers
8 Train Zonal Safety Engineers at NITHE, CRRI, NICMAR

? ?
Zonal Safety Engineers to obtain, review and analyze accident data to

9
identify black spots.
Inspect black spots, analyze the problem, identify cause(s) of accidents,

10
recommend remedial measures
11 Ensure that funds for remedial measures are requested and obtained.
12 Ensure that recommended remedial measures are carried out
Carry out road safety audit of the projects under design. This includes
13
rehabilitation and new construction projects.
Carry out road safety review of state highways, and major and minor
14 district roads in a phased manner and recommend mitigating measures,
wherever required.
? Dates yet to be finalised

ANNEXURE - ‘A’
Identification and Rectification of Accident Prone Locations
(Black Spots) Using 10-Step Procedure
October 2007 i
October 2007 ii
October 2007 iii

October 2007 iv
October 2007 v
October 2007 vi
ANNEXURE - ‘B’
List of Black Spots and Countermeasures Included in UPSRP
October 2007 i
October 2007 ii
October 2007 iii

October 2007 iv
ANNEXURE - ‘C’
List of State-wide Black Spots - 2005
October 2007 i
October 2007 ii
October 2007 iii

October 2007 iv
October 2007 v
October 2007 vi
October 2007 vii

October 2007 viii

October 2007 ix
October 2007 x
October 2007 xi
October 2007 xii

October 2007 xiii

October 2007 xiv

October 2007 xv
October 2007 xvi

October 2007 xvii

October 2007 xviii

October 2007 xix

October 2007 xx
October 2007 xxi

October 2007 xxii

October 2007 xxiii

October 2007 xxiv

ANNEXURE - ‘D’
Checklists for Road Safety Audits (U.K.)
October 2007 i
October 2007 ii
October 2007 iii

October 2007 iv
October 2007 v
October 2007 vi
October 2007 vii

October 2007 viii

October 2007 ix
October 2007 x
October 2007 xi
October 2007 xii

October 2007 xiii

October 2007 xiv

October 2007 xv
October 2007 xvi

October 2007 xvii

October 2007 xviii

October 2007 xix

October 2007 xx
October 2007 xxi

October 2007 xxii

October 2007 xxiii

ANNEXURE - ‘E’
Recommendations of International Seminar, New Delhi, 1998
October 2007 i
October 2007 ii
October 2007 iii

ANNEXURE - ‘F’
Draft National Road Safety Policy
October 2007 i
October 2007 ii
October 2007 iii

October 2007 iv
October 2007 v
October 2007 vi
October 2007 vii

October 2007 viii

ANNEXURE - ‘G’
Sikkim State Road Safety Policy Document
October 2007 i
October 2007 ii
October 2007 iii

October 2007 iv
October 2007 v
October 2007 vi
October 2007 vii

Establishing Road Safety Monitoring Roles and Resources

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Establishing Road Safety Monitoring Roles and Resources

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Government of Uttar Pradesh, India

UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROADS PROJECT

Technical Assistance for Implementation of

REPORT ON ESTABLISHING ROAD SAFETY

LEA International Ltd., Canada

3. TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AND BLACK SPOTS................................................................................ 4

4. ROAD SAFETY AUDIT AND ROAD SAFETY REVIEW .............................................................. 13

5. INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE OF ROAD SAFETY AUDITS AND ROAD SAFETY REVIEWS 36

6. WORK ZONE SAFETY.................................................................................................................. 48

7. ROAD SAFETY MONITORING ROLE OF UPPWD ..................................................................... 69

8. FOCUS GROUP DELIBERATIONS : ROAD SAFETY POLICY FOR U.P. ................................. 77

9. PROPOSED ROAD SAFETY POLICY FOR UTTAR PRADESH................................................. 78

10. ACTION PLAN (SHORT TERM) ................................................................................................... 83

11. PRESENTATION TO PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE......................................................... 84

Annexure – A : Identification and Rectification of Accident Prone Location (Black Spots)

Annexure – B : List of Black Spots and Countermeasures Included in UPSRP

Annexure – C : List of State-wide Black Spots – 2005

Annexure – D : Checklists for Road Safety Audits (U.K.)

Annexure – E : Recommendations of International Seminar, New Delhi, 1998

Annexure – F : Draft National Road Safety Policy

Annexure – G: Sikkim State Road Safety Policy Document

October 2007 iii

3R Recycling, Restoration and Resurfacing NHAI National Highways Authority of India

• No dedicated monitoring for safety related aspects on highway network;

(i) Institutional and organisational

(ii) Legal , ands

1. Public Works Department

2. Home Department (Police)

4. Urban Development Department

5. Medial and Public Health Department

1. Traffic accidents related, i.e., black spots

3. Construction zone related.

3. TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AND BLACK SPOTS

3.1 ACCIDENT DATA

The UK Transport Research Laboratory has developed a Microcomputer Accident Analysis

3.2 BLACK SPOTS

Whilst the annual number of accidents at an intersection or other location is a straightforward

3.3 DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REMEDIAL MEASURES

1. Removing the conflict causing the problem;

However, if we consider the case of pedestrian/vehicle conflict at pedestrian crossing

General Accident Situation Remedial Measures

Rural Accident Potential Remedy

Urban Accident Potential Remedy

1. Turn prohibition, channelization, or protected turns;

2. Traffic signals, roundabouts, or revised intersection designs;

3. Refuges, pedestrian crossings, bridges, or underpasses;

4. Segregated bicycle tracks or defined bicycle lanes;

5. Parking restrictions or controls;

3.4 TRAFFIC CALMING

95 percent survive at speeds up to 32 kilometers per hour (km/h);

55 percent survive at speeds up to 48 km/h;

15 percent survive at speeds up to 65 km/h;

Traffic calming commonly includes:

5. Pedestrian crossing areas;

6. Landscaping and environmental features;

7. Special warning signs;

8. Possible reduced speed limits;

10. Horizontal carriageway deflection; and

11. Priority systems

3.5 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

4. ROAD SAFETY AUDIT AND ROAD SAFETY REVIEW

4.1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT / REVIEW PRINCIPLES