AGRD06-22 Guide To Road Design Part 6 Roadside Design Safety and Barriers

© This material is not to be used for commercial training purposes, unless approved by Austroads.
Sydney 2022
Safety and Barriers
Guide to Road Design Part 6: Roadside Design
Guide to Road Design Part 6: Roadside Design, Safety and Barriers
Edition 4.0 prepared by: Professor Rod Troutbeck Publisher

Austroads Ltd.
Edition 4.0 project managers: Peter Ellis and Richard Fanning Level 9, 570 George Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Abstract
Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
provides guidance on roadside design and in particular guidance on austroads@austroads.com.au
evaluating the risk of a roadside and the selection and use of road safety www.austroads.com.au
barrier systems.
About Austroads
Roadsides have to accommodate many features that support the road and
the safe and efficient operation of traffic, and have to be designed with Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian
regard to environmental requirements. Part 6 should therefore be read in road transport and traffic agencies.
conjunction with other Parts of the Guide to Road Design.
Austroads’ purpose is to support its member
Part 6 provides information to enable designers to understand the organisations to deliver an improved Australasian
principles that lead to the design of safer roads, identify hazards, road transport network. To succeed in this task, we
undertake a risk assessment process of roadside hazards, establish the undertake leading-edge road and transport research
need for treatment of hazards and determine the most appropriate which underpins our input to policy development and
treatment. Methods of evaluating the effectiveness of treatment options published guidance on the design, construction and
are summarised. A comprehensive design process, guidance and design management of the road network and its associated
considerations are provided for the selection of a suitable barrier and for infrastructure.
the lateral and longitudinal placement of barrier systems.
Austroads provides a collective approach that
delivers value for money, encourages shared
Keywords knowledge and drives consistency for road users.
Roadside design, designing for safety, hazard, hazard identification, Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of
hazard mitigation, risk assessment, treatment options, evaluation, road senior executive representatives from each of its
safety barrier systems, road safety barrier design process, deflection eleven member organisations:
width, medians, containment level, working width, run-out length, length of

need, points of redirection, terminal treatments, transitions, vulnerable • Transport for New South Wales
road users, steep downgrades, arrester beds, barriers at intersections. • Department of Transport Victoria
• Queensland Department of Transport and Main
Roads
Edition 4.0 published June 2022 • Main Roads Western Australia
This new edition includes new sections describing the fundamentals of • Department for Infrastructure and Transport South
safety barrier systems (Section 5) and design advice for other road safety Australia
devices (Section 7). A new Appendix G describes the length of need • Department of State Growth Tasmania
calculations and provides examples. Other sections have been updated • Department of Infrastructure, Planning and
and rewritten to reflect the new guidance. Logistics Northern Territory
Edition 3.2 published January 2022 • Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate,
Australian Capital Territory
Edition 3.1 published November 2020
• Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure,
Edition 3.0 published July 2020 Transport, Regional Development,
Edition 2.1 published August 2018 Communications and the Arts
• Australian Local Government Association
Edition 2.0 published October 2010
• Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
Edition 1.0 published November 2009
ISBN 978-1-922700-46-9 © Austroads Ltd 2022 | This work is copyright. Apart

from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act
Austroads Project No. SRD6289 Pages 264
1968, no part may be reproduced by any process
Austroads Publication No. AGRD06-22 without the prior written permission of Austroads.
This Guide is produced by Austroads as a general guide only. Austroads has taken care to ensure that this publication is correct at
the time of publication. Austroads does not make any representations or warrant that the Guide is free from error, is current, or,
where used, will ensure compliance with any legislative, regulatory or general law requirements. Austroads expressly disclaims all
and any guarantees, undertakings and warranties, expressed or implied, and is not liable, including for negligence, for any loss
(incidental or consequential), injury, damage or any other consequences arising directly or indirectly from the use of this Guide.
Where third party information is contained in this Guide, it is included with the consent of the third party and in good faith. It does
not necessarily reflect the considered views of Austroads Readers should rely on their own skill, care and judgement to apply the
information contained in this Guide and seek professional advice regarding their particular issues.
Contents
1. Introduction to Roadside Design .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Context Sensitive Designs ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Reading this Part in the Context of Part 1 ................................................................................................ 3
1.3.1 Combining Design Parameters and Consistent Design ............................................................. 4
1.3.2 Progressive Safety Updates to the Guide to Road Design ........................................................ 5
1.4 Scope of this Part ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4.1 AGRD Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling .......................................................................... 6
1.4.2 AGRD Part 6B: Roadside Environment ...................................................................................... 6
1.5 Principles Considered in Roadside Design to Achieve the Safest System .............................................. 6
1.5.1 Safe System Principle ................................................................................................................ 7
1.5.2 Road Network Efficiency Principle.............................................................................................. 8
1.5.3 Community Wellbeing Principle .................................................................................................. 8
1.5.4 Environmental Sustainability Principle ....................................................................................... 8
1.5.5 Utility Services Principle ............................................................................................................. 8
1.5.6 Investment Benefit Principle ....................................................................................................... 8
1.5.7 Safety in Design Principle........................................................................................................... 8
1.6 Roadside Safety Design ........................................................................................................................... 9
1.6.1 General ....................................................................................................................................... 9
1.6.2 Road Environments that Promote Safer Travel.......................................................................... 9
1.6.3 Design for Risk Reduction .......................................................................................................... 9
1.6.4 Appropriate Barriers and Other Treatments ............................................................................. 10

1.7 Terminology ............................................................................................................................................ 10
1.8 Overview of the Roadside Risk Assessment Process ........................................................................... 10
1.8.1 Network Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................ 11
1.8.2 Assessment of the Road Segment against National Practices, Jurisdictional Policies
and the Corridor Safety Vision.................................................................................................. 11
1.8.3 Road Program or Project Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 11
1.9 Calculating a Risk Score ........................................................................................................................ 12
1.9.1 Overview of the Simplified Process for Calculating the Risk Score for a Roadside Cross
Section ...................................................................................................................................... 13
1.9.2 Description of Significant Hazards ........................................................................................... 13
1.9.3 Description of Less Significant Hazards ................................................................................... 14
1.9.4 Measuring the Lateral Distance to a Hazard ............................................................................ 15
1.9.5 Operating and Design Speed ................................................................................................... 16
1.9.6 Terrain Type ............................................................................................................................. 16
1.9.7 Background and Isolated Hazards ........................................................................................... 17
1.9.8 Risk Score Charts for Undivided Rural Roads ......................................................................... 18
1.9.9 Grade and Curve Radii Factors for Rural Roads Risk Score Values ....................................... 22
1.9.10 Risk Score Charts for Divided Urban Roads ............................................................................ 23
1.9.11 Risk Score Charts for Roadside Safety Barriers ...................................................................... 25
1.9.12 When should the process in Appendix B be used? .................................................................. 27
1.9.13 Hazards for Motorcyclists and Other Vulnerable Road Users .................................................. 27
1.9.14 Hazards for Heavy Vehicle Occupants ..................................................................................... 27
2. Network Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................. 28

2.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 28
2.2 Corridor Safety Visions ........................................................................................................................... 28
2.2.1 Adverse Crash History .............................................................................................................. 29
2.3 Treatment of Roads Based on Policies and Practices ........................................................................... 29
2.3.1 Treatment of Roads Based on National Practices ................................................................... 29
2.3.2 Treatment of Roads Based on Jurisdictional Policies .............................................................. 29
Austroads 2022 | page i

2.4 The Network Roadside Risk Intervention Threshold (NRRIT) ............................................................... 30

2.4.1 Application to Greenfield and Brownfield Sites ........................................................................ 30
2.4.2 Establishing the NRRIT ............................................................................................................ 30
2.4.3 Setting an NRRIT Based on Two-lane Undivided Rural Roads ............................................... 31
2.4.4 Setting an NRRIT Based on Urban Roads ............................................................................... 31
2.5 Example of Setting an NRRIT ................................................................................................................ 32
3. Program and Project Risk Assessment ............................................................................................. 35

3.1 Overview of the Risk Evaluation Process .............................................................................................. 35
3.2 Concepts Used in Evaluating the Risk at Particular Sites ...................................................................... 35
3.3 Step 1: Assess Against National Practices, Jurisdictional Policies and Corridor Visions ......................37
3.4 Step 2: Compare the Risk Score with the NRRIT .................................................................................. 38
3.4.1 Adverse Crash History .............................................................................................................. 38
3.4.2 Examples of the Use of the Procedure ..................................................................................... 38
3.5 Step 3: Identify, Evaluate and Rank Risk Mitigation Options ................................................................. 46
3.5.1 Identify the Options ................................................................................................................... 46
3.5.2 Evaluate the Risk Associated with a Roadside Treatment Using a Qualitative
Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 48
3.5.3 Evaluate the Risk Associated with a Roadside Treatment Using a Quantitative
Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 48
3.5.4 Rank Treatment Options .......................................................................................................... 49
3.6 Step 4: Design the Recommended Roadside Treatments ..................................................................... 49
4. Treatment Options................................................................................................................................ 50
4.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 50
4.2 Summary of Treatment Options ............................................................................................................. 50

4.3 Effectiveness of Treatment Options ....................................................................................................... 51
4.4 Treatments for Different Hazards ........................................................................................................... 52
4.4.1 Treatments for Trees ................................................................................................................ 52
4.4.2 Treatments for Steep Downgrades .......................................................................................... 53
4.4.3 Treatments for Medians ............................................................................................................ 53
4.4.4 Treatments for Embankment Slopes ........................................................................................ 53
4.4.5 Treatments for Drains ............................................................................................................... 53
4.4.6 Treatments for Culverts ............................................................................................................ 54
4.4.7 Treatments for Rock Face Cuttings .......................................................................................... 55
4.4.8 Treatments for Spalls and Rock Pitching ................................................................................. 55
4.4.9 Treatments for Poles ................................................................................................................ 55
4.4.10 Treatments for Traffic Signal Poles .......................................................................................... 56
4.4.11 Treatments for Sign Gantries, Sign Cantilever Supports and Bridge Piers ............................. 56
4.4.12 Treatments for Sign Supports................................................................................................... 56
4.4.13 Treatments for Separating other Road or Transit Carriageways ............................................. 56
4.4.14 Treatments for Separating Cycleways and Pedestrian Paths from Roads .............................. 57
4.4.15 Treatments for Pavement drop off ............................................................................................ 57
4.4.16 Treatments for Other Hazards .................................................................................................. 57
5. Fundamentals of Safety Barrier Systems .......................................................................................... 58

5.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 58
5.2 The Evaluation of Barriers and Safety Devices ...................................................................................... 58
5.2.1 Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3845 ............................................................. 58
5.2.2 MASH - Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware...................................................................... 59
5.2.3 Austroads Safety Barrier Assessment Panel ........................................................................... 61
5.3 Barrier Flexibility ..................................................................................................................................... 61
5.3.1 Establishing the Concept of Barrier Flexibility .......................................................................... 61
5.3.2 Operation of Different Barrier Types ........................................................................................ 64
5.4 Barrier Configurations ............................................................................................................................ 65
5.4.1 Barrier System Components .................................................................................................... 65
5.4.2 General Configurations and Ground Anchorages .................................................................... 65
Austroads 2022 | page ii

5.5 Barrier System Performance Measures ................................................................................................. 68

5.5.1 Test Levels ............................................................................................................................... 68
5.5.2 Working Width, Deflection and System Width .......................................................................... 68
5.5.3 Working Widths for Concrete Barriers ...................................................................................... 69
5.5.4 Points of Redirection ................................................................................................................ 70
5.6 Terminals and Crash Cushions .............................................................................................................. 75
5.6.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 75
5.6.2 Classification of Terminals and Crash Cushions ...................................................................... 75
5.6.3 Run Out Areas for Terminals and Crash Cushions .................................................................. 77
5.7 Transitions and Overlaps ....................................................................................................................... 78
5.7.1 Transitions ................................................................................................................................ 78
5.7.2 Overlaps ................................................................................................................................... 78
5.8 Barriers for Heavy Vehicles .................................................................................................................... 79
5.9 Barriers for Motorcyclists ........................................................................................................................ 79
5.10 Barriers for Pedestrians and Cyclists ..................................................................................................... 81
5.11 Barriers in Narrow Medians .................................................................................................................... 81
5.12 Continuous Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 82
5.13 Road or Route Containment Level ......................................................................................................... 83
5.13.1 Choosing an Appropriate Minimum Containment Level ........................................................... 83
5.13.2 Containment Levels at High Risk Sites .................................................................................... 84
5.14 Choosing an Appropriate Barrier ............................................................................................................ 84
5.14.1 Preferred Safety Barrier Systems for a Road Stereotype ........................................................ 86
6. Road Safety Barriers ............................................................................................................................ 87

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 87
6.1.1 Design Philosophy .................................................................................................................... 88

6.2 Road Safety Barrier Design Process...................................................................................................... 88
6.3 Collect Site Information (Step 1) ............................................................................................................ 92
6.4 Determine the Objectives of the Proposed Safety Barrier (Step 2) .......................................................92
6.5 Determine the Containment Level for the Proposed Barrier (Step 3) ....................................................93
6.5.1 Increasing the Containment Level at Higher Risk Sites ........................................................... 94
6.6 Identify Barriers that Meet the Objectives and the Containment Level (Step 4) ....................................94
6.6.1 Containment Level and a Barrier’s Test Level ......................................................................... 94
6.6.2 Other Barrier Selection Considerations .................................................................................... 94
6.7 Select a Barrier System and Define its Working Width (Step 5) ............................................................ 96
6.8 Define the Constraints on the Lateral Position of the Barrier (Step 6) ...................................................97
6.8.1 Offset from the Traffic Lane ...................................................................................................... 98
6.8.2 Minimum Lateral Distance of a Barrier from a Hazard ............................................................. 99
6.8.3 Minimum Lateral Distance of a Barrier from an Embankment Hinge Point ............................ 100
6.8.4 Barrier Setback from Kerbs .................................................................................................... 101
6.8.5 Lateral Location of Barriers in Medians .................................................................................. 103
6.8.6 Number of Median Barriers Runs ........................................................................................... 103
6.8.7 Location of Barriers in Narrow Medians ................................................................................. 105
6.8.8 Flaring of Barriers and Terminals ........................................................................................... 107
6.8.9 Barriers in Constrained Locations .......................................................................................... 108
6.9 Determine the Longitudinal Location of a Barrier (Step 7) ................................................................... 109
6.9.1 Determine the Length of Need ............................................................................................... 109
6.9.2 Length of Need for Hazards that Extend Long Distances Perpendicular to the Road ........... 116
6.9.3 Length of Need on Curved Roads .......................................................................................... 117
6.9.4 Continuous Barriers and the Length of Need Concept .......................................................... 117
6.9.5 Length of Need for TL-5 and TL-6 Concrete Barriers at High Risk Sites ............................... 117
6.10 Evaluation of the Selected Barrier (Step 8) .......................................................................................... 117
6.11 Evaluate the Strength of the Soil at the Proposed Barrier Location (Step 9) .......................................117
6.12 Structural Design of the Proposed Barrier (Step 10) ............................................................................ 118
6.13 Detailed Installation Refinements (Step 11) ......................................................................................... 118
6.13.1 Modification of the Working Width .......................................................................................... 118
6.13.2 Minimum Length of Barrier System ........................................................................................ 120
6.13.3 Maximum Barrier Length ........................................................................................................ 122
Austroads 2022 | page iii

6.13.4 Sight Distance Requirements ................................................................................................. 122

6.14 Select End Treatments to Longitudinal Barriers (Step 12) ................................................................... 123
6.14.1 Terminal Selection .................................................................................................................. 123
6.14.2 Crash Cushion Selection ........................................................................................................ 125
6.14.3 Run Out Areas ........................................................................................................................ 126
6.14.4 Transitions and Overlaps ........................................................................................................ 127
6.14.5 Transitions .............................................................................................................................. 127
6.14.6 Overlaps ................................................................................................................................. 128
6.14.7 Transition in Barrier Heights ................................................................................................... 131
6.15 Access Through Barriers ...................................................................................................................... 131
6.15.1 Access Through Barriers in the Verge ................................................................................... 131
6.15.2 Median Barrier Openings ........................................................................................................ 132
6.15.3 Barriers at Intersections and Property Accesses ................................................................... 133
6.16 Continuous Barriers on the Verge ........................................................................................................ 134
6.16.1 Barrier Offsets......................................................................................................................... 134
6.16.2 Continuous Barrier Lengths .................................................................................................... 134
6.16.3 Provision for Roadside Stops ................................................................................................. 134
6.17 Vulnerable Road Users ........................................................................................................................ 135
6.17.1 Motorcyclists ........................................................................................................................... 135
6.17.2 Pedestrians and Cyclists ........................................................................................................ 136
6.18 Two-stage Shielding ............................................................................................................................. 137
6.18.1 Layout ..................................................................................................................................... 137
6.18.2 Points of Need for Two-stage Shielding ................................................................................. 138
6.19 Barriers Across Drainage Structures and to Avoid Underground Conflicts..........................................139
6.20 Protecting Critical Infrastructure Close to Barriers ............................................................................... 140
6.20.1 Sign Supports ......................................................................................................................... 141

6.20.2 Gantries and Bridge Piers ...................................................................................................... 141
6.20.3 Tunnels ................................................................................................................................... 142
6.20.4 Noise Barriers ......................................................................................................................... 143
6.20.5 Poles and Masts with a Breakaway Footing........................................................................... 143
6.21 Fauna Crossings .................................................................................................................................. 144
6.22 Installation of Concrete Barriers on Superelevated Roads and Stepped Medians ..............................145
6.23 Aesthetic Road Safety Barriers ............................................................................................................ 145
6.24 Additional Barrier Design Considerations ............................................................................................ 146
6.24.1 Stepped Offset ........................................................................................................................ 146
6.24.2 Excessive Offset ..................................................................................................................... 146
6.24.3 Delineation .............................................................................................................................. 146
6.24.4 System Height ........................................................................................................................ 147
6.24.5 Sub-Standard Curves ............................................................................................................. 147
6.24.6 W-beam Barriers Close to or on Embankment Slopes .......................................................... 147
6.24.7 Barriers in Floodplains ............................................................................................................ 147
6.24.8 Barriers in a Road-rail Interface.............................................................................................. 147
6.24.9 Maintenance of Barriers ......................................................................................................... 147
6.24.10 Bullnose Treatments for Medians and Short Radius Treatments for Intersections ................ 148
6.24.11 Location Additional Hazards in the Area Shielded by a Barrier ............................................. 148
6.25 Develop a Plan to Maintain the Barrier (Step 14) ................................................................................. 148
6.26 Confirm that the Barrier Meets the Objectives (Step 15) ..................................................................... 149
6.27 Documentation of the Design (Step 16) ............................................................................................... 149
7. Installation of Other Roadside Safety Devices ................................................................................ 151

7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 151
7.2 Frangible Poles and Masts ................................................................................................................... 151
7.2.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 151
7.2.2 Slip-base Poles ....................................................................................................................... 152
7.2.3 Energy Absorbing Poles ......................................................................................................... 153
7.2.4 Slip Base Masts for Larger Signs ........................................................................................... 154
7.2.5 Utility Poles ............................................................................................................................. 154
Austroads 2022 | page iv

7.3 Frangible Sign Posts ............................................................................................................................ 154

7.4 Permanent Bollards .............................................................................................................................. 155
7.5 Security Bollards................................................................................................................................... 156
7.6 High Profile Kerbs and Low Profile Barriers ......................................................................................... 157
7.7 Traversable Culvert End Treatments ................................................................................................... 159
7.8 Audio Tactile Line Marking ................................................................................................................... 161
8. Roadside Design for Steep Downgrades ......................................................................................... 162

8.1 Purpose and Need................................................................................................................................ 162
8.2 Containment Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 162
8.2.1 Gravity Safety Ramps ............................................................................................................. 162
8.2.2 Arrester Beds .......................................................................................................................... 162
8.2.3 Vehicle Catch Net Systems .................................................................................................... 163
8.3 Warrants for Investigation .................................................................................................................... 163
8.4 Location and Spacing ........................................................................................................................... 163
8.5 Key Design Considerations .................................................................................................................. 164
8.6 Design Process .................................................................................................................................... 165
8.6.1 Outline of Process .................................................................................................................. 165
8.6.2 Step S1 – Determine Vehicle Entry Speed ............................................................................ 166
8.6.3 Step S2 – Evaluate Truck Stability on Approach.................................................................... 166
8.6.4 Step S3 – Design Entry Alignment ......................................................................................... 166
8.6.5 Step S4 – Determine Type of Facility ..................................................................................... 166
8.6.6 Step S5 – Determine Pavement Surface of Facility ............................................................... 166
8.6.7 Step S6 – Design Facility Length ........................................................................................... 167
8.6.8 Step S7 – Design the Facility ................................................................................................. 168
8.6.9 Step S8 – Design End Treatment ........................................................................................... 171

8.6.10 Step S9 – Design Vehicle Recovery Facilities ....................................................................... 171
8.6.11 Step S10 – Design Delineation............................................................................................... 172
8.6.12 Step S11 – Design Truck Parking Areas ................................................................................ 172
9. Work Zone Safety Barrier Systems .................................................................................................. 173
References ................................................................................................................................................. 174
Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 182

Vehicle Movement Terminology ........................................................................................................... 182
Road Safety Barrier Terminology ......................................................................................................... 182
Detailed Risk Evaluation Procedure .................................................................................... 188

Exposure .............................................................................................................................................. 188
Determine the Future Traffic Flow .......................................................................................... 189
Likelihood ............................................................................................................................................. 192
Likelihood of Colliding with a Point Hazard and a Length of Road Safety Barrier ...............................196
Severity ................................................................................................................................................. 198
Consistent Background Hazards ............................................................................................ 198
Isolated Hazards ..................................................................................................................... 200
Roadside Barriers ................................................................................................................... 201
Oncoming Vehicles ................................................................................................................. 202
Trauma Indices for Roadside Features on Roads with Other Operating Speeds .................. 202
Evaluation of Risk Associated with Vehicle Rollovers.......................................................................... 202
Risk Score ............................................................................................................................................ 203
Collective Risk ........................................................................................................................ 203
Individual Risk......................................................................................................................... 203
Risk of Short Lengths of Roadside ......................................................................................... 204
Austroads 2022 | page v

Limitations of the Risk Assessment Process ....................................................................................... 204

Worksheets ........................................................................................................................................... 204
Example 1 – Culvert Headwall ............................................................................................................. 210
Example 2 – Centreline Treatments on a Rural Two-lane Road .........................................................217
Number of Fatal and Serious injuries ................................................................................................... 218
Treatment of Roads Based on Jurisdictional Policies ......................................................219

Installation of Barriers on Particular Road Segments .......................................................................... 219
Installation of Barriers at Sites with High Consequence Infrastructure and Land ................................219
Installation of Barriers Between Adjacent Carriageways ..................................................................... 220
Installation of Barriers or Other Safety Measures on Other Defined Road Types and Locations........220
Risk Score Charts .................................................................................................................. 221
Cost of Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 232

Determine Crash Costs ........................................................................................................................ 232
Likely Impact Conditions and Consequences .................................................................... 233

Errant Vehicle Trajectories ................................................................................................................... 233
The Relationship Between Impact Conditions and Vehicle Occupant Safety ......................................233
Application to the Design of Barrier Installations .................................................................... 233
Trajectories Over Kerbs and Embankments ........................................................................................ 234
Length of Need....................................................................................................................... 236

Length of Need for a Straight Installation ............................................................................................. 236
Leading Point of Need ............................................................................................................ 236

Trailing Point of Need for Roads with Two-way Traffic .......................................................... 237
Length of Need for Hazards that Extend Long Distances Perpendicular to the Road ........... 238
Length of Need for Roads with Two-way Traffic .................................................................... 238
Trailing Point of Need for Roads with One-way Traffic .......................................................... 239
Length of Need for Roads with One-Way Traffic.................................................................... 240
Length of Need for a Flared Installation ............................................................................................... 240
Length of Need ....................................................................................................................... 242
Location of the Points of Need with Hazards on the Outside of a Horizontal Curve............................243
Leading Points of Need .......................................................................................................... 243
Trailing Points of Need for Roads with Two-way Traffic ........................................................ 244
Trailing Points of Need for Roads with One-way Traffic ........................................................ 244
Leading and Trailing Points of Need on Small Radii Curves ................................................. 245
Length of Need ....................................................................................................................... 246
Location of the Points of Need with the Hazards on the Inside of a Horizontal Curve ........................246
Length of Need ....................................................................................................................... 249
Worked Examples to Determine Road Safety Barrier Length of Need ................................................250
Example 1: Straight Installations ............................................................................................ 250
Example 2 ............................................................................................................................... 252
Austroads 2022 | page vi

Commentary 1 Design Parameters and Environment .............................................................................. 255

C1.1 Combinations of Design Parameters.................................................................................................... 255
C1.2 Consistent Design Environment ........................................................................................................... 258
C1.3 Vehicle Mix Considerations .................................................................................................................. 259
Commentary 2 Run-off-road Crashes ......................................................................................................... 261
Commentary 3 Background to Clear Zone Width ..................................................................................... 263
Commentary 4 Vehicle Escape Ramps ...................................................................................................... 264
Tables
Table 1.1: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure 1.6 ......................................................................... 19
Table 1.2: Rural road characteristics for the Risk Score charts in Figure 1.7 ...............................................21
Table 1.3: Risk Score adjustment factors for curve radii on two-lane rural roads ........................................22
Table 1.4: Risk Score adjustment factors for the gradient of two-lane rural roads .......................................23
Table 1.5: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure 1.12 ....................................................................... 25
Table 4.1: Treatments for run-off-road crashes ............................................................................................ 51
Table 4.2: Effectiveness of treatments for impacts with hazards on the verges and head-on
crashes ......................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 5.1: Effectiveness of treatments for impacts with hazards on the verges and head-on
crashes ......................................................................................................................................... 59
Table 5.2: Impact conditions for longitudinal barriers ................................................................................... 60
Table 5.3: Description of the ground anchorage conditions shown in Figure 5.4 .........................................67
Table 5.4: Indicative working widths ............................................................................................................. 69
Table 5.5: Minimum working widths for vehicles with a maximum height of 4.6 m.......................................70
Table 5.6: Limitations and advantages for different barrier types ................................................................. 85
Table 5.7: Preferred barrier in common contexts .......................................................................................... 86
Table 6.1: Additional selection considerations for roadside barrier systems ................................................95
Table 6.2: Benefits of using a flexible back-to-back W-beam barrier or a wire rope barrier .........................96
Table 6.3: Preliminary design working widths for steel beam and wire rope systems ..................................97
Table 6.4: Recommended minimum working widths for vehicles with a maximum height of 4.6
m. ................................................................................................................................................. 97
Table 6.5: Offset from the traffic lanes for Normal Design Domain treatments ............................................99
Table 6.6: Minimum offsets from kerb to barrier face ................................................................................. 102
Table 6.7: Location of median barriers ........................................................................................................ 104
Table 6.8: Design criteria for barriers in different median widths ................................................................ 106
Table 6.9: Flare rates .................................................................................................................................. 108
Table 6.10: Run-out lengths for barrier design ............................................................................................. 111
Table 6.11: Rope length correction factors for the deflection of TL-3 wire rope barriers ..............................118
Table 6.12: Curve radii correction factors for the deflection of TL-3 wire rope barriers ................................118
Table 6.13: Run out areas for terminals and crash cushions........................................................................ 127
Table 6.14: Transition or overlaps required .................................................................................................. 127
Table 6.15: Treatments for motorcyclists ...................................................................................................... 136
Table 7.1: High profile kerb test results....................................................................................................... 158
Table 8.1: Typical warrants for analysis for runaway vehicles .................................................................... 163
Table 8.2: Approximate distance from the summit to safety ramp .............................................................. 164
Table 8.3: Maximum decrease in speed between successive geometric elements ...................................164
Table 8.4 Rolling resistance ....................................................................................................................... 167
Table 8.5: Design features of arrester beds ................................................................................................ 170
Table 8.6: Arrester bed material specification ............................................................................................. 171
Table A.1: Vehicle movement terminology .................................................................................................. 182
Table A.1: Road safety barrier terminology ................................................................................................. 182
Austroads 2022 | page vii

Table B.1: Exposure adjustment factors for undivided roads ...................................................................... 190
Table B.2: Exposure adjustment factors for divided and one-way roads ....................................................191
Table B.3: Exposure adjustment factors for urban undivided roads with operating speeds less
than or equal to 90 km/h ............................................................................................................ 191
Table B.4: Trauma Indices for continuous features – operating speed = 110 km/h....................................199
Table B.5: Trauma Indices for embankment slopes on fills and in cuts – operating speed = 110 km/h .....199
Table B.6: Trauma Indices for vertical drops and water depths – operating speed = 110 km/h .................200
Table B.7: Trauma Indices for parallel V drains with a height less than 1.2 m – operating
speed = 110 km/h....................................................................................................................... 200
Table B.8: Trauma Indices for point hazards – operating speed = 110 km/h .............................................201
Table B.9: Trauma Indices for slopes parallel to the road – operating speed = 110 km/h ..........................201
Table B.10: Speed factors for the likelihood of a rollover .............................................................................. 202
Table B.11: Risk Score calculation worksheet for verges on divided and undivided roads ..........................205
Table B.12: Risk Score calculation worksheet for medians on divided roads ...............................................207
Table B.13: Risk Score calculation worksheet for oncoming vehicles on undivided rural roads ..................209
Table B.14: Risk Score calculation for the background hazards being the trees at the toe of the
embankment............................................................................................................................... 210
Table B.15: Risk Score calculation for the background hazard being the embankment ...............................212
Table B.16: Risk Score calculation for the background hazards being the trees at the toe of the
embankment and shielded with a barrier ................................................................................... 213
Table B.17: Risk Score calculation for a 200 m length of road containing the culvert end wall ....................214
Table B.18: Risk Score calculation for reduced speeds and a continuous barrier ........................................216
Table B.19: Risk Score for a median treatment of a two-lane two-way rural road ........................................217
Table D.1: Risk evaluated in the figures in this appendix ............................................................................ 221
Table D.2: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure D 1 ....................................................................... 223
Table D.3: Rural road characteristics for the Risk Score charts in Figure D.2 ............................................224
Table D.4: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure D.5 and Figure D.6 ..............................................226
Table D.5: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure D.7 ....................................................................... 227
Table D.6: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure D.8 and Figure D.9 ..............................................228
Table D.7: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure D.11 ..................................................................... 230
Table D.8: Significant and less significant and minor hazards .................................................................... 230
Table D.9: Risk Score correction factors for curve radii on two-lane rural roads ........................................231
Table D.10: Risk Score correction factors for the gradient of two-lane rural roads .......................................231
Table E.1: Trauma Indices and predicted crash outcomes ......................................................................... 232
Table F.1 Departure and impact characteristics ........................................................................................ 233
Table G.1: Run-out lengths for barrier design ............................................................................................. 237
Table C1.1: Considerations in relation to designing roads for safety ............................................................ 256
Table C1.2: Key considerations for consistent design ................................................................................... 259
Table C1.3: Road design parameters for consideration in relation to heavy vehicles...................................260
Table C2.1: Other factors contributing to errant vehicles .............................................................................. 261
Figures
Figure 1.1: Flow chart of the Guide to Road Design ........................................................................................ 3
Figure 1.2: Risk assessment flow diagram..................................................................................................... 12
Figure 1.3: Calculation of an effective lateral distance to a hazard ............................................................... 16
Figure 1.4: View of road showing trees at different offsets ............................................................................ 17
Figure 1.5: View of an urban road showing background and isolated hazards .............................................18
Figure 1.6: Risk Score for undivided rural roads with significant background hazards at
different offsets and for different operating speeds and road types.............................................19
Figure 1.7: Risk Score for undivided rural roads with significant isolated hazards at different
average spacings along a roadside and for different operating speeds and
evaluated over 1 km ..................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 1.8: Risk Score for isolated significant hazards on undivided rural roads without
background hazards ..................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 1.9: Rollover Risk Score for undivided rural roads without background hazards and an
operating speed of 110 km/h........................................................................................................ 22
Austroads 2022 | page viii

Figure 1.10: Risk Score for divided urban roads with significant hazards at different offsets and
for different operating speeds (Scenario 1) .................................................................................. 24
Figure 1.11: Risk Score for divided urban roads with significant hazards at different average
spacings along a roadside and for different operating speeds (Scenario 2) ...............................24
Figure 1.12: Risk Score for roadside barriers on undivided rural roads with different operating
speeds and terrain (refer to Table 1.5 for road details) ............................................................... 25
Figure 1.13: Risk Score for roadside barriers on divided carriageway urban roads with different
operating speeds and barrier offsets (refer to Table 1.6 for road details) ...................................26
Figure 1.14: Risk Score for roadside barriers on divided carriageway urban and rural roads with
an operating speed of 110 km/h .................................................................................................. 26
Figure 2.1: Estimates of the NRRIT using lower section of Figure 1.6 ..........................................................32
Figure 2.2: Estimates of the NRRIT using Figure 1.10 .................................................................................. 33
Figure 2.3: Estimates of the NRRIT using Figure 1.11 .................................................................................. 33
Figure 3.1: Diagrammatical representation of a roadside .............................................................................. 36
Figure 3.2: Using the Risk Score values ........................................................................................................ 36
Figure 3.3: Using assumed characteristics to evaluate the Risk Score over a 1 km segment ......................37
Figure 3.4: Road view for example 1 .............................................................................................................. 39
Figure 3.5: Risk Score for example 1 ............................................................................................................. 39
Figure 3.6: Example 2 Highway in Western Australia .................................................................................... 40
Figure 3.7: Risk Score for example 2 using charts 11 and 12 in Figure D.3 ..................................................40
Figure 3.8: Rollover Risk Score for example 2 using chart 13 in Figure D.4 .................................................41
Figure 3.9: Risk Score for example 2 using chart 5 ....................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.10: Example 3 – culvert headwall on the outside of a horizontal curve .............................................42
Figure 3.11: Equivalent cross-section for example 3 ....................................................................................... 42
Figure 3.12: Unadjusted Risk Score for example 3 .......................................................................................... 43
Figure 3.13: Risk Score for culverts classified as a significant hazard ............................................................ 44
Figure 3.14: View of a typical urban road ......................................................................................................... 45
Figure 3.15: Risk Score for example 4 using chart 18 ..................................................................................... 45
Figure 3.16: Risk Score for example 3 using charts 17 and 18 ....................................................................... 46
Figure 3.17: Risk Scores for continuous barriers on undivided rural roads with different
operating speeds and in different terrain ..................................................................................... 47
Figure 4.1: Table and V drains ....................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 4.2: Maximum protrusion of irregularities ............................................................................................ 55
Figure 5.1: The inverse of ASI against barrier flexibility and test impact conditions ......................................63
Figure 5.2: Flexibility of different systems ...................................................................................................... 63
Figure 5.3: The operation of wire rope barriers .............................................................................................. 64
Figure 5.4: Ground anchorages for longitudinal barriers and terminals .........................................................66
Figure 5.5: Working width measurements showing dynamic deflection, system width (SW) and
vehicle roll allowance ................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 5.6: Points of redirection and typical trajectories of impacting vehicles ..............................................70
Figure 5.7: Approach points of redirection for different barrier and terminal configurations ..........................72
Figure 5.8: Departure points of redirection for different barrier types ............................................................ 74
Figure 5.9: Gating and non-gating systems ................................................................................................... 76
Figure 5.10: Redirective and non-redirective systems ..................................................................................... 76
Figure 5.11: Run out area for terminals to permanent barriers ........................................................................ 77
Figure 5.12: Run out area for crash cushions .................................................................................................. 77
Figure 5.13: Barrier overlaps ............................................................................................................................ 78
Figure 5.14: Testing of barrier under-run (rub-rail) systems ............................................................................ 80
Figure 5.15: Barrier containment level selection guidance .............................................................................. 84
Figure 6.1: Road safety barrier design process ............................................................................................. 91
Figure 6.2: Barrier test level selection guidance ............................................................................................ 93
Figure 6.3: Verge barrier location ................................................................................................................. 100
Figure 6.4: Absolute minimum distances between W-beam barriers and embankments ............................100
Figure 6.5: Barrier close offset to kerbs ....................................................................................................... 101
Figure 6.6: Barrier offsets from kerbs ........................................................................................................... 102
Figure 6.7: Recommended median barrier locations ................................................................................... 104
Figure 6.8: Examples of road safety barriers for use in narrow medians .....................................................105
Figure 6.9: An example of a barrier layout for shielding a rigid object in a median .....................................107
Austroads 2022 | page ix

Figure 6.10: Length of need – two directions of travel ................................................................................... 110

Figure 6.11: Length of need – single direction of travel ................................................................................. 110
Figure 6.12: Run-out length method to determine the leading point of need on two-way roads ...................111
Figure 6.13: Run-out length method to determine the trailing point of need on two-way roads ....................114
Figure 6.14: Trailing point of need on a one-way carriageway ...................................................................... 115
Figure 6.15: Leading and trailing points of need for hazards extending long distances from the
road ............................................................................................................................................ 116
Figure 6.16: Example of sway protection ....................................................................................................... 119
Figure 6.17: Design minimum length of barrier system for an installation for a road with two-way
traffic ........................................................................................................................................... 121
Figure 6.18: Design minimum length of barrier system for an installation on a carriageway with
traffic in one direction ................................................................................................................. 121
Figure 6.19: Run out area for barrier terminals .............................................................................................. 126
Figure 6.20: Run out area for crash cushions ................................................................................................ 126
Figure 6.21: Transition from a W-beam section to a concrete barrier ............................................................ 128
Figure 6.22: Overlap for a wire rope barrier to W-beam barrier ..................................................................... 129
Figure 6.23: Overlap for a W-beam barrier to wire rope barrier ..................................................................... 129
Figure 6.24: Overlap for a concrete barrier to wire rope barrier ..................................................................... 130
Figure 6.25: Overlap for a wire rope barrier to concrete barrier ..................................................................... 130
Figure 6.26: Staggered median opening ........................................................................................................ 132
Figure 6.27: Risk associated with not having a redirective barrier ................................................................. 133
Figure 6.28: Example of two-stage protection ................................................................................................ 138
Figure 6.29: Points of need for two-stage shielding ....................................................................................... 139
Figure 6.30: Flexible W-beam system to span a drainage structure .............................................................. 139
Figure 6.31: Ground beam and surface mounted posts. ................................................................................ 140
Figure 6.32: Impacts with a 1370 mm high single slope barrier ..................................................................... 142
Figure 6.33: Impact envelope for the design vehicle in tunnels ..................................................................... 143
Figure 6.34: Example of a break in a typical motorcycle protection system ..................................................144
Figure 6.35: Concrete barrier in a narrow median with independently graded carriageways ........................145
Figure 6.36: Asperity dimensions ................................................................................................................... 146
Figure 6.37: Impact results for the failed NCHRP 350 test 3-11 test ............................................................. 146
Figure 6.38: Area shielded by a barrier .......................................................................................................... 148
Figure 7.1: An example of a slip-base pole mechanism on impact .............................................................. 153
Figure 7.2: An impact with a slip-base pole.................................................................................................. 153
Figure 7.3: An impact with an energy absorbing pole .................................................................................. 154
Figure 7.4: Examples of active and passive security bollard installations ...................................................156
Figure 7.5: Crash test in a low-profile barrier ............................................................................................... 158
Figure 7.6: Elsholz and NSW high profile redirective kerbs ......................................................................... 158
Figure 7.7: Damage to the 1100 kg vehicle in test B19016 ......................................................................... 159
Figure 7.8: Example of a traversable culvert end treatment (under construction) for a culvert
under the road ............................................................................................................................ 160
Figure 8.1: Design process for steep downgrade ........................................................................................ 165
Figure 8.2: An example of an arrester bed ................................................................................................... 168
Figure 8.3: An example of an arrester bed layout ........................................................................................ 169
Figure A.1: Vehicle movement terminology .................................................................................................. 182
Figure A.2: Road safety barrier terminology – curvature .............................................................................. 185
Figure A.3 Road safety barrier terminology – impact .................................................................................. 185
Figure A.4: Working width measurements showing dynamic deflection, system width (SW) and
vehicle roll allowance ................................................................................................................. 186
Figure A.5: Road safety barrier terminology – placement on two-lane/two-way road ..................................186
Figure A.6: Road safety barrier terminology – placement on multilane/one-way road .................................187
Figure A.7: Design minimum length of barrier system for an installation for a road with two-way
traffic ........................................................................................................................................... 187
Figure A.8: Design minimum length of barrier system for an installation on a carriageway with
traffic in one direction ................................................................................................................. 187
Figure B.1: Base exposure (enc/km/year) for each side of an undivided road.............................................189
Figure B.2: Base exposure (enc/km/year) for each side of each carriageway of a divided road .................189
Figure B.3: Gradient correction factor........................................................................................................... 191
Austroads 2022 | page x

Figure B.4: Curve correction factor ............................................................................................................... 192

Figure B.5: Lateral distance measures ......................................................................................................... 192
Figure B.6: Likelihood of reaching a lateral distance for a road with an operating speed of 110
km/h and with curves of different radii ....................................................................................... 193
Figure B.7: Likelihood of reaching a lateral distance for road with a 90 km/h operating speed
and with curves of different radii ................................................................................................ 194
Figure B.8: Likelihood of reaching a lateral distance for road with a 70 km/h operating speed
and with curves of different radii ................................................................................................ 194
Figure B.9: Likelihood of a vehicle crossing a lane line and colliding with an oncoming vehicle
on an undivided rural road with a speed limit of 100 km/h .........................................................195
Figure B.10: Lateral distance to a hazard ....................................................................................................... 196
Figure B.11: Impact envelopes for a hazard 1 m by 1 m (not to scale) ..........................................................197
Figure B.12: Example 1 – culvert headwall on outside of horizontal curve ....................................................210
Figure D 1: Risk Score for undivided rural roads with significant background hazards ...............................223
Figure D.2: Risk Score for undivided rural roads with significant isolated and background
hazards ....................................................................................................................................... 224
Figure D.3: Risk Score for undivided rural roads with isolated and no background hazards .......................225
Figure D.4: Risk Score for vehicle rollover on roadsides on undivided rural roads ......................................225
Figure D.5: Risk Score for divided urban roads with significant background hazards .................................226
Figure D.6: Risk Score for divided urban roads with significant isolated and background
hazards ....................................................................................................................................... 226
Figure D.7: Risk Score for undivided lower speed urban roads with background hazards ..........................227
Figure D.8: Risk Score for roadside barriers on undivided rural roads (refer to Table D.6 for
road details)................................................................................................................................ 228
Figure D.9: Risk Score for roadside barriers on divided carriageway urban roads (refer to
Table D.6 for road details).......................................................................................................... 228

Figure D.10: Risk Score for roadside barriers on divided roads with an operating speed of 110
km/h ............................................................................................................................................ 229
Figure D.11: Risk Score for culvert headwalls classified as a significant hazard, measured over
a 100 m road section .................................................................................................................. 229
Figure F.1 Flexibility of different systems .................................................................................................... 234
Figure F.2 Variation in ASI as a function of barrier flexibility for a selection of different impact
conditions. .................................................................................................................................. 235
Figure G.1: Run-out length method to determine the leading point of need on two-way roads ...................236
Figure G.2: Run-out length method to determine the trailing point of need on two-way roads ....................237
Figure G.3: Run-out length method to determine the trailing point of need on two-way roads ....................239
Figure G.4: Trailing point of need on a one-way carriageway ...................................................................... 239
Figure G.5: The leading point of need for a flared installation ...................................................................... 241
Figure G.6: The trailing point of need for a flared installation on a road with bidirectional traffic .................241
Figure G.7: Leading point of need for hazards on the outside of the curve ..................................................243
Figure G.8: Trailing point of need for hazards on the outside of the curve based on traffic in
direction 2 ................................................................................................................................... 244
Figure G.9: leading and trailing points of need for hazards on the outside of the curve with a
small radius ................................................................................................................................ 245
Figure G.10: Leading point of need for hazards on the inside of the curve for D > LR ..................................246
Figure G.10: Leading point of need for hazards on the inside of the curve for D > LR ..................................247
Figure G.11: Leading point of need for hazards on the inside of the curve for D ≤ LR ..................................248
Figure G.12: Trailing point of need for hazards on the inside of the curve for D > LR ...................................248
Figure G.13: Trailing point of need for hazards on the inside of the curve for D ≤ LR....................................249
Figure G.14 Road cross-section .................................................................................................................... 250
Figure G.15: Culvert headwall (plan view) ...................................................................................................... 250
Figure G.16: Leading point of redirection for flared and straight installations .................................................253
Figure G.17: Trailing point of redirection for flared and straight installations. .................................................254
Figure C4.1: Types of vehicle escape ramps ................................................................................................. 264
Austroads 2022 | page xi

1. Introduction to Roadside Design
1.1 Context Sensitive Designs
The basis of road design in Australia and New Zealand is the incorporation of context-sensitive principles
into the design of road and roadside facilities (refer to the Guide to Road Design Part 1). The design process
should adopt a principles-based decision-making approach for responding to competing objectives. This
process provides a robust method for determining the suitability of designs that fall within and outside the
normal design domain (NDD) and the extended design domain (EDD).
Projects that consider Context Sensitive Design (CSD) are more able to meet transportation needs,
recognise the need for cost-effective and at times innovative solutions, while enhancing the benefits to the
community. This is achieved through preservation efforts, sensitivity to local values and recognising the
needs of all road users (including people, goods distributors and those who provide essential services).
Concepts such as Movement and Place, described in the Guide to Traffic Management Part 4: Network
Management Strategies (Austroads 2020a), can be used to assess transport objectives and priorities. Any
solution should be one that balances safety, mobility, reliability, community acceptance, stakeholder
acceptance, project and maintenance costs, and aesthetic, historical, environmental and other community
values with an emphasis on maximising safe mobility (Austroads 2018a). The greatest challenges and
opportunities in designing a transportation solution that balances those values occur early in the design
process, during project planning and development of design alternatives (AASHTO 2018).
When developing designs, there are generally no off-the-shelf solutions that fully address all situations.
Every location is unique. Therefore, well-founded design criteria must be chosen for each location. The
context of the particular network link or project is of great significance in determining these parameters. This
context is formed from the amalgamation of many factors, such as:
• what is physically possible to construct at that location
• what is reasonable to expect
• what operational and safety performance can be achieved
• what costs are involved
• what social, community and environmental effects might result.
CSD offers flexibility for jurisdictions to decide what criteria are appropriate to a particular situation while
aligned to the vision for the network or link and considers infrastructure as more than just a transportation
facility, emphasising as well the importance that it is integrated with the local community. CSD takes an
interdisciplinary approach, promoting collaboration between project developers, designers, delivery teams
and the community. It asks questions about the need and purpose of the project and fosters appropriate
thinking and analysis during the development of solutions. This is essential to achieve good design.
Criteria must be applied only after careful analysis of what must be designed and should be considered in
conjunction with engineering judgement and common sense based on knowledge and experience. CSD
promotes efficiency in design and construction by developing economic solutions that are appropriate for the
network link and its purpose. It also promotes safety for road users.
Those involved in making decisions during design should exercise critical engineering judgement to ensure
that the unique features of a location are considered. They must be able to produce strong, defensible
evidence in support of their judgements.
Austroads 2022 | page 1

It is usually the responsibility of the person managing the project to ensure that the use of particular design
criteria is appropriate in consideration of jurisdictional practices and policy. It is usually the responsibility of
the designer to provide advice on the risks involved in adopting any particular criterion. Designers must fully
understand the effect on safety and operations of combining different design elements under different
circumstances. They must also inform relevant stakeholders of the potential implications of design decisions,
particularly if adopted criteria are less than optimal.
Road design is often a compromise between what is considered an ideal solution and what is a reasonable
outcome with regard to safety, driver expectation, economic imperatives, environmental impacts and
community values.
1.2 Purpose
Austroads Guide to Road Design seeks to assimilate the contemporary road design practice of member
organisations (for an overview refer to the Guide to Road Design Part 1: Objectives of Road Design
(Austroads 2021a)). It provides guidance to designers to produce safe, economical and efficient road
designs.
There are three parts of the Guide to Road Design (AGRD) that collectively deal with the design of
roadsides:
• Part 6: Roadside Design, Safety and Barriers (AGRD Part 6) (this Part)
• Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling (Austroads 2021b)
• Part 6B: Roadside Environment (Austroads 2021c).
The collective purpose of these documents is to:

• promote a uniform approach to roadside design and safety by road agencies throughout Australia and
New Zealand
• provide road design and road safety practitioners with
– an understanding of roadside safety issues including the assessment of risk
– guidance on the design of the roadside and infrastructure that must be accommodated within the road
reservation.
Figure 1.1 shows the broad context in which AGRD Part 6 (including AGRD Parts 6A and 6B) is applied. It
indicates that AGRD Part 6 is the sixth in a series of Guides that comprise the Austroads Guide to Road
Design and provide information on a range of disciplines including geometric design, intersections and
crossings, drainage and geotechnical design, all of which may influence the space available within a
roadside and the design of features and infrastructure within it.

Figure 1.1: Flow chart of the Guide to Road Design

While Figure 1.1 outlines the structure of the Guide to Road Design, designers should be aware that there
are other subject areas spanning the range of Austroads publications that may also be relevant to roadside
design and safety and can be accessed via austroads.com.au.
1.3 Reading this Part in the Context of Part 1
The content of Guide to Road Design Part 1 describes the broad basis and concepts of road design and
aspects of network management and planning, corridor and project design.
Road design input is necessary in all phases of the life cycle of infrastructure but predominantly:
• Network strategy and planning – consideration of the purpose and need of the links in the network to
achieve the best network safety outcome through setting consistent standards and achieving a
sustainable and self-explaining road environment. This requires a strategic statement on the level of
investment to meet the future requirements for the safety and mobility of a network or corridor. In the
context of roadside safety, this means setting a Network Roadside Risk Intervention Threshold (NRRIT)
to identify the risk of roadside crashes and the need for mitigating treatments. The NRRIT is explained in
detail in Section 2.

• Program investment and development – The scope of the program and component projects should align
with the vision in the network strategy and planning phase. The NRRIT, set as part of the network
strategy and planning phase, identifies the improvements required in the program(s).
• Project development and delivery – understanding the project objective (for which stakeholder
engagement is essential), the context of the site, the alternative solutions considered in meeting design
principles, the design risks and controls, the costs of options, and alignment with the link and network
vision. Project locations need to align with NRRIT set in the network strategy and planning phase.
Road design considerations need to be integrated into the management phases of network strategy and
planning, program investment and development, project development and delivery and subsequent
operations and maintenance activities. These processes cannot be effectively undertaken without this
integration. Possible treatments need to be considered as early as possible in the network strategy and
planning phase to maximise the outcomes.
It is essential that the design brief for a road project sets out not only the design standards for alignment and
cross section, and other engineering requirements, but also the location and extent of roadside safety
facilities or infrastructure that must be accommodated. This information should result from a planning study
or liaison with other authorities and, in some instances, may take the form of a conceptual layout. With a
clear brief, the designer should be able to develop a roadside design that accommodates and coordinates all
the requirements of road users and other stakeholders or alternatively, identifies areas of conflict that require
further investigation and/or negotiation.
1.3.1 Combining Design Parameters and Consistent Design

A safer road does not necessarily require a wide pavement and an alignment designed to accommodate
high speeds but is one where on-road and roadside features clearly show drivers the path that a road takes
and helps them keep their vehicles in the running lane.
Roads must be located within the topography in a cost-effective way, and this may require that a design
speed and cross-section be adapted to suit the function of the road, traffic characteristics and topography.
The road design in these circumstances should enable the driver to travel safely at the intended design
speed on a consistent alignment. In summary, the following considerations are important:
• Combinations of design parameters – the adoption of lower-order values for a number of design
parameters in combination may create an unsafe design even though the individual design parameters
comply with guidelines.
• Consistent design environment – on-road and roadside features that clearly show drivers the path that a
road takes and helps them keep their vehicles in the running lane. This is improved with a consistent
roadside design, particularly assisted by adopting a consistent design of the safety barrier installations.
• Vehicle mix considerations – it is important to consider the impact and additional risk of a higher than
normal percentage of heavy vehicles, particularly where steep grades are involved.
• Other design elements and features – e.g. horizontal and vertical alignment, lane widths and drainage.
These considerations also have application and influence on the design of roadsides. Further information is
provided in Commentary 1 and in Parts 1 and 2 of the Austroads Guide to Road Design.

1.3.2 Progressive Safety Updates to the Guide to Road Design
Consistent with the Australian National Road Safety Strategy 2011–2020 (Australian Transport Council
2011) and New Zealand’s Safer Journeys: Road Safety Strategy 2010–2020 (NZ Ministry of Transport 2010),
this Guide is being progressively updated to facilitate the practical implementation of Safe System thinking.
While there is information about the potential treatments for a Safe System (refer to the Austroads Guide to
Road Safety), the challenge is to provide the necessary warrants, criteria and dimensional guidance to
support most decision-making situations, scenarios and options for designers. Future updates will
progressively provide the information to make the Safe System improvements given the project, program and
network considerations.
There are numerous innovative treatments being considered to improve road safety with many from
overseas. For Australia and New Zealand, these treatments need to be assessed and translated to local
conditions to ensure an improved outcome for all road users. Assessment and translation require full and
robust engineering processes to assess risk, safety, operational and whole-of-life cost impacts of these
treatments. Where no supporting dimensional guidance and quantitative evidence is available, necessary
design exception analysis and reporting are required before implementation of any trials.
All safety improvements will fall within the overarching objective to deliver a context sensitive, network wide
treatment to develop a consistent road so that drivers are not impacted by unexpected changes in road
standard or functionality. Also, network-wide consistent treatment should be planned and implemented over
a timeframe matched to the asset life to minimise rework and wastage of infrastructure treatments and
investment. An integrated road design approach is important in achieving Safe System transformation of the
road network across all areas of activity.
1.4 Scope of this Part
This Part describes the elements of roadside design and the many features and objects that may have to be
accommodated and coordinated in the space between the edge of the carriageway and the reservation
boundary, and within medians. The major focus of Part 6 is to provide guidelines for hazard identification and
risk mitigation processes and to give a clearly defined process for designing roads for safety.
Specifically, this Part provides:

• guidelines on the rationale of errant vehicle management
• guidelines for assessment and treatment of hazards on the roadside
• guidance on the selection and location of road safety barriers
• a road design process that implements errant vehicle management and risk management principles.
While some consideration is given to trucks, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians with respect to road
safety barriers, it should be understood that the hazard mitigation processes discussed in this Part largely
relate to the occupants of cars.
This Part also covers the:

• assessment of the risk associated with vehicles running off the road and crashing into roadside hazards,
based on traffic conditions, the geometry of the road and roadside and the presence of hazards
• assessment of engineering risk mitigation treatments for roadside hazards, including:
– the provision of roadside barriers
– the provision of a hazard-free area alongside the road
– the use of audio-tactile line-marking and other treatments that guide and warn drivers
– minor design changes, such as flattened batters

• type of road safety barriers to shield roadside hazards including the performance level, length and
clearances required
• design of other road safety related devices such as runaway vehicle ramps and heavy vehicle arrester
beds.
Features associated with the design of the road itself and which exist within the roadside are concerned with
cross sections (e.g. verges, embankments) or drainage (e.g. open drains, inlets and outlets to transverse
culverts) and are covered in the Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design (Austroads 2021d) and the
Guide to Road Design Part 5B: Drainage: Open Channels, Culverts and Floodways (Austroads 2018b).
However, the design of elements associated with cross-sections and drainage may also have to consider an
extensive range of other requirements within the road reserve.
This Part does not cover events in which drivers deliberately drive off the road, such as an act of terrorism,
the management of crashes on the carriageway or at intersections (apart from cross-centreline head on
crashes on two-lane rural roads).
1.4.1 AGRD Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
AGRD Part 6A (Austroads 2021b) covers the need for paths and the geometric design of pedestrian, shared
and bicycle paths both within roadsides and in reservations that are remote from roads but may intersect with
them.
1.4.2 AGRD Part 6B: Roadside Environment

AGRD Part 6B (Austroads 2021c) covers the roadside facilities and infrastructure that are not directly
associated with roadside safety, safety barriers, or pedestrian and cyclist paths. The purpose of the Part is to
provide guidance to a road designer to integrate these facilities into a road design. It is expected that the
designer will have to involve experts in various fields to resolve requirements for:
• environmental aspects such as stormwater run-off, fauna management and noise control
• landscaping
• roadside amenity including visual amenity and rest facilities
• roadside infrastructure such as road furniture, lighting, emergency/help telephones, off street parking and
utilities.
1.5 Principles Considered in Roadside Design to Achieve the Safest System
Roadside design includes the design of all features and infrastructure that need to be accommodated in the
area between the road reserve boundary and the nearest road shoulder (or kerb) and within medians.
A transparent, principles-based approach to decision-making should be adopted during design. This

approach encourages independent designs tailored to particular situations and in compliance with
engineering principles. The responsibilities and liability of designers, who deviate from the guidance provided
here, are discussed in other Parts of the Guide to Road Design.
As well as providing robust engineering justification for many design decisions, standards and guidelines of
jurisdictions, Austroads also provides discretionary principles to help designers deal with multi objective
integrated planning. A comprehensive approach should be adopted when applying discretionary principles,
seeking technical advice from subject matter experts where appropriate. Safety performance must always be
considered, especially the Safe System Principle (see 1.5.1).

Each core principle applied to assist with decision making should have quantitative support where appropriate.
For example, the project benefits of a design element or design decision should be quantified, as should the
risks. Quantification provides a measure for later monitoring and evaluating the success of the design.
Road design aims to provide the safest transport network for all users within available resources by:
• minimising the likelihood and severity of conflict between vehicles
• reducing the likelihood that vehicles collide with roadside objects
• reducing the forces on road users and occupants when their vehicles collide with roadside objects
• minimising the likelihood and severity of conflict between vulnerable users and other users of roads
• meeting drivers’ expectations (including reasonable driver capability) by using self explaining road
designs
• providing consistency of character along the road corridor.
Designers must thoroughly investigate the types of crashes at those sites and their relationship to the design
of the site. Designers should also consider the substantive safety, being the measured or expected crash
frequency and severity, provided for similar sites. The substantive safety should be documented, along with
any existing substandard design elements and elements designed to minimum criteria.
1.5.1 Safe System Principle
The Safe System approach considers the human factors in the road system, recognising that humans make
mistakes and the human body can withstand only limited forces. A Safe System approach considers how
roads and roadsides can be made more forgiving of human error, looks at how vehicles can contribute to
saving lives and reducing harm, and ensures that travel speeds are appropriate for the roads and for all who
use them. Such an approach is not only about reducing the likelihood of crashes, but also about reducing
their severity when they do occur. In particular, it aims to reduce the potential for fatalities and serious
injuries.
The potential for death or serious injury is directly related to the likelihood of a crash and the likely severity of
forces occupants are subjected to during a crash. This potential for harm reduction is affected by the speed
environment, the expected and actual safety record, traffic composition, road facility type, geometry,
roadside characteristics and the likely success of various mitigation options. The risk evaluation process
outlined in this Part assists in undertaking assessments.
While it is unlikely that death and serious injury will be completely eliminated from the entire system in the
near future, substantial gains and even virtual elimination are possible in components of the system over
varying timeframes.
As more is understood about Safe System implementation, a hierarchy of treatments (refer to the Guide to
Road Safety) that achieve the best harm reduction outcomes will become more apparent and able to be
quantified. Practitioners need to be aware of these hierarchies and why treatments are aligned with Safe
System principles.
While this Part is focussed on certain aspects of the road infrastructure pillar, it is important to note that
infrastructure alone cannot be expected to achieve Safe System outcomes and contributions from the other
pillars will still be required. Speed management can achieve rapid and significant outcomes. Automated
technologies have massive potential to reduce serious injuries and fatalities, but their deployment is affected
by the time taken to turn over the fleet. Behavioural measures can also be effective, but it is difficult to
optimise outcomes.

From an infrastructure perspective, the Safe System approach involves:

• designing a road system through planning, programming, constructing and maintenance stages for roads,
vehicles and operating conditions, so that forces on the human body generated in crashes do not result in
a fatality or serious injury
• improving roads and roadsides to reduce the potential for crashes and minimise harm (by, for example,
dividing the traffic, designing forgiving roadsides and providing clear driver guidance)
• setting speed limits that consider vulnerable road users and the variability of risks on different parts of the
road system.
1.5.2 Road Network Efficiency Principle
Consistent with the Movement and Place decision-making framework in Austroads (2020a), designs should
not adversely affect the efficient movement of vehicles on roads designated as significant traffic or freight
routes. Transport network decisions should be aligned with land-use decisions so that transport infrastructure
will meet the accessibility and operational needs of all transport modes in both the present and the future.
Consideration should be given to vulnerable road users and also those who may not directly use the road but
whose transportation needs may be affected by the proposed works.
1.5.3 Community Wellbeing Principle
Transport infrastructure should support healthy liveable communities, provide high-quality roadside amenity
and accommodate active travel, such as walking and cycling. It is usually necessary to gain broad
stakeholder and community acceptance of road infrastructure proposals.
1.5.4 Environmental Sustainability Principle
The transport system should protect the natural environment, in particular the flora and fauna, by enhancing
the aesthetics of roadside amenities. This principle extends to respecting and preserving cultural heritage
values and assets, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous.
1.5.5 Utility Services Principle
Road reserves need to accommodate utility services without adversely affecting road safety. Works should
not make the roadside environment any less safe than it currently is (and provide appropriate mitigation if
necessary). This includes providing easy access and a safe workplace for utility maintenance.
1.5.6 Investment Benefit Principle
A proposed design element should be objectively reviewed to establish whether the associated capital
expenditure represents the best use of community resources. This evaluation should be based on whole of
life costs including the initial development costs, mitigation costs and maintenance costs.
Project planners must also ensure the sustainability of proposals so they align with long-term network plans
to provide a self-explaining and consistent level of treatment and to avoid redundant works in the future.
1.5.7 Safety in Design Principle
While the maintenance task should not dictate the road safety outcome, appropriate assessment of safety in
design is a mandatory workplace health & safety requirement for the construction, maintenance and
operation of the network asset. The safety of workers constructing and maintaining the treatment is integral
to design decisions.

1.6 Roadside Safety Design
1.6.1 General
In every situation, the road should be designed to minimise the likelihood that any aspect of the design will
contribute to vehicles leaving the road. If a vehicle does leave the road, the roadside should be designed to
eliminate or minimise the likelihood of a crash occurring and to minimise the severity of any crash that does
occur.
Road and roadside designers should:

• consider the safety of all road users and produce a road environment that promotes safer travel
• design for risk reduction
• choose appropriate barriers and other treatments for potential impacts at the site.
This Part applies to both greenfield and brownfield sites. While greenfield sites may offer designers greater
flexibility it is unlikely that designers will be able to avoid, remove, or relocate all potential roadside hazards.
The design may therefore require assessment, treatment and shielding of roadside hazards.
1.6.2 Road Environments that Promote Safer Travel
The initial approach to hazard management is to design roads to keep vehicles on the road and prevent
vehicles from becoming errant.
To assist drivers to keep their vehicles on the road, it is necessary to provide geometric designs that improve
a driver’s ability to anticipate events. Visual cues, appropriate signing and line-marking, sealed shoulders
and well maintained roads minimise factors that cause vehicles to leave the road (Austroads 2021e).
Practitioners should refer to the Guide to Road Safety Part 2: Safe Roads (Austroads 2021e), Guide to Road
Safety Part 7: Road Safety Strategy and Management (Austroads 2021f), and Guide to Road Design Part 3
(Austroads 2021d) when designing a new road or considering the adequacy of an existing road. All practical
and economically feasible measures should be taken to prevent vehicles from leaving the road in addition to
providing a safer roadside. The likelihood that a vehicle will leave either side of the road may depend on
many factors relating to the driver and environment as described in Commentary 2. It is not only the safety of
the car occupants that should be considered but that of other road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and
motorcyclists, as well as persons occupying properties that may be impacted by traffic crashes.
1.6.3 Design for Risk Reduction
The systematic approach to risk reduction in design involves:

• reduction of the inherent risk
• prevention of an incident
• limiting the potential for serious injuries and fatalities
• being aware of the risk of vehicle rollover.
Reduce inherent risk

The objective of design is to ensure that the level of roadside risk is as low as practical. While the risk
associated with hazards can be reduced through infrastructure treatments, safety barriers and other safety
devices are also a form of roadside hazard as they can result in significant injuries to the occupants, and can
be particularly severe for errant motorcyclists. Risk cannot be eliminated and so there is always a ‘residual risk’.

Prevent an incident
Prevention of an incident is a key step in risk elimination. For example, preventing the loss of control by
matching horizontal curve radii to the operating speed reduces the incident frequency.
Limit potential injuries

If a vehicle leaves the road, the incident should have limited consequences. A prerequisite to the risk
mitigation process is that no element of the road design is a contributing factor to run-off-road incidents. The
use of road safety barriers to reduce impact severity is an example of limiting potential injuries. Drivers on
two way roads can leave the road on both sides or may be involved in head-on crashes. Designers should
therefore ensure that roadside hazards on these roads are shielded from impacts from both directions and
the risk of head-on crashes assessed.
The risk of vehicle rollover

Even if rigid hazards (poles, trees, etc.) could be removed from a roadside area that is sufficiently wide to
ensure that vehicle occupants are protected from the likelihood of severe injury, there is still a risk of an
errant vehicle rolling over, particularly if the ground surface is rutted. This is discussed further in Appendix
B.5 in Appendix B.
1.6.4 Appropriate Barriers and Other Treatments
Road design aims to achieve the best practical safety outcomes, using practical and economic measures to
mitigate the severity and likelihood of hazardous incidents.
Most impacts with hazards, or a combination of hazards, can be treated in a number of ways. The choice of
treatment methods should aim to provide a solution to remove, or if this is not practicable, to reduce the
potential for impacts with hazards.
The choice of a barrier should balance the harm to vehicle occupants and the barrier’s ability to contain and
redirect vehicles.
Where there is the potential for a high head-on crash rate on two-lane two-way roads, a road agency may
consider the use of:
• wide centreline treatments
• central barriers
• audio-tactile line-marking (ATLM)
• reduced speed limits.
1.7 Terminology
The Austroads Glossary of Terms (Austroads 2015a) provides a comprehensive listing of terms that relate to
its Guides. However, it is important for practitioners to be familiar with the terms associated with roadside
safety and road safety barriers and for convenience these terms are defined in Appendix A.
1.8 Overview of the Roadside Risk Assessment Process
The process, used in this Part, to evaluate the risk to the occupants of vehicles that leave the road is
different to others used around the world although it is based on similar concepts. This Section provides an
overview of the process, which is described in later sections of this Part.

1.8.1 Network Risk Assessment
The network risk assessment is presented in two forms. The first is to use corridor safety visions, as part of
the Network Safety Plan, to identify typical roadside cross-sections, which are used to develop a common
target level or levels of risk across the network (refer to Sections 2.1 and 2.2). By establishing a common
target, efforts to improve roadside safety will address the road segments with poorer levels of safety. This
target level of risk is termed the Network Roadside Risk Intervention Threshold (NRRIT) and is set by a
jurisdiction for a network independently of project requirements and within the economic capability of the
jurisdiction (refer to Section 2.4).
The second form of network risk assessment is based on accepted national practices and jurisdictional
policies, which relate to the installation of safety barriers and other safety treatments on roads and roadsides
with prescribed geometries and road types. These policies and practices should be developed through a risk
assessment (refer to Section 2.3).
Methods to establish the NRRIT through a ‘Risk Score’ evaluation and potential jurisdictional policies are
described in Section 2.
1.8.2 Assessment of the Road Segment against National Practices, Jurisdictional Policies and the
Corridor Safety Vision
The primary method of mitigating risk due to vehicles leaving travel lanes is to install safety barriers. National
practices and a jurisdiction’s policies describe the locations where the decision to install barriers is
independent of the road and roadside cross-section details and over-ride a further assessment of site risk
refer to Section 2.3).
1.8.3 Road Program or Project Risk Assessment
A road segment in an investment program or project inherits the NRRIT. It has already been set in the
network strategy and planning phase (see Section 1.2). The NRRIT would have been documented by a
jurisdiction before a roadside or median of the road segment or project is assessed.
The program or project manager should ensure that the NRRIT has been made available from the
jurisdiction’s network strategy and planning group.
The broad process is to evaluate the risk associated with a roadside and if the risk is greater than the
NRRIT, then the road segment or the site should be treated. The process is not concerned with how much
greater the risk is above the NRRIT, only that it is or not. The comparison of the risk for different treatment
options will need to be more detailed, although often the installation of a safety barrier is the only feasible
treatment.
A graphical method to calculate the Risk Score for a roadside cross-section is described in Section 1.9. This
method assists designers to make decisions more quickly and is based on the process described in
Appendix B.
Figure 1.2 illustrates a flow diagram of the processes for both the national risk assessment and the process
to evaluate the risk of roadsides at road program and project segments.

Figure 1.2: Risk assessment flow diagram

* An alternative process can be used by a jurisdiction if a network risk assessment is used to determine the application of
treatments.
1.9 Calculating a Risk Score
The Risk Score is used to inform the NRRIT covered in Section 2 and the risk evaluation of roadsides at road
program and project segments is covered in Section 3.
The Risk Score is based on the geometry of the road and the cross-section of the roadside or median. The
procedure for calculating the Risk Score is aligned to the concepts in the Safe System Assessment
Framework (Austroads 2016a). However, rather than using qualitative indices, quantitative risk values are
utilised in the Risk Score procedure.
For a particular cross-section, the procedure evaluates the collective risk of run-off-the-road crashes on the
roadside using an assessment of:
• Exposure: The frequency of vehicles leaving the traffic lane and encroaching onto the shoulder. The exposure is
dependent on the carriageway AADT, the number of lanes, the lane width, terrain type, grade and curve radii.
• Likelihood: The proportion of drivers that leave the traffic lane and then collide with a roadside hazard.
The likelihood is dependent on the operating speed and the lateral distance to a hazard.
• Severity: The expected severity of a collision as measured by a Trauma Index (refer to Appendix B).
Different hazards have different Trauma Indices.

The Risk Score is the product of the exposure, likelihood and severity and is evaluated using:
• a simplified process outlined below. This process is also based on the procedure in Appendix B.
• a detailed procedure outlined in Appendix B
1.9.1 Overview of the Simplified Process for Calculating the Risk Score for a Roadside Cross
Section
A graphical process used in this simplified approach assumes a number of cross-section dimensions. If the
assumed dimensions are used in the process described in Appendix B, the same values are obtained. To
enable the Risk Score to be plotted against the carriageway AADT, the severity of the impact has been
defined by impacts with significant hazards. An allowance is later made for less significant hazards. The
assumptions in this simplified approach allow a Risk Score to be developed easily, but they do not cover all
possible roadsides.
The risk to errant vehicle occupants increases as the length of road under consideration increases.
Comparable Risk Score measures are obtained if a nominal one kilometre of road is used.
The Risk Score defined above represents the collective (or total) risk to the broader community from run off
the road crashes. The risk to an individual road user is independent of the number of vehicles using the road
and is assessed with some elements of exposure and the product of likelihood and severity (refer to
Appendix B.6.2).
The following sub-sections describe:

• significant hazards
• less significant hazards
• measuring the lateral distance to a hazard
• operating and design speed
• terrain type definitions
• grade and curve radii factors
• background and isolated hazards
• Risk Score charts for undivided rural roads
• Risk Score charts for divided urban roads
• Risk Score charts for roadside barriers
• the use of the process in Appendix B.
• hazards for motorcyclists and other vulnerable road users
• hazards for heavy vehicle occupants.
1.9.2 Description of Significant Hazards
The risk evaluation process described in Appendix B uses a ‘Trauma Index’ to define the likely outcome of
collisions with hazards. Collisions with hazards with a higher Trauma Index are more severe. Significant
hazards for the purpose of evaluating the NRRIT have a Trauma Index of approximately 6 and higher and
include:
• tree lined edges
• isolated trees with trunk diameters of 250 mm and larger
• utility poles (excluding slip base poles and energy absorbing poles)

• fixed base lighting columns

• traffic signal poles
• rocks protruding more than 300 mm above the ground surface
• ruts in the ground surface more than 300 mm deep
• rock cuttings
• 2:1 fill batters more than 5 m high
• 1.5:1 fill batters more than 2 m high
• vertical drops of more than 2 m
• water courses more than 2 m deep
• down slopes, parallel to the road, higher than 5 m and with a slope of 4:1 or steeper
• down slopes, parallel to the road, between than 2 m and 5 m high and with a slope of 2:1 or steeper
• up slopes, parallel to the road, 1.5:1 or steeper
• significant drainage structures, exposed culvert headwalls and wing walls, with vertical height drops of
more than 2 m or a watercourse more than 2 m deep.
Embankment slopes are specified as the ratio of the horizontal to the vertical dimension (that is H:V).
Other urban significant hazards include control boxes for traffic lights, brick pillars, large veranda posts and
so on.
For roads designed for vehicles travelling at 110 km/h, a tree lined edge, a utility pole and an isolated tree
have Trauma Indices of 6.0, 6.4 and 6.7, respectively. These hazards were all considered to have a similar
impact on crash severity outcome and have Trauma Indices of approximately 6 and were the basis of
selecting the Trauma Index of 6 as a measure of significant hazards. Roads are designed to suit the speed
of the vehicles using the road.
This list of significant hazards is not exhaustive and may be added to. The NRRIT is based on these
significant hazards to define the risk. It is most likely that a corridor, without safety barriers, will have
examples of these hazards.
1.9.3 Description of Less Significant Hazards
The evaluation of roadside risk is generally controlled by the presence of these significant hazards. However,
at some sites, these hazards may not be present and other hazards are classified as 'less significant’
hazards or ‘minor’ hazards. The hazards are classified based on their Trauma Indices listed in Appendix B.
Again, these lists are not exhaustive and other hazards may be included as knowledge is obtained.
Collisions with the following hazards are likely to be less serious. These hazards have a Trauma Index of
between 1.5 and 4. (Refer to Appendix B for more details about the Trauma Index and their values.):
• slip base or energy absorbing poles
• isolated trees with trunk diameters of 150 to 200 mm
• 2:1 fill batters between 2 m and 5 m high
• 1.5:1 fill batters less than 2 m high
• rocks protruding between 200 mm and 300 mm above the ground surface
• ruts in the ground surface between 200 and 300 mm deep

• watercourses less than 1 m deep and with a drop between 0.3 m and 2 m
• down slopes, parallel to the road with slopes of 3:1 and between 2 m and 5 m high
• down slopes, parallel to the road with slopes of 4:1 and between 2 m and 5 m high
• down slopes, parallel to the road with slopes of 6:1 or flatter and higher than 2 m
• up slopes, parallel to the road, with slopes steeper than 4:1 but flatter than 1.5:1.
Sections 1.9.8, 1.9.10 and 1.9.11 contain the Risk Score charts based on the impact severity having a
Trauma Index of 6. Conservatively, the Trauma Index of these less significant hazards can be considered to
be 3. If these less significant hazards are present rather than a significant hazard, then the graphed Risk
Score is reduced by half.
The following hazards are classed as being ‘minor hazards’. The severity of impacts with these hazards is
demonstrated by their Trauma Index being less than 1.5. Impacts with these minor hazards are more severe
than impacts with safety barriers:
• isolated trees with trunk diameters of 75 to 100 mm
• 3:1 fill batters between 2 m and 5 m high
• 2:1 fill batters less than 2 m high
• watercourses less than 1 m deep and with a drop of between 0.3 m and 2.0 m
• down slopes, parallel to the road, less than 2 m high

• up slopes, parallel to the road, with slopes of 4:1 or flatter.
Conservatively, the Trauma Index for these less significant hazards can be considered to be 1. If only these
minor hazards are present on a roadside then the graphed Risk Score in Sections 1.9.8, 1.9.10 and 1.9.11 is
divided by 6, as the charts are based on a hazard Trauma Index of 6.
1.9.4 Measuring the Lateral Distance to a Hazard
The effective lateral distance (or offset) from the road to a hazard is measured as shown in Figure 1.3. If
there is an embankment slope 6:1 or flatter, then the width of the embankment is included in the measure as
car drivers are generally able to regain control and trucks can traverse these embankments. Drivers who
proceed down slopes that are steeper than 6:1 are more likely to collide with hazards on the embankment or
at the toe of the embankment.
If the embankment slope is steeper than 6:1, but not steeper than 4:1, the lateral distance is the distance to
the significant hazard excluding the width of the embankment.
Embankment slopes steeper than 4:1 are considered to be a hazard in their own right and the area beyond
the embankment is not included in the lateral distance measure. There is an increased likelihood of vehicles
rolling over on steeper embankments.
In most cases, additional hazards on the embankment and beyond further define the crash severity.
It is important that the designer look beyond the right of way boundary as hazards in abutting properties
might also constitute a significant hazard to motorists and to the broader community. There is no specific
guidance on how far beyond the right of way should be included in the area of interest as this can depend on
the type of risk being considered.

Figure 1.3: Calculation of an effective lateral distance to a hazard

1.9.5 Operating and Design Speed
Roads are designed to suit the speed of the vehicles using the road. The operating speed of roads is set at
approximately the 85th percentile speed, which is usually 10 km/h faster than the speed limit in rural areas
and equal to the speed limit on urban roads. A jurisdiction could adopt other relationships between operating
speed, design speed and the speed limit (refer to Austroads 2021a).
Roadside risk assessments centre on the management of energy. Accordingly, the term operating speed is
used in this Part to represent the 85th percentile speed and to act as an indicator for the kinetic energy of
errant vehicles. For example, an operating speed of 110 km/h generally relates to high speed roads,
highways and freeways with a speed limit of 100 km/h. Other operating speeds used in the procedure are 70
and 90 km/h in rural areas and 70, 80 and 90 km/h for urban roads.
1.9.6 Terrain Type
Different terrain types have not been defined by the procedure in Ray et al. (2012a, 2012b), which is the
basis of this procedure and is generally not defined in other road design guidelines. The definitions have
been subjective. Giummarra (2001) has defined different terrain types as follows:
Flat terrain – based on 0–10 five-meter contours per kilometre. Roads generally follow the
ground contours. Typical gradients being up to 1: 20 or 5% (3 degrees).
Rolling terrain – based on 11–25 five-meter ground contours per kilometre. Roads can have
substantial cuts and fills. Typical gradients being up to 1: 20 to 1:8 or 5–12.5% (3–7 degrees).
Mountainous terrain – based on more than 25 five-meter contours per kilometre. Roads in
rugged hilly or mountainous ground with substantial restrictions to both horizontal and vertical
alignments. Typical gradients being > 1:8 or > 12.5% (7 degrees).
These definitions could be used if required.

1.9.7 Background and Isolated Hazards
Many roadsides have hazards at various offsets from the road. Often these include trees near property
boundaries and additional trees closer to the road. The left side of the rural road illustrated in Figure 1.4,
shows trees in approximately two lines. The trees closer to the property boundary could be considered to be
the background hazards and the trees closer to the road considered to be isolated hazards. It is assumed
errant vehicles that do not collide with the isolated hazards, will collide with the background hazards.
Figure 1.4: View of road showing trees at different offsets

The analysis of risk should include an analysis of the background hazards and the additional risk of the
isolated hazards in front.
The background hazards are considered to be consistent and continuous. If the background hazards are
trees, then they should be less than 20 m apart to be classified as continuous. The background hazards
could be any other continuous hazard. If the isolated hazards are fairly close together and a relatively
consistent offset from the traffic lane, they should be considered to be background hazards and there would
be no additional isolated hazards.
Some roads in the interior of the country may have no property boundary fences, no consistent background
hazards and few trees or other significant hazards near the road. Then the Risk Score for the background
hazards can be assumed to be related to the risk of vehicles rolling over.
The process is similar in urban areas. Figure 1.5 shows a fence on the property boundary and trees or other
hazards in front. The fence is the background hazard and the trees are isolated hazards.

Figure 1.5: View of an urban road showing background and isolated hazards
1.9.8 Risk Score Charts for Undivided Rural Roads
For rural roads, with significant hazards listed in Section 1.9.2, the risk is dependent on the traffic volume
and the lateral offset to these hazards from the edge of the lane. The offset of the hazards is measured in
accordance with Section 1.9.4.
The charts for the rural roads are copied in Appendix D and grouped together so that pages may be copied
and annotated to assist a program or project manager. The axes in the charts generally have the same
scales. In these figures, the chart number is shown in the top left corner.
The terrain influences the geometric design of the road. Accordingly, the mountainous and rolling terrain
types are also applicable to roads with more restricted sight distances, narrower pavements, tighter curves
and so on. Roadsides in rolling terrain have a slightly greater exposure than those for mountainous terrain,
all other dimensions being the same. Consequently, roads in mountainous or rolling terrain have similar Risk
Scores. In this simplified approach, either ‘rolling’ or ‘mountainous’ terrain will be used and can be applied to
both terrain types.
The hazards are considered to be ‘continuous’ if trees, poles and the like have an average spacing less than
20 m.
The charts in this Section are considered to be representative and conservative but do not cover all
possibilities.
Rural roads with background hazards and with no isolated hazards in front
Figure 1.6 illustrates the Risk Score for rural roads with an operating speed (and design speed) of 70 km/h
(in mountainous terrain), and 90 and 110 km/h in flat and rolling terrain. Table 1.1 lists the road
characteristics for each road type.
It is appreciated that Figure 1.6 does not cover all rural situations, but the charts are sufficient for most
situations. The process in Appendix B could be used for other situations.

Figure 1.6: Risk Score for undivided rural roads with significant background hazards at different offsets and
for different operating speeds and road types
Table 1.1: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure 1.6
Chart
Chart description Terrain Operating speed Lane width
number
1 Rural mountainous 70 km/h Mountainous 70 km/h 3.0 m
2 Rural 90 km/h Rolling 90 km/h 3.3 m
4 Rural 90 km/h Flat 90 km/h 3.5 m
Note: There are no isolated hazards.
The risk of the background hazards includes the risk of rollovers.

Rural roads with background hazards and with isolated hazards in front
When there are isolated trees or other significant hazards in front of a continuous line of significant
background hazards, specified in Section 1.9.7, the isolated hazards in front shield the background hazards
behind and so reduce the risk of vehicles colliding with them. The combined risk of background and isolated
hazards increases with an increasing number of isolated hazards. The Risk Score is given in Figure 1.7 for
rural roads with an operating speed of 70, 90 or 110 km/h and in different terrains. The Risk Score is
evaluated over 1 km. Table 1.2 lists the road characteristics for each road type represented by the charts in
Figure 1.7.
Figure 1.7: Risk Score for undivided rural roads with significant isolated hazards at different average spacings
along a roadside and for different operating speeds and evaluated over 1 km
Note: Refer to Table 1.2 for road and hazard characteristics and dimensions. The road segments are straight or winding
without sharp curves.

Table 1.2: Rural road characteristics for the Risk Score charts in Figure 1.7
Chart Operating Lane Background Isolated

Chart description Terrain
number speed width hazards at hazards at
6 Rural mountainous 70 km/h Mountainous 70 km/h 3.0 m 3m 1m
7 Rural 90 km/h Rolling 90 km/h 3.3 m 3m 1m
9 Rural 90 km/h Flat 90 km/h 3.5 m 4m 2m
These charts give the Risk Scores for both the background hazards and the isolated hazards in front and
account for any shielding by the isolated hazards.
Rural roads without background hazards but isolated hazards
Figure 1.8 shows the risk of isolated significant hazards with an average spacing of 50 m and 200 m. The
road is undivided in flat terrain and has two 3.5 m lanes and there are no background hazards. The operating
speed for these roads is 110 km/h. The isolated hazards are at various distances from the edge of the traffic
lane.
If there are no background hazards, then there is still a risk of vehicles rolling over. Figure 1.9 illustrates this
risk. Note that the Risk Score axis has a different scale. The charts in this figure particularly apply to roads, in
the western and central areas of Australia that have few significant hazards. The risk of a rollover (from
Figure 1.9) is added to the risk for isolated hazards (from Figure 1.8).
Figure 1.8: Risk Score for isolated significant hazards on undivided rural roads without background hazards
Note: Lanes are 3.5 m wide. The terrain is flat. The operating speed is 110 km/h.

Figure 1.9: Rollover Risk Score for undivided rural roads without background hazards and an operating speed
of 110 km/h
Note: Lanes are 3.5 m wide. The terrain is flat. The operating speed is 110 km/h. The Risk Score axis has a different
scale to other charts.
The risk score charts above for AADT between 5000 and 11 500 veh/day plateau and are then expected to
increase again. Refer to Appendix B.1 for further explanation.
1.9.9 Grade and Curve Radii Factors for Rural Roads Risk Score Values
Figure 1.6, Figure 1.7 and Figure 1.8 refer to the straighter segments of road with upgrades or slight
downgrades. The procedure in Appendix B accounts for the gradient and the curve radii. The limit of curve
radii that do not increase the Risk Score depends on the operating speed. Risk Score adjustment factors for
roads with 300 m, 600 m or 900 m radius curves are given in Table 1.3. This table gives the Risk Score
adjustment factors for significant hazards being either 3 m or 6 m from the road. The factors in Table 1.3 are
used to increase the Risk Score from Figure 1.6, Figure 1.7 and Figure 1.8. These factors are applied to the
analysis of the risk for background hazards and the risk of background and isolated hazards.
Table 1.3: Risk Score adjustment factors for curve radii on two-lane rural roads
Operating speed
70 km/h 90 km/h 110 km/h

Curve
Location
radius Hazard location from the road •
3m 6m 3m 6m 3m 6m
300 m Inside curve 2.6 3.4 2.6 3.2 2.4 2.8

Outside curve 5.3 6.8 5.1 6.5 4.7 5.5
600 m Inside curve 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3
Outside curve 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3
900 m Inside curve 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2
Outside curve 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2
Note: This table can also be applied to higher speed urban divided roads. If applied to undivided urban roads, then the
designer should acknowledge that using this table is an extrapolation of the data.

The hazard location and the curve radii, listed in Table 1.3, are the values that were used to evaluate the
numbers in the body of the table. Users should use the hazard location and the curve radii that are closest to
the site characteristics and not interpolate the numbers. If more detail is required, then the process in
Appendix B should be used.
Table 1.4 lists an appropriate adjustment factor for downgrades. The procedure in Appendix B may need to
be consulted if the gradients and curve radii are significantly different. Both a curve radii factor and a grade
factor should be applied in the one analysis.
Table 1.4: Risk Score adjustment factors for the gradient of two-lane rural roads
Gradient Upgrade 2% downgrade 4% downgrade 6% downgrade

Factor 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0
Note: This table can also be applied to higher speed urban divided roads. If applied to undivided urban roads, then the
designer should acknowledge that using this table is an extrapolation of the data.
1.9.10 Risk Score Charts for Divided Urban Roads
A Risk Score for divided urban roads is evaluated using two different scenarios. The first is when there are
closely spaced (less than 20 m apart) significant hazards along the road such as large trees, light poles,
utility poles, rock walls and so on. These create a continuous background hazard. In this case, the risk is
dependent on the traffic volume and the lateral offset to these hazards. The arterial roads have an operating
speed of 70, 80 or 90 km/h (see Figure 1.10).
The second scenario is when there is a fence or a property wall 4 m from the edge of the road and isolated
significant hazards at various spacings that are 1 m from the edge of the traffic lane. Again, the arterial roads
have an operating speed of 70, 80 and 90 km/h. There is an increased risk when the average spacing
between significant hazards decreases. If these significant hazards are further from the edge of the traffic
lane, then the risk is reduced. The results presented in Figure 1.11 are considered to be representative of
most situations and to be conservative.
For Figure 1.10 and Figure 1.11, it was assumed that there were two 3.5 m wide lanes in each direction and
the terrain is flat. For Figure 1.11, it is assumed that there is a generic wall 4 m from the edge of the road
(creating a background hazard line) and isolated trees 1 m from the edge of the road in front of the wall.
The adjustment factors in Table 1.3 and Table 1.4 can be applied to divided urban roads. The AADT is the
expected traffic volume for the period of the corridor safety vision.

Figure 1.10: Risk Score for divided urban roads with significant hazards at different offsets and for different
operating speeds (Scenario 1)
Note: There are no isolated hazards. The background hazards are at various distances from the edge of the traffic lane.
The terrain is flat.
Figure 1.11: Risk Score for divided urban roads with significant hazards at different average spacings along a
roadside and for different operating speeds (Scenario 2)
Note: There are isolated hazards 1 m from the edge of the traffic lane and a generic wall is the background hazard and is
4 m from the edge of the traffic lane. The terrain is flat.
Charts 20 to 22 in Figure D.7 in Appendix D show the Risk Score for undivided urban roads with operating
speeds of 50, 60 and 70 km/h. It must be noted that these charts relate risk to occupants in vehicles that run
off the road. This does not represent the complete risk to road users and the charts should be seen in this
context. Designers using the charts in Figure D.7 should be aware that they are an extrapolation of the
procedure. Although the adjustment factors in Table 1.3 and Table 1.4 have not been calibrated for these
undivided urban roads, they can be used cautiously. These charts are provided in Appendix D for
information.
These charts give the Risk Scores for both the background hazards and the isolated hazards in front and
account for any shielding by the isolated hazards.

1.9.11 Risk Score Charts for Roadside Safety Barriers
The Risk Score for roadside barriers on undivided rural roads is given in Figure 1.12. The barrier offsets
used in these Risk Score charts are given in Table 1.5. Figure 1.13 gives the Risk Score for divided urban
roads with two barrier offsets. The 0.5 m offset corresponds to a barrier being placed at the kerb line and the
3.5 m offset relates to a parking area or cycle lane adjacent to the running lane. Figure 1.14 applies to both
urban and rural divided carriageway roads with 110 km/h vehicle operating speeds. The user should note
that some of these charts are drawn to different scales from other charts in this section.
Figure 1.12: Risk Score for roadside barriers on undivided rural roads with different operating speeds and
terrain (refer to Table 1.5 for road details)
Chart number Rural or urban Terrain Operating speed Lane width Offset of the barrier
23 Rural undivided Flat/rolling 70 km/h 3.0 m 1.0 m*
* The barrier offsets used produce conservative (higher) Risk Scores. If barriers were located further from the road, the
Risk Score would be smaller.

Figure 1.13: Risk Score for roadside barriers on divided carriageway urban roads with different operating
speeds and barrier offsets (refer to Table 1.6 for road details)
Chart number Rural or urban Terrain Operating speed Lane width Offset of the barrier*
26 Urban divided Flat 70 km/h 3.0 m 0.5 and 3.5 m

Note: * The barrier offsets used produce conservative (higher) Risk Scores. If barriers were located further from the road,
the Risk Score would be smaller.
Figure 1.14: Risk Score for roadside barriers on divided carriageway urban and rural roads with an operating
speed of 110 km/h
Note: The barrier offset of 2.0 m is used. This produces conservative (higher) Risk Scores. If barriers were located
further from the road the Risk Score would be smaller.

1.9.12 When should the process in Appendix B be used?
The process in Appendix B should be used if the designer is concerned that the road geometry and its
characteristics assumed for each chart do not reflect the study site. For instance, divided rural roads should
be analysed using the process in Appendix B if they are not addressed by national or jurisdictional policies
described in Section 2.3.
For cases where a design exception is required or when the design is outside the normal design domain
(NDD), the designer should use the method described in Appendix B to support the assessment of risk. A
design exception needs to be approved by the relevant jurisdiction.
The process in this section does not cover the risk associated with oncoming vehicles on two lane rural
roads and this should be analysed using the process in Appendix B.
1.9.13 Hazards for Motorcyclists and Other Vulnerable Road Users
In this Part, the following objects are not considered to be hazardous fixed objects for vehicle occupants:
• small-size steel and timber sign support posts that comply with AS 1742.2-2009
• slip-base poles and frangible posts
• objects located beyond the deflection area of a safety barrier
• trees with trunk diameters less than 70 to 100 mm at their base depending on the species. An
environmental specialist should be consulted on the impact strength of the particular tree species.
• tubular thin-walled traffic signal posts at urban intersections.
While these objects may not be hazardous to vehicle occupants, they are likely to be hazardous for errant
motorcyclists and so consideration should be given to impacts by all road users.
Roads that have a high number of motorcyclists will need to be evaluated using a different process to that
described in Section 2.4 and Section 3. At this time, the process for deciding where to install barriers and
motorcyclist protection devices has not been well documented and it is often managed through jurisdictional
policies and practices.
1.9.14 Hazards for Heavy Vehicle Occupants
Many objects that are hazardous to the occupants of a car are not as hazardous to heavy vehicles due to
their greater mass and stiffer construction. There is insufficient evidence to classify the outcomes of impacts
by heavy vehicles for different hazards.
Carrigan, Ray and Johnson (2014) reported that the exposure measure for heavy vehicles is approximately
30% of the value for all vehicles. The severity of impacts for the occupants of heavy vehicles is also likely to
be less than for occupants of passenger vehicles. Consequently, the risk to heavy vehicle occupants is also
lower. When heavy vehicles leave the road, the risk to others is often increased.

2. Network Risk Assessment
2.1 General
As discussed in Section 1.5, a primary objective of road design is to provide drivers with a consistent view of
the road and roadsides through self-explaining roads (refer to Guide to Road Design Part 1). Associated with
this aspect, the level of protection to errant drivers should also be consistent and at a level of risk
commensurate with the road’s function in the hierarchy, the community requirements and aspirations and the
potential funding for the road in the intermediate and longer terms.
A safety assessment of the network should be undertaken before evaluating the safety of individual road
segments. The risk of roadsides across a network is informed by corridor safety visions and documented
with the Network Roadside Risk Intervention Threshold (NRRIT) for run-off-the-road crashes.
This section describes the process to set the NRRIT from the corridor safety vision and its consistent
application for the assessment of road projects and sites discussed in Section 3. While this efficient process
is recommended, a jurisdiction is able to use an alternative procedure if a network risk assessment is used to
determine the application of treatments (also see the flow diagram in Figure 1.2).
2.2 Corridor Safety Visions
A corridor safety vision is part of a Network Safety Plan as required by Action A of the National Road Safety
Action Plan 2018-2020 (Commonwealth of Australia 2018). These corridor safety visions are a jurisdiction’s
policy for roadside treatments and are based on a targeted level of risk defined by the iRAP star ratings and
the expected number of fatal and serious injuries (FSIs) per kilometre per year. A corridor safety vision is a
broad clear statement of the vision of a network or a corridor to create the safest road network with the
available resources.
The corridor safety vision is a high-level document that should not be static. A road agency should monitor
and update it from time to time. The corridor safety vision allows for a consistent network level of safety
provided by a road and consequently a roadside. Adopting a more consistent level of safety will allow the
expenditure on roadside safety improvements to be more efficiently utilised.
The corridor safety vision enables a generalised targeted level of safety to be identified. Road stereotype
tables, Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 2 (Austroads 2019), and other comprehensive safety analysis
tools provide a means to identify a targeted level of safety and the broad characteristics of the road and
roadside geometry to achieve this target.
The decision process to define the targeted level of safety for a particular road is not described here and is a
function of the road network planning process. The process will likely be different for different jurisdictions.
Until a Network Safety Plan has been prepared, a jurisdiction must define an appropriate roadside cross
section that would reflect the requirements of the user, the community and resources for particular segments
of road. This road segment would then be used to define an NRRIT using the procedures in Section 2.4.
A corridor safety vision may also document safety treatments for a particular corridor. These treatments are
restricted to specific corridors and are not applied across a jurisdiction.

2.2.1 Adverse Crash History
An adverse crash history should be used to re-evaluate the corridor safety vision for the road or network.
Many factors may need to be examined as possible contributory causes, even when they are not the primary
cause of a crash, as they may indicate that treatments other than road safety barriers are appropriate at
sites. Detailed guidance on investigating crash locations, diagnosing crash problems and developing
solutions is contained in the Guide to Road Safety Part 2: Safe roads (Austroads 2021e).
2.3 Treatment of Roads Based on Policies and Practices
The primary method of mitigating risk due to vehicles leaving travel lanes is to install roadside barriers. This
section describes the locations where the decision to install barriers is independent of the detailed road and
roadside cross section details and are based on over-riding national practices, jurisdictional policy or corridor
safety vision.
2.3.1 Treatment of Roads Based on National Practices
Barriers should be installed on the following greenfield road segments regardless of the roadside or median
dimensions:
• on verges and in medians of rural freeways with a speed limit of 100 km/h or higher and with access
control and divided carriageways
• on verges and in medians of urban freeways with a speed limit of 100 km/h or higher and with access
control and divided carriageways

• in medians on rural highways with divided carriageways with a speed limit of 100 km/h or higher.
The run-off-the-road risk associated with these road types would not require further evaluation.
An exception report should be required to justify if it is proposed that a barrier be not installed in the median
or verge of a greenfield rural highway or a greenfield freeway specified above.
2.3.2 Treatment of Roads Based on Jurisdictional Policies
A jurisdictional policy may include:
the installation of barriers to shield and to protect high consequence infrastructure that cannot feasibly be
removed or relocated and if impacted by an errant vehicle has high community costs, for instance, barriers to
shield rail infrastructure
• the installation of barriers to shield and to protect high consequence land that is not a public utility and is
located outside of the road corridor, for instance, some school yards, child care centres and fuel storage
facilities
• the installation of continuous barriers
• the installation of wide centreline treatments with or without a barrier
• the installation of barriers or barrier types for defined road types and locations
• the installation of other safety treatments including audio-tactile line-marking on rural roads and the
sealing of shoulders
• the installation of barriers to shield sites that present a high real or perceived risk to motorists.
A corridor safety vision can also list requirements for the installation of barriers and other safety devices.
These are considered along with the jurisdictional policies. Further details of potential jurisdictional policies
are provided in Appendix C.

2.4 The Network Roadside Risk Intervention Threshold (NRRIT)
A description of generalised typical target cross-sections is developed from the corridor safety visions
outlined in Section 2.2 for all crash types. These typical cross-sections can be on existing roads or can be
desired cross sections. Cross-sections on existing roads will usually relate to straight road segments with a
level or a slight uphill gradient. Their description should not include sharper curves, steep down grades,
isolated hazards in front of continuous hazards unless these define a typical cross-section for a road. These
typical cross sections would be expected to apply over a number of road segments.
Typical cross-sections for the evaluation of the NRRIT will usually be from higher volume two lane single
carriageway rural roads and higher volume urban roads. Divided carriageway rural roads could be included;
however, these roads generally have better geometries and the level of safety may not be typical of the
greater network.
The risk of run-off-the-road crashes is evaluated by Risk Scores for the generalised cross sections on a
number of different road segments and types and these Risk Scores then inform the NRRIT for these road
types. The procedure to calculate these Risk Scores is described in Section 2.5.
Different jurisdictions may have different corridor safety visions for similar roads. One jurisdiction’s corridor
safety vision may be to install continuous barriers 2.0 m from the traffic lane on two-lane single carriageway
rural roads and this cross-section will inform the NRRIT. Another jurisdiction may consider that, given their
level of resources and traffic volumes, a cross-section with trees no closer than 3 m from the road is its
corridor safety vision. (Different projected traffic volumes or different financial commitment to the two
corridors may have affected the different decisions).
The extent of the network reviewed to evaluate an NRRIT may include all corridors or specific corridors.
While the NRRIT will be set for a remediation timeframe of probably 10 years, it is expected that successive
reviews of the NRRITs for a network should have lower Risk Score values as the network improves. In cases
where the NRRIT has not been set at a sustainable level, the NRRIT may be raised to target the highest risk
locations through project delivery.
The NRRIT can apply to the rural zones of a regional network to align with regional resource allocation. The
NRRIT should be applied over the region where resource and funding equitability is to be applied.
The NRRIT is standardised by evaluating the risk over a standard 1 km of roadside.
2.4.1 Application to Greenfield and Brownfield Sites
The NRRIT determines when designers need to intervene to mitigate the risk from a roadside in a greenfield
or brownfield site. For greenfield sites, the objective is to have the Risk Score below the intervention level
and as low as possible within economic constraints.
The notion of the NRRIT is to identify road segments where a roadside treatment is required. This concept
can also be applied to the situation where additional hazards, for instance, additional trees, are to be
installed beside a road. In this case, a jurisdiction could select another threshold level so that the risk with the
installation of additional hazards does not extend above this lower threshold. In effect, Risk Scores can be
used to establish policies both for the mitigation of existing risk and for the introduction of additional risks. It
is a jurisdiction’s decision whether to apply the Risk Scores in this way.
2.4.2 Establishing the NRRIT
The NRRIT is informed by the Risk Score associated with typical cross-sections. From these typical cross
sections, the collective risk of run-off-the-road crashes on the roadside are defined by a Risk Score
evaluated using:
• a simplified process described in Section 1.9
• a detailed procedure outlined in Appendix B.

There are a number of methods that can be used to help select these typical cross sections and,
consequently, the NRRIT. These methods allow a jurisdiction to understand the upper and lower levels of the
NRRIT, and whether different NRRITs are appropriate for different environments (such as urban or rural).
The essential requirement is that typical cross-sections are identified so that Risk Scores can be evaluated
for the roadsides.
Potential methods to establish an NRRIT include:

• Network Aspirational Level Method
This method starts by defining the roadside with a low risk aspirational level to make significant road
safety gains and resolves the commitments and constraints needed to achieve this level.
• Jurisdictional Constrained Method
This method relies on a list of the lengths of road (in km) with different scenarios defined by traffic volume
ranges, hazard type and offset of significant hazards (defined in Section 1.9.2) and the road environment.
Each scenario is a broad description of a typical roadside and can be used to evaluate a Risk Score using
the process in Section 1.9 or the charts in Appendix D. An initial NRRIT is chosen and using unit rates for
treatments, the cost to reduce the risk level (defined by the Risk Score for each scenario) to be below the
initial NRRIT is evaluated. Several iterations may be necessary to raise or lower the NRRIT to match
jurisdictional resources and constraints.
• Historic Treatment Level and Predominant Environments
This option identifies a risk level that has been attained using predominant historic treatments. For
example, a common treatment has been the use of a 9 m clear area alongside the road in flat terrain.
Again, this allows a typical cross-section to be identified. This level can then be checked for other
predominant road types to gauge the level of acceptance. While this option is not recommended it would
provide a short-term interim basis for consequential decision-making as part of projects and programs.
In any case, it is important to select the typical cross-sections that reflect the roadside safety described in the
corridor safety vision or jurisdictional policy statement.
2.4.3 Setting an NRRIT Based on Two-lane Undivided Rural Roads
The graphical Risk Score charts provided in Section 1.9.8 apply to rural undivided roads. As the typical cross
sections on rural roads would generally not have isolated hazards, charts in Figure 1.6 are more applicable.
Using the design AADT, the operating speed-terrain combination and the offset of significant hazards (listed
in Section 1.9.2) from the road, the user can identify the Risk Score for a particular cross section. The Risk
Score should be modified when frequent curves or grades extend over the road segment. These factors are
described in Section 1.9.
The NRRIT is a composition of the Risk Scores for several typical cross-sections.
2.4.4 Setting an NRRIT Based on Urban Roads
A Risk Score, to define the NRRIT for divided urban roads, is evaluated in the charts in Section 1.9.10.
A single NRRIT could be applied to urban roads with different functions. This threshold value is more usefully
evaluated using the characteristics of road segments with higher operating speeds or traffic volumes (AADT).
It is appreciated that the figures in Section 1.9.10 do not cover all urban situations, but they are sufficient for
most. Generally, there is little additional value in trying to describe the cross-section more accurately, as the
results do not vary widely. The process in Appendix B could be used for other situations.
When setting the NRRIT, it is useful to consider its implications across urban and rural roads with different
cross sectional characteristics. Appendix D provides the Risk Score charts in one location to assist.

2.5 Example of Setting an NRRIT
In this example, it is assumed that a local government jurisdiction has a network of two lane single
carriageway rural and single and multiple carriageway urban roads. The NRRIT is the Risk Score typically
evaluated using both rural and urban roads carrying higher traffic volumes.
A typical roadside on a two lane two-way rural road corridor has a significant number of trees that are within
a lateral distance of 3 to 5 m from the road. The jurisdiction is seeking to improve the level of safety but
within the expected funding levels. Using the jurisdictional constrained method, the NRRIT is the Risk Score
associated with a rural road, in flat terrain with an operating speed of 110 km/h, an AADT of 2000 veh/day
and with trees and other similar significant hazards that are 5 m laterally from the road. Using Figure 1.6 the
Risk Score for this road is 1.6. The jurisdiction may decide that the NRRIT is this Risk Score and that it can
be applied to this and other similar existing rural corridors. This is illustrated as point A in Figure 2.1, which is
a copy of Figure 1.6. The choice of the NRRIT value is a jurisdiction’s decision.
Other two-lane rural roads in the jurisdiction have an operating speed of 90 km/h, and with less than
500 veh/day and with trees approximately 1 m from the road. The Risk Score for these roads is less than 0.6
as illustrated by point B in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Estimates of the NRRIT using lower section of Figure 1.6
The jurisdiction has developed a policy that significant road hazards should be more than 2 m from the edge
of a divided urban road based on the research by Dixon et al. (2008). The Risk Score of these urban
roadsides with high traffic volumes (greater than 12 000 veh/day) and an operating speed of 80 km/h is 1.5.
See point C in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Estimates of the NRRIT using Figure 1.10
For a more equitable use of safety funds, a single NRRIT should be used across both urban and rural roads.
Consequently, using these examples, the NRRIT of 1.5 should be selected for the network of urban and rural
roads, in this example.
Hazards should not be unnecessarily introduced into the roadside. However, there is always pressure to
plant additional trees in urban areas. The increase in risk should be as small as possible. This process can
also be used to define whether the level of risk after the introduction of additional hazards (like additional
trees) is tolerable. Using the same example, if hazards on the urban divided road are, on average, 50 m
apart and within 1.0 m from the edge of the lane, then the Risk Score would be 0.9. See point D in Figure
2.3. If this urban roadside was seen to be the maximum acceptable level of risk when introducing new
hazards, then this Risk Score would not be an NRRIT, but used to identify unacceptable risk for introduced
hazards. A policy statement could be written so that the Risk Score of a road is compared to the maximum
tolerable Risk Score for introduced hazards (0.9 in this example). If the roadside Risk Score is over 0.9 with
additional hazards, then they should not be allowed to be planted or installed.
Figure 2.3: Estimates of the NRRIT using Figure 1.11

As a guide, using an NRRIT of 2.0 gives roadside designs that are consistent with the historical level of risk
on long lengths of a network in reasonably flat terrain where barriers have not been installed. On some
mountainous roads, the currently acceptable roadsides would have higher Risk Scores and a jurisdiction
may need to adopt a higher NRRIT on mountainous sections in the first instance.
The use of an NRRIT between 1.5 and 2.0 is considered to be reasonable initially, until better information, is
obtained from the corridor safety vision and associated acceptable roadside cross-sections. A jurisdiction is
free to choose any NRRIT.
Similar charts can be obtained for narrower urban roads with lower operating speeds, but these would be
unlikely to define an NRRIT (for run-off-the-road crashes) that could be applied across a wide road network.
Appendix D provides these charts to allow Risk Score comparisons to be made.

3. Program and Project Risk Assessment
3.1 Overview of the Risk Evaluation Process
The hierarchy of control is to first remove a hazard, then treat a hazard that may result in a crash or
contribute to the severity of a crash and finally to install a safety barrier to shield a hazard. Safer roadsides
often involve the installation of a safety barrier. Regardless, there is a level of risk with any roadside. The
objective is to minimise the risk to be below the Network Roadside Risk Intervention Threshold (NRRIT) at
both greenfield and brownfield sites. The NRRIT needs to be determined before assessing the risk at
particular road projects and other sites. Refer to Section 2 for the process to establish the NRRIT.
Risk Scores are used to evaluate the risk of roadsides and medians of individual road segments for run off
the road crashes. The graphical process described in Section 1.9 is used to calculate Risk Scores and is the
same as the one used to inform the NRRIT described in Section 2.4. This process applies to rural roads and
highways and urban roads with higher flows. The process is applied to roadside design in greenfield and
brownfield sites.
This Section describes:

• the concepts used in evaluating the risk at particular sites (Section 3.2)
• the process to determine whether risk mitigating treatments are required at a particular site. This process
has the following four steps.
– Step 1: Assess the road against national and jurisdictional policies. A barrier or other treatment should
be installed on road segments described by a jurisdiction’s policies, which could also include safety
treatments specified in the corridor safety vision. These safety treatments are not evaluated further
with steps 2 and 3 (Section 3.3).
– Step 2: Compare the Risk Score with the NRRIT. The Risk Score (evaluated from charts), which
represents the risk to errant vehicles on the existing roadside, is compared with the NRRIT. If the Risk
Score exceeds the NRRIT, then a roadside treatment is required to mitigate the risk to be below the
NRRIT. Section 3.2 describes the concepts for this process. Section 3.4 describes the process of
establishing a Risk Score for a particular road segment and Section 3.4.2 gives examples.
– Step 3: Identify, evaluate and rank risk mitigation options. The options may include installing a safety
barrier, sealing shoulders and installing ATLMs, or providing a hazard-free area alongside the road
(Section 3.5).
– Step 4: Design the recommended roadside treatments (Section 3.6).
Also see Figure 1.2 for a flow diagram of the procedure.
Risk Scores, used in Steps 2 and 3, can be evaluated using the simplified approach presented in this section
or the procedure outlined in Appendix B. The simplified approach, which is also based on the procedure in
Appendix B, does not cover all roadsides but it does address the majority of roadsides and verges.
3.2 Concepts Used in Evaluating the Risk at Particular Sites
This section provides an overview of the process to mitigate the risk at particular sites.

The background hazards are those that exist along the whole road segment and are therefore considered to
be continuous. The isolated hazards are those that generally exist in front of the background hazards. The
Risk Score is for a 1 km road segment and so the frequency of isolated hazards is based on this distance.
Figure 3.1 is a diagrammatical representation of a roadside and some essential dimensions. Further
discussion on the location of the background and for the isolated hazards is provided in Section 1.9.7.
Figure 3.1: Diagrammatical representation of a roadside
From these dimensions, a Risk Score is obtained for both the background and the isolated and background
hazards. A plot of these Risk Scores against the NRRIT produces three possible outcomes:
• Treat the whole road length.
• Treat the isolated hazards.

• No treatment is required.
Figure 3.2 illustrates this concept. If there was a need to treat isolated hazards only, then all isolated hazards
should be treated.
Figure 3.2: Using the Risk Score values

The Risk Score is based on a standard or uniform road segment length. The process assumes 1 km road
segments and requires that uniform geometry exists over each segment. At some locations, a road segment
will have a part with an increased risk: for example, roads with tighter curves and steeper grades as in the
left hand illustration in Figure 3.3. In these instances, the attributes of the shorter part of the road segment
are assumed to occur over the full 1 km length of road, as in the right hand illustration in Figure 3.3. This
enables a comparable Risk Score to be obtained. However, this Risk Score is only applied to the shorter part
of the road segment. (Remaining road lengths within the segment in the left illustration in Figure 3.3 would
have a lower Risk Score).
Figure 3.3: Using assumed characteristics to evaluate the Risk Score over a 1 km segment
In Figure 3.3, the average spacings of isolated hazards are the same in both cases.
If the action is to treat only the isolated hazards, then those that present a higher risk should be treated first.
These will be the isolated hazards that are closer to the road. The procedure presented in this section, and
described in Appendix B, will assist if a more detailed analysis is required.
3.3 Step 1: Assess Against National Practices, Jurisdictional Policies and

Corridor Visions
If the road and road segment is covered by national practices, jurisdictional policies or a safety treatment
specified in the corridor safety vision, then the risk needs mitigation without further risk assessment. Refer to
Section 1.8, Section 2.3 and Appendix C. The mitigation treatment options are described in Section 4 and
information regarding the design of roadside barriers is provided in Section 5 and Section 6.

3.4 Step 2: Compare the Risk Score with the NRRIT
The charts and process described in Section 1.9 are used to calculate a Risk Score for a program road
segment or a particular cross-section in a road project. The same Risk Score calculation process is used to
inform the NRRIT and to assess the risk at a particular cross-section. This allows for risk to be compared on
the same basis.
The designer should not interpolate between charts for different operating speeds, but rather use the next
higher operating speed chart.
These figures provide Risk Scores for the majority of roadsides. If the roadside and road dimensions are
significantly different from those used in the compilation of the charts, then the procedure in Appendix B
should be used.
If the existing roadside has a Risk Score that is greater than the NRRIT, then the risk needs to be mitigated
and the process advances to Step 3. The mitigation treatment options are described in Section 4 and
information regarding the design of roadside barriers is provided in Section 5 and Section 6.
It is not necessary to establish how much the Risk Score exceeds the NRRIT only that it does.
Consequently, if the Risk Score for significant background hazards exceeds the NRRIT then the analysis
does not need to continue any further as a risk mitigating treatment is required. Similarly, if there are
downgrades or sharper curves on the road, then these may cause the Risk Score to be increased above the
threshold and only these areas may require treatment. Finally, other less significant and isolated hazards
may cause the Risk Score to exceed the NRRIT. The process is stopped once it can be shown that the
NRRIT is exceeded, and the road segment needs a safety barrier or other treatment to mitigate the risk to a
level below the NRRIT. Once this outcome is achieved, the process should proceed to Step 4.
The process to determine the Risk Scores is used to evaluate the risk associated with the background
hazards and the background and isolated hazards. The examples in the text follow this approach for both
rural and urban roads.
Figures in Appendix D list a complete set of Risk Score charts that are used in this step.
On roads where the design standard decreases, that is in a transition zone, the risk may be increased.
Designers should pay particular attention to interpret the Risk Scores for these sites.
3.4.1 Adverse Crash History
If a jurisdiction determines that a site has an adverse crash history, there may be a need to identify an
appropriate treatment in Step 3 and continue through to Step 4 to recommend an appropriate treatment
without considering the network risk.
3.4.2 Examples of the Use of the Procedure
In these examples, charts copied from those in Appendix D will be annotated and used in the analysis. The
chart number is shown in the top left corner of each chart.
Example 1 – Rural road in rolling terrain
A general view of the highway is shown in Figure 3.4. The road is through flat to gently rolling terrain with
significant side slopes and in some places the slopes are wooded. The lanes are 3.3 m wide and the
unsealed shoulder and verge width are 3 m wide. The operating speed at the site is 110 km/h, although it is
acknowledged that in some places along this road segment the operating speed is less than 110 km/h. The
traffic volume is 1400 veh/day.
The jurisdiction had previously decided that the NRRIT for this road was 2.0.

Figure 3.4: Road view for example 1
The background significant hazards are trees and steep embankments 3 m from the carriageway. Using
chart 5 in Figure 3.5 which is a copy of Figure D 1, this road segment has a Risk Score of approximately 1.8
and accordingly does not require treatment. The terrain was described as rolling terrain. A generalised rural
chart is used to limit the number of charts in Appendix D.
Figure 3.5: Risk Score for example 1
Note: This figure is a copy of the lower part of Figure D 1 in Appendix D.
If the traffic volume was to increase, then the Risk Score could exceed the NRRIT and the site should be
treated. As an aside, the scene in Figure 3.4 is considered to be ‘flat’ and the results in Figure 3.5 apply. If
the process in Appendix B had been used, then the Risk Score would be 1.9 for flat terrain and 3.3 m lanes.
Embankments steeper than 6:1 are not considered to be recoverable by both cars and trucks. Errant
vehicles traversing these slopes have a greater propensity to rollover and this site would warrant shielding
before other sites.
If a lower NRRIT of 1.5 was used, then this site should be treated.

Example 2 – Rural road in flat terrain with no background hazards and isolated trees in front
The verges on this road are relatively flat and wide and the road alignment is flat and straight (see Figure
3.6). The lanes are 3.5 m wide and the sealed shoulders are 600 to 800 mm wide. The roadside has
shrubbery at approximately 7 m from the edge of the lanes. There is an occasional isolated tree that is
approximately 6 m from the edge of the lane; the assumed spacing is 200 m. The shrubbery has small trunk
diameters (less than 100 mm) and is not considered to be a hazard. Accordingly, there are no ‘background
hazards’. The operating speed is 110 km/h and the traffic volume is 1200 veh/day.
The NRRIT for this road is 1.5. No significant hazards form a continuous background hazard.
Using the 110 km/h charts in Figure 3.7 (copied from charts 11 and 12 in Figure D.3 in Appendix D), with the
larger trees being 6 m from the road, the roadside Risk Score is 0.1 and clearly less than the NRRIT value of
1.5. The roadside does not require treatment. If the average spacing was reduced to 50 m, then the Risk
Score would be 0.3 and still less than the NRRIT.
Figure 3.6: Example 2 Highway in Western Australia

Source: Main Roads Western Australia.
Figure 3.7: Risk Score for example 2 using charts 11 and 12 in Figure D.3
Note: This figure is a copy of Figure D.3 in Appendix D. Chart numbers are shown in the top left of each chart.

Note that there is a risk of vehicles rolling over, on wider flatter verges. This risk has been included in the risk
diagrams for the background hazards. As there are no background hazards in this example, the risk
associated with rollover needs to be calculated separately. Using Figure 3.8, which is a copy of Figure 1.9
and Figure D.4, illustrates that the risk of rollover is relatively low at around 0.012. This is added to the other
Risk Score.
Figure 3.8: Rollover Risk Score for example 2 using chart 13 in Figure D.4
If on the other hand, trees were 3 m from the road and were much closer together, so as to be considered a
‘continuous hazard’, then they should be shielded. Figure 3.9 is a copy of Charts 4 and 5 in Figure D 1 and
illustrates that the Risk Score would be 1.6.
Figure 3.9: Risk Score for example 2 using chart 5
Note: This figure is a copy of the lower part of Figure D 1 in Appendix D.
Example 3 – Culvert headwall
A two-lane rural road in rolling terrain has two 3.3 m lanes, an operating speed of 90 km/h and a design
AADT of 2000 veh/day. The cross-section of the roadside is shown in Figure 3.10. There is a culvert
headwall 3 m long (in the direction of traffic) 6.4 m from the traffic lanes. There is a 4:1 embankment that is
6.6 m wide. In the vicinity of the culvert, there is a 700 m radius horizontal curve to the right and a
downgrade of 6%. This puts the culvert on the outside of the curve. Note the headwall of the culvert
protrudes above the embankment slope and it is considered to be a significant hazard.

Figure 3.10: Example 3 – culvert headwall on the outside of a horizontal curve
There is a line of trees at the toe of the embankment and these can be considered to be a background
continuous hazard with the culvert headwall as an isolated hazard. Many drivers would not recover on this
embankment because the 4:1 embankment is reasonably steep. Consequently, it is assumed that drivers
who travel over the embankment will collide with the trees beyond. The Risk Score will then be largely
independent of the presence of the culvert headwall and is calculated as if the trees were at the
embankment hinge point, 2.4 m from the traffic lane. This cross-section, in Figure 3.11, is then equivalent to
one shown in Figure 3.10.
Figure 3.11: Equivalent cross-section for example 3
If the trees were not at the toe of the embankment, then there is a chance of drivers being able to regain
control in the area beyond the embankment. In these circumstances, the trees and the embankment are
treated as separate hazards (see Appendix B.9 Example 1).
Using Figure 3.12, the Risk Score for a significant hazard 2.4 m from the road is 3.1. This Risk Score is then
modified using Table 1.3 and Table 1.4. These tables do not cover all possibilities, and, in this case, the
curve adjustment factor is based on an operating speed of 90 km/h, the hazards being 3 m from the road, a
curve radius of 600 m and with the hazard on the inside of the curve. The curve adjustment factor from Table
1.3 is 1.1. Table 1.4 gives the adjustment factor for 6% downgrades as 2.0. Combining these values, the
Risk Score for this roadside, with the hazards 2.4 m from the road, is 3.1*1.1*2.0 which is 6.8.

Figure 3.12: Unadjusted Risk Score for example 3
If there were no trees at the toe of the embankment or on the embankment, then the embankment can be
considered to be the background hazard. The Risk Score of the embankment would be evaluated using
Figure 1.6 and the adjustments in Table 1.3 and Table 1.4. As the offset to the embankment is the same as
in the example above, Figure 3.11 and the curve and grade adjustment factors would provide a preliminary
Risk Score, that is 6.8 if the embankment was a ‘significant hazard’ as listed in Section 1.9.2. If the
embankment was a less significant hazard and had characteristics listed in Section 1.9.3 the Risk Score is
halved, if the embankment is listed as a minor hazard, the preliminary Risk Score would be divided by 6.
In this case, the embankment slope is 4:1 and the embankment height is a little less than 2 m. It would be
considered to be a minor hazard and the Risk Score for the embankment would be (6.8)/6 or 1.1.
The risk of the culvert also needs to be determined. This could be done using Figure 1.8. The Risk Score is
evaluated for a road length of 1 km. If there is one culvert in a 1 km length of road, then the risk of the culvert
would be swamped by the other 950 m length of roadside. If the measurement window is reduced the
effective risk of the road length increases. As a comparison between a hazard and an installation of a barrier,
a window of 100 m is recommended. This is done by assuming culverts are spaced at 100 m intervals over a
1 km length of road.
Figure 3.13 shows the Risk Scores for culverts that are classified as significant hazards having:
• protruding end walls
• vertical drops of more than 2 m or
• watercourses more than 2 m deep.
Culverts that are less significant hazards have watercourses less than 1 m deep with a drop between 0.3 and
2 m. The Risk Score for these culverts is half that shown in Figure 3.13.
Culverts with watercourses less than 1 m deep and with a drop less than 0.3 m, are minor hazards and have
a Risk Score that is 1/6th of the value shown in Figure 3.13.

In this case, the culvert is assumed to be a significant hazard and its Risk Score is 0.24. The total Risk Score
is 1.44 being the Risk Score for the embankment (1.2) plus the Risk Score for the culvert (0.24). Note that in
this case, the isolated hazard, the culvert, does not partially shield the background hazard and that the
background hazard is in front of the isolated hazard.
Figure 3.13: Risk Score for culverts classified as a significant hazard

Note: 100 m measurement distance used.
Chart
number
30 Rural mountainous 70 km/h Mountainous 70 km/h 3.0 m

Example 4 – Urban road
The guidelines for urban roads can only be indicative as urban roads often have street furniture that are
hazards that cannot be conveniently shielded without causing significant disruption to pedestrians and other
road users.
Figure 3.14 shows typical views with trees and other significant hazards within a metre of the lane edge and
with an average spacing of 50 m. The traffic volume is 10 000 veh/day. The lanes are 3.5 m wide and the
operating speed is 80 km/h. The property boundary is 3 m from the road. For this example, the NRRIT for
this road had been evaluated to be 1.5.
Figure 3.14: View of a typical urban road

Note: This figure is illustrative for the example described above.
Figure 3.15 which is a copy of chart 18 of Figure D.6 in Appendix D, shows that the Risk Score for this road
is 0.9 for a background hazard of a generic wall (or fence in this example) 4 m from the roadside and isolated
hazards 1 m from the roadway.
Figure 3.15: Risk Score for example 4 using chart 18
Note: This figure is a copy of Figure D.6 in Appendix D.

As a check, using this offset the Risk Score, calculated using the process in Appendix B, is 0.85. The
property boundary is 3 m from the edge of the lane, rather than the 4 m used to develop chart 18 in Figure
D.6. If a 3 m wall offset was used in the process in Appendix B, then the Risk Score would be higher at 0.87.
Given either Risk Score, this roadside does not require treatment at this time.
If more trees were planted, then the Risk Score could be increased to be over 1.5, and they would need to
be shielded or the operating speed reduced. This evaluation is shown by point A in Figure 3.16 when the
average spacing is reduced to 20 m. If the operating speed is reduced to 70 km/h, then the Risk Score is 1.2
(see point B in Figure 3.16). However, this discussion depends on the NRRIT used. Planting trees,
introduces additional risk and a jurisdiction could establish not only an NRRIT but also a maximum risk level
for the introduction of additional hazards. This additional risk level should be well below the NRRIT (see
Section 2.5).
Figure 3.16: Risk Score for example 3 using charts 17 and 18

Note: This figure is a copy of Figure D.6 in Appendix D.
3.5 Step 3: Identify, Evaluate and Rank Risk Mitigation Options
3.5.1 Identify the Options
A prerequisite to assessing both new and existing roadsides is to ensure that the road is designed and
maintained in a way that should enable drivers to keep their vehicles on the road when travelling at an
appropriate speed (refer to Section 1.6.3). Previously, the clear zone concept was used to define the area
beside the road to be evaluated for roadside safety. It was considered that hazards outside the clear zone
were acceptable. This is no longer appropriate. The designer must consider all hazards in the road
reservation and that a clear area is now considered a mitigating treatment option (see Commentary 3).
Austroads (2018a) stated ‘no matter how wide a clear zone or central median, the risk of incursion cannot be
eliminated’. This is evident from Figure B.7 in Appendix B. Even if the hazards were further than 20 to 30 m
off the road, there will still be a possibility of vehicles colliding with them. In addition, the risk of vehicles
rolling over increases as the width of verge increases. All roadsides have a non-zero risk, no matter how flat
or smooth or wide. Accordingly, the concept that the clear area alongside the road will be sufficient to provide
a responsible roadside is now generally not accepted for roads with heavy traffic flows.
Whatever option is chosen, there will be a risk of injury if vehicles leave the road. The process is to identify
this risk and to choose the option that minimises the risk and reduces the Risk Score to be below the NRRIT.

The basic options include:

• installing barriers
• installing audio-tactile line markings (ATLM)
• changing the cross-section (including the use of wide medians and median barriers)
• removing the hazard
• relocating the hazard to a position where it is less likely to be struck (ideally as far from the road as possible)
• reducing the impact severity posed by the hazard (e.g. redesign so that a hazardous feature can be
safely traversed, use of frangible poles)
• improving the delineation of the road
• accepting the risk of the untreated hazard where the frequency of hitting the hazard and severity are both
low. In this case, the risk should be monitored.
A combination of the options listed above may provide the best solution.
The Risk Scores for continuous safety barriers on rural undivided roads are given in Figure 3.17. The Risk
Scores recorded are based on a barrier being 1.0 m from the traffic lane for roads with a 70 km/h operating
speed and 2.0 m from the road for the 90 and 110 km/h operating speed roads. The Risk Scores decrease if
the barrier is located further from the road; these values are considered to be conservative. Figure D.8 in
Appendix D contains the same figures.
As an example, if a barrier is installed on a rural undivided rural road on rolling terrain with an operating
speed of 90 km/h, and an AADT of 2000 veh/day, then the Barrier Risk Score is 0.48.
Figure 3.17: Risk Scores for continuous barriers on undivided rural roads with different operating speeds and
in different terrain
These figures can be used to establish the change in risk if a barrier is installed.
Austroads (2014a) lists the reduction in crashes from the installation of ATLMs. They recorded a crash
modification factor of 0.8. The Risk Score when ATLMs are used should be multiplied by a factor of 0.8 as
the ATLMs reduce the exposure. While each treatment acts to reduce crashes, the impact of each
successive treatment on reducing the numbers of crashes is diminished. Several techniques exist to
calculate the cumulative benefit of more than one treatment (refer to Austroads 2021e).
Treatment options are discussed in Section 4 and barrier selection is described in Section 5 and Section 6.

3.5.2 Evaluate the Risk Associated with a Roadside Treatment Using a Qualitative Assessment
An evaluation of treatment options is undertaken using a quantitative assessment and a qualitative

assessment. Before a treatment option is selected for prioritisation and implementation, its suitability in terms
of environmental and engineering factors must be considered.
Environmental considerations
The environmental issues to be considered include:

• environmental impact
• recognition of unique vegetation (e.g. environmentally sensitive areas or national parks). If the clearing of
trees is unacceptable on environmental grounds, alternative treatment options will have to be considered.
• the retention of watercourses in their natural state adjacent to the road
• reduction of clearing
• visual pollution.
Engineering and other considerations
The factors to be considered include:

• traffic growth
• pedestrian and cyclist traffic (particularly children)

• vehicle mix including motorcyclists
• crash history
• other geometric influences
• social justice/equity
• road is used as a school bus route
• access requirements
• road is used as a freight route
• aesthetics.
3.5.3 Evaluate the Risk Associated with a Roadside Treatment Using a Quantitative Assessment
A quantitative evaluation includes an assessment of the risks associated with hazards and computation of
Risk Score as described in Section 1.9. Some treatments will reduce the exposure, such as the use of
ATLMs and signage. Some treatments may reduce severity by changing the hazard characteristics. The
same method can be used to analyse the risk and determine the change in the Risk Score associated with
different treatment options.
Other factors that should be considered in a quantitative assessment are:

• design and construction costs
• maintenance costs
• whole-of-life costs
• time to implement
• constructability.

The quantitative method described in Section 1.9, is to be used to evaluate the treatment options by
evaluating the change in risk (measured as the product of exposure, likelihood and the Trauma Index). This
approach is not based on traditional benefit-cost analysis, which is now not a recommended practice.
Appendix E provides a procedure to predict the injury costs associated with different Trauma Indices. This
will enable a benefit-cost analysis of roadside hazards and treatments to be undertaken within the Australian
Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines (ATAP 2018)
3.5.4 Rank Treatment Options
Often, the only reasonable option is to install a safety barrier. Options should be ranked when selecting the
preferred one amongst a number of possible options and when a number of risk reduction options have been
identified and funds are limited. It is suggested that the options should be ranked in risk reduction order first
and then the qualitative factors.
3.6 Step 4: Design the Recommended Roadside Treatments
The intent of this Step is to determine the dimensional limits and geometric requirements for treatments
identified for location(s) identified in Steps 1 to 3. This step uses the content in Sections 4 and 6.
This step may involve the design of a treatment for an isolated site or the preparation of a road design plan
that shows a number of treatments along a road segment that are designed to address different types of
hazard. In the latter case, a detailed design may be prepared for each treatment.
In some cases, jurisdictional standard drawings will provide the necessary detail (e.g. culvert end treatments
and road safety barriers) whereas the road design layout will show the location of the treatment (e.g. lateral
and longitudinal location (i.e. chainage) of a barrier as well as information not covered by the standard
drawings. Refer to Section 6.
Draft road designs of options should be prepared to assist in estimating costs and to facilitate approvals,
together with documentation on:
• all the hazards that were considered for treatment
• the type and location of all treatment options considered
• the possibility of grouping hazards for treatment.
• The final design and documentation should consolidate the design as a whole, considering:
• all hazards for which a treatment is warranted
• the treatment options chosen for the hazards
• the priority of the treatment options.
The final design should be consistent with the cross-sections described in the corridor safety vision.

4. Treatment Options
4.1 General
This section expands on the summary in Section 3.5.4. It describes treatment options that can be used to
reduce risk on existing and new roads. As discussed in Section 1.6.3 the systematic approach to risk
reduction in design involves:
• reduction of the inherent severity of a hazard
• prevention of an incident
• limiting damage.
It is important to understand that there may also be risks associated with treatment options and that the
comparative risk of the treatment should be assessed as well as the risks associated with an untreated
hazard.
Refer to Section 3 and Appendix B for guidance on what constitutes a hazard.
4.2 Summary of Treatment Options
Research has shown that barriers can provide better safety outcomes compared to other treatments
(Austroads 2014a, 2018a). Section 5 describes the types of barriers that are more suitable to different road
environments and Section 6 describes the process to select and locate a safety barrier for a particular site
after considering the operating speeds, roadside environment, and road users.
The first choice should be to install a barrier to shield hazards in the verge or median. A safer roadside may
also involve measures such as:
• removal of hazards
• provision of sealed shoulders and adequate maintenance to avoid pavement drop-offs
• gentle slopes with firm, even surfaces and rounded batter hinge points
• traversable open drains
• extension of culverts; however, care must be taken not to cause excessive warping of the embankment
slope that may affect the stability of an errant vehicle
• traversable culvert ends
• frangible supports for road furniture and road lighting
• adequate clearances to structures
• provision of underground utility services.
All occupants in vehicles that leave the road are at risk and, depending on context, other users of the
roadside may also be at risk of being impacted. The risk of injury crashes in any roadside is not zero and the
risk should be understood if it is to be managed. The risk is different for different road users and minimising
the risk to one user group might be at the expense of the possible outcomes for another user group.

4.3 Effectiveness of Treatment Options
The Safe System assessment framework (Austroads 2016a) classifies treatments as primary (or
transformational) and supportive treatments. Primary treatments have the potential to eliminate, or come
close to eliminating, the risk of fatal and serious injury (FSI) crashes. The supporting solutions are further
classified as those that are compatible with a future implementation of a Safe System option and those that
do not affect the future implementation of Safe System options.
Table 4.1 lists a hierarchy of treatments for roadsides crashes from Austroads (2016a) for run-off-the-road
crashes. A similar table is provided for treatments for head-on crashes. These tables indicate that the
primary options are to install barriers, provide wide and high-quality verges and medians and reduce
operating speeds.
Table 4.1: Treatments for run-off-road crashes
Hierarchy Treatment Influence
Safe System options An acceptable roadside and median barriers for the road context Severity
(‘primary’ or
Very high quality compacted roadside surface, very gentle to flat Severity
‘transformational’
side slopes and exceptionally wide run-off areas
treatments)
Very low speed environment/speed limit Likelihood, Severity
Supporting treatments Wide run-off areas, with well-maintained shallow drainage and Severity
that move towards better gentle side slopes
Safe System alignment
Wide sealed shoulders with audio-tactile edgeline Likelihood
(compatible with future

implementation of Safe Lower speed limit. Likelihood, Severity
System options)
Supporting treatments An inappropriate safety barrier for the road context Severity
(does not affect the
Consistent design along the route (i.e. no out-of-context curves) Likelihood
future implementation of
Safe System options) Consistent delineation for route Likelihood
Skid resistance improvement Likelihood
Improved superelevation Likelihood
Audio-tactile centreline Likelihood
Audio-tactile edgeline Likelihood
Vehicle activated signs Likelihood
Other considerations Speed enforcement Likelihood, Severity
Rest area provision Likelihood
Lane marking compatible with in-vehicle lane-keeping technology Likelihood
Source: Austroads (2016a)
Table 4.1 indicates that the installation of barriers is preferred. However, the decision to install one barrier
type over another should not be made until the issues in Section 6 are considered. Table 4.2 indicates the
effectiveness of various treatments in reducing the risks associated with run-off-the-road impacts and head-
on crashes. Table 4.2 is based on information in the ˆGuide to Road Safety Part 2 (Austroads 2021e). This
table is intended to provide general guidance on the types of treatments that are likely to be most effective.
Some of these treatments can be used in combination, which may provide a greater safety outcome, e.g.
sealing of shoulders and installing a safety barrier system.

Table 4.2: Effectiveness of treatments for impacts with hazards on the verges and head-on crashes
Treatment Influence Impact with hazard Head-on crashes

Install barriers on median Reduces severity Medium to very high 1 Medium to very high 1
Remove roadside hazards Reduces likelihood, and severity Very high
Duplicate carriageway Reduces likelihood Very high
Widen median Reduces likelihood High
Improve alignment, Reduces likelihood Medium Medium
Seal or widen shoulder Reduces likelihood Medium Medium
Improve road skid resistance Reduces likelihood Low to medium 2 Low to medium 2
Widen culvert Reduces likelihood, and severity Medium
Provide line-marking or Reduces likelihood Low Low
guideposts
Advisory speed sign Reduces likelihood Medium
Notes:
1 Depends on the barrier type and the geometry of the median
2 Depends on the geometry of the road and the speed environment
Source: Based on Roads and Traffic Authority (2008) and Austroads (2014a).
Both Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 provide general advice and must not be used to describe the effectiveness of a
treatment at a particular site without establishing its relationship to the context being considered.
4.4 Treatments for Different Hazards
This section discusses treatments that may be applied to elements of road and roadside design at greenfield
sites to address risks that relate to road safety issues that may emerge throughout the design process.
These treatments may also be applied at brownfield sites.
Sections 5 and 6 guide the selection and installation of road safety barriers and need to be referred to along
with the information in this section.
4.4.1 Treatments for Trees
Possible risk mitigation treatments for trees include:

• Installation of road safety barriers.
• Tree removal. This is not always an option because of environmental considerations related to the
intrinsic values of many trees and the habitat they provide. The removal of individual trees should be
considered when they are in particularly hazardous locations, and maintenance patrols should ensure
that naturally seeding saplings that are in hazardous locations are not allowed to mature. Removal must
include trimming the trunk to ground level, so as not to leave a snag hazard.
• Delineate the trees. This may reduce the likelihood slightly but it will not reduce the severity of impacts.
Trees create a hazard when they drop branches that can end up on the shoulder or road.
The risk assessment of newly planted trees should consider them as fully grown.
As the risk from vehicles impacting trees depends on the species, the environment and root growth, a
relevant road authority or environmental specialist should be consulted on the impact strength of particular
tree species.

4.4.2 Treatments for Steep Downgrades
Where a warrant has been established for the treatment of a steep downgrade (refer to Section 8) the
treatment options to manage risk may include:
• a gravity safety ramp,
• an arrester bed,
• a vehicle catch net system,
• a combination of systems.
The design of treatments should follow the process shown in Section 8.6.
4.4.3 Treatments for Medians
Medians separate opposing traffic flows and the installation of a safety barrier system can prevent errant
vehicles from crossing the median into the opposing traffic flow (refer to Sections 5.11, 6.8.5, 6.8.6 and
6.8.7). The location of the barrier in the median needs a detailed evaluation to optimise the road safety
outcomes.
Narrow medians can be constructed on undivided roads with a wide centreline and further treated using
centre line barriers.
4.4.4 Treatments for Embankment Slopes

The severity of impacts on embankments increases as their height increases and/or as their slope steepens.
Vehicles may become airborne as they cross the hinge point of steeper embankments. Embankment slopes
may be treated by shielding it with a barrier or flattening the embankment slope. Marzougui & Opiela (2011)
has demonstrated that rounding at the hinge point assists in reducing the height a vehicle is airborne but
does not reduce the distance over which it is.
Barriers should not be installed on embankments slopes steeper than 10:1 under the normal design domain
(NDD). However, if a barrier is installed on an embankment as an extended design domain (EDD) treatment,
then the location and height of the barrier will need to be adjusted to account for vehicle trajectories over the
hinge point. The strength of the post-soil interaction must be equivalent to the tested conditions. Also, see
Section 6.11.
4.4.5 Treatments for Drains
Parallel and transverse drains present a hazard to errant vehicles when:

• There is an abrupt change of slope at the bottom of the drain that may cause errant vehicles to roll or stop
abruptly. This increases the severity of the impact.
• A vehicle becomes airborne from the front slope and can collide with the back slope. This increases the
propensity for rollovers.
• The vehicle becomes airborne on the back slope and impacts hazards beyond the drain (Thomson &
Valtonen 2002).
In addition to the shape of the drain, the depth of water is another hazard that increases the risk. Refer to
Appendix B.4.1.
AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2021d, Section 4.6) provides some preferred design cross-sections for channels
with abrupt and gradual slope changes. Preferred front slopes and back slopes for basic ditch drains are
shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Table and V drains

Source TMR training guide:
Options to treat drains to mitigate risk include:

• reshape to a less hazardous profile
• convert to a closed system (culvert or pipe)
• shield with a road safety barrier.
Drains can funnel vehicles along the drain bottom, and this increases the probability of impacts with objects
on the bottom or side slopes of the drain. For this reason, the sides and bottom of drains should be free of
hazards or the drain should be shielded with a road safety barrier to prevent errant vehicles from entering
and running along the drain (Bergh and Petersson, 2010).
4.4.6 Treatments for Culverts
The ends of culverts that cross under the road or are located parallel to the road constitute hazards. Road
design should aim to eliminate all non-essential drainage features. Where culverts and drainage features are
unavoidable, risks should be treated as follows:
• Traversable culvert end treatments should be installed. AGRD Part 5B (Austroads 2018b, Section 3.14.3)
provides details for traversable culvert end treatments for drains under a driveway or side road. The
design of traversable culvert end treatment for drains under the road needs to be structurally adequate
and hydraulically efficient. Designs often use gratings or bars to support errant vehicles.
• The culvert can be extended to a location further from the travelled way where the likelihood of an impact
is reduced.
• Reduce the height of culvert headwalls and wing walls of a traversable culvert to be less than 100 mm
above the surrounding embankment front slope. This reduces the severity of an impact.
• Shield the culvert with a road safety barrier.
• Delineate the culvert if the previous options are not cost-effective or practicable.

4.4.7 Treatments for Rock Face Cuttings
Cuttings and rock faces should be treated to provide a smooth face, for 1 m above grade. As with concrete
barriers, errant vehicles will be able to slide along and slow gradually. This could be achieved with
appropriate treatments such as shotcrete. Desirably, a narrow concrete barrier with an appropriate profile
should be installed with the rock face providing the structural strength. If a smooth face and approach
surface cannot be provided, then a barrier should be installed in front and independent of the rock wall.
Alternatively, if a smooth face cannot be obtained, then the rock face may be treated. Based on the Federal
Highway Administration (2014) requirements for guardwalls (stone masonry barriers), a maximum protrusion
of the irregularities in the surface of the rock faces and cuttings should be 40 mm. Any sharp edges should
be ground off. This option is not a preferred one; adopting a smooth face provides a more acceptable and
predictable safety outcome.
Figure 4.2: Maximum protrusion of irregularities
4.4.8 Treatments for Spalls and Rock Pitching

Rock spalls (large rocks not mortared) that protrude more than 200 mm above the ground surface and within
the verge should be shielded with a road safety barrier or removed. Rock pitching (small rocks mortared in
place) with the height of the stones less than 50 mm above the mortar need not be treated.
Rock spalls or pitching between 40 and 200 mm above the ground should be evaluated for removal or
shielding with a road safety barrier.
4.4.9 Treatments for Poles
Poles include:
• utility poles (power, telephone overhead cables)
• high-voltage electricity columns
• steel and high-mast lighting columns, lighting poles and luminaire supports
• any other non-yielding pole.
The options to reduce the risks from impacts with these poles are to:
• remove the pole and replace it with an underground supply or services
• replace the pole with one incorporating a slip base or an energy-absorbing pole
• relocate the pole behind a road safety barrier
• shield the pole with a road safety barrier
• relocate the pole to a lower risk location and as far away from the traffic lanes as possible.
In some cases, the location of a pole may be defined by other technical requirements. These need to be
identified before the pole is relocated. Poles support lighting luminaires are an example.
Further details for selecting and designing poles are given in Section 7.2 and Section 7.3.

4.4.10 Treatments for Traffic Signal Poles
The location of traffic signal poles usually precludes them from being shielded by a safety barrier. It is
generally not practicable to use poles that break-away or are frangible as the pole and its foundations require
adequate strength to support the necessary traffic signal and road lighting hardware. Importantly, traffic
signal systems are essential for safe and efficient road operations.
Designers should, as far as reasonably practical, consider optimising the location of traffic signal poles to
mitigate risk as much as possible, noting that providing appropriate visibility to traffic signal lanterns is
critical.
An option to reduce the risks from impacts into multiple poles is to have traffic signal poles also support other
functions like street lighting.
4.4.11 Treatments for Sign Gantries, Sign Cantilever Supports and Bridge Piers
Often the location of sign gantries, sign cantilever supports and bridge piers cannot be changed. The only
practical option to reduce the risk of errant vehicles is to shield them with an appropriate road safety barrier
and at an appropriate offset. Refer to Sections 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 on working widths.
Designers must understand and consider the additional risks specific to gantry and cantilever supports and
bridge piers. Designers should consider the protection of errant vehicle occupants and potential third-party
road users when determining the most appropriate treatment option. Refer to Section 6.20.
4.4.12 Treatments for Sign Supports
Small road signs are usually supported by small diameter, thin-walled metal posts that are frangible under
vehicle impact. However, larger signs require substantial supports and are a hazard,
The options to reduce the risks from impacts with signs and their supports include:
• remove the sign and supports if the information can be provided by another means or is redundant
• relocate the sign and supports to be behind a road safety barrier
• relocate the sign and supports to a lower risk location and as far away from the traffic lanes as possible
subject to the design requirements for drivers to read and comprehend the sign
• provide frangible mechanisms at the base of the supports (e.g. weakened timber, slip-bases with hinge
points just below the sign)
• shield with a road safety barrier or crash cushion.
AS 1742.2 2009 discusses aspects of longitudinal and lateral placement, mounting height and orientation for
signs, post type and selection. The locations of these sign supports must consider the potential safety
outcome on other road users, particularly the more vulnerable road users. The trajectories of the sign,
support posts and the vehicle after an impact affect a decision to install one sign support over another.
4.4.13 Treatments for Separating other Road or Transit Carriageways
Different parallel high speed road carriageways, for instance, collector-distributor carriageways, need to be
separated using an appropriate barrier. Refer to Section 5.13 and Section 6.5.
An appropriate roadside barrier is required where a rail corridor runs alongside an intermediate or high speed
road and there is a high risk of vehicles running onto the rail line.

If a light rail or tram line is installed in the road reserve, then the risk to passengers accessing or waiting for
the train or tram could be reduced by protecting them with an appropriate road safety barrier system or a
road safety device.
Consideration needs to be given to not only the risk to motorists but also to other users of the corridor or the
railway.
4.4.14 Treatments for Separating Cycleways and Pedestrian Paths from Roads
The separation between a heavily used cycleway or pedestrian path and a road should be as far as possible.
Relocation of the path further from the road where there is a low probability of encroachment by errant
vehicles should be considered. If a barrier is considered an appropriate treatment, then the lateral positioning
of the barrier and its working width will be important considerations. If pedestrians or cyclists are close to the
rear of the barrier then it is important that trip or pedal contact with the rear of the barrier be eliminated and
allowance is made for the barrier to deflect. It is important that barrier performance is not compromised by
attachment of unauthorised components to the rear of the barrier.
Cyclists and pedestrians may require a barrier to prevent them from inadvertently running onto a traffic lane
from an adjacent shared path (e.g. footpath on a bridge with high numbers of young pedestrians/cyclists). In
cases where there is no need to protect path users from errant vehicles, or errant vehicles from roadside
hazards, a pedestrian fence of a suitable height for cyclists may be adequate if a barrier system is warranted.
Refer to Section 5.10 and Section 6.17.2.
4.4.15 Treatments for Pavement drop off

Pavement edge drop-offs can occur during highway repair or resurfacing work. They can also occur from the
shoulder being eroded. When not properly addressed, drop-offs can lead to loss of vehicle control with a
high potential for a serious crash. These are particularly hazardous to motorcyclists. Pavement edge drop-
offs can be rectified by verge reinstatement, edge patching, sealing the shoulders or resheeting then
resealing the shoulders.
4.4.16 Treatments for Other Hazards
Minor roadside hazards such as fences, fire hydrants, mailboxes should be made frangible or located where
an impact with the object should not result in a serious crash.
Minor roadside hazards containing horizontal rails (such as post-and-rail fences) are capable of spearing
vehicle occupants or operators. The hazards should be reconstructed without horizontal rails.

5. Fundamentals of Safety Barrier Systems
5.1 General
This section describes the fundamentals of the evaluation, performance and installation of road safety barrier
systems and crash cushions and is provided as background information to assist the reader in appreciating
the qualities and operation of different barrier systems and crash cushions. Information in this section allows
users to make more informed decisions when selecting a barrier or crash cushion for a particular site while
not explicitly describing the process to design a safety barrier or crash cushion installation. Design of an
installation is covered in Section 6.
5.2 The Evaluation of Barriers and Safety Devices
5.2.1 Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3845
The Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3845 is in two parts. The first part, AS/NZS 3845.1:2015,
addresses temporary and permanent road safety barriers, terminals, crash cushions and longitudinal gates
and system transitions and overlaps. This part defines the requirements for documentation, supply, erection
and maintenance of barrier systems. The standard defines the testing protocol for safety barrier systems
which is based on the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, MASH (AASHTO, 2016). While the
standard does not refer to a particular edition of MASH, it is rational for the most current edition to be
applied, until and if, the appropriate Standards Australia committee states otherwise.
The second part, AS/NZS 3845.2: 2017 provides similar guidance and requirements for longitudinal
channelizing devices, truck and trailer mounted attenuators, rear underrun protection devices, permanent
bollards and sign support structures and poles. These devices are evaluated on the same scales of occupant
ridedown accelerations (ORA) and occupant impact velocities (OIV) so that their performance can be easily
compared with road safety barrier systems described in the first part.
The Australian and New Zealand Standard should be consulted for requirements for component
construction, specification and substitution. However, the Austroads Safety Barrier Assessment Panel
(ASBAP) reviews a road safety barrier or device specifications and test results against those requirements in
the standard and, for most safety barrier installations, the user of this Guide would not be required to consult
the Australian and New Zealand Standard.
The Australian and New Zealand Standard is explicit in describing the entities “involved in the design,
manufacture and installation of the components of a road safety barrier system, road safety devices or crash
cushions.” It defines these entities as:
a) System Designer The entity that has designed the system or device and had it
tested to suit a particular application.
(b) System Owner The entity that has the property rights to the system or device
through their ownership of the patent.
(c) System Manufacturer The entity that manufactures the system or device
components.
(d) System Supplier The entity that supplies the system or device.
(e) Installation Designer The entity that designs the length, location and types of
components of a system to be installed on a section of the road network. The
Installation Designer designs the system to suit the particular conditions of the
section of road network.
(f) Road Authority The entity that is responsible for the section of the road network
where a system or device is installed.
(g) System Installer The entity that installs the system.

The standard refers to the obligations of the different entities. For users of this Part, it is important to
acknowledge the work of the “Installation Designer” and the “System Installer” in the process of installing
barriers.
5.2.2 MASH - Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware
The second edition of MASH was published in 2016, and, with further updates, is the latest update that
defines the testing protocols for safety barrier systems. The testing is defined by the test vehicle’s mass, the
impact speed, the impact angle and the impact location. MASH states:
Each of these parameters is selected to represent a “worst practical condition” for a
roadside feature crash. For impact speed and angle, the “worst practical condition” has
been traditionally set at the 85th percentile level. Test vehicles are normally selected
based upon vehicle body style and weight. Weights have generally been selected to
approximate the 2nd and 90th percentile levels for passenger vehicles. Impact locations
on a safety feature are often selected to represent a critical impact point (CIP) that
creates the greatest probability of test failure. Hence, the combination of 85th percentile
impact speed, 85th percentile impact angle, 5th and 95th percentile vehicle weights,
and critical impact point is believed to represent a worst practical condition.
MASH is the successor to the NCHRP 350 testing protocols (Ross et al, 1993).
The full-scale testing of a barrier system, under MASH, requires two test types. For the first test type, MASH
uses a small passenger sedan with a mass of 1100 kg, to evaluate the occupant risk 1. The second test type
evaluates the structural strength of the barrier using a heavier and larger vehicle. Barriers are classified by
their ability to redirect, capture, or stop vehicles of different masses. A barrier’s test level describes the
limiting impacts which demonstrate acceptable crash test outcomes. Table 5.1 illustrates the mass of
vehicles for a particular test level.
Table 5.1: Effectiveness of treatments for impacts with hazards on the verges and head-on crashes
Vehicle type Vehicle Mass Vehicle Identifier Used in testing for Test levels
Passenger car 1,100 kg 1100C TL-1 to TL-6
TL-1 to TL-3 in some tests on
Passenger car 1,500 kg 1500A
crash cushions.
Pickup truck (or ute) 2,270 kg 2270P TL-1 to TL-6
Single unit truck 10 000 kg 10000S TL-4
Tractor/van trailer
36 000 kg 36000V TL-5
(Van type semi-trailer)
Tractor/tanker trailer
36 000 kg 36000T TL-6
(Tanker type semi-trailer)
Source: AASHTO (2016)
The Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3845 refers to MASH impact conditions for barriers,
terminals and transitions and other road safety devices. For longitudinal barriers, the test conditions for the
different test levels are listed in Table 5.2. For the test condition of other devices, the reader is directed to the
AS/NZS 3845.1; 2015, AS/NZS 3845.2: 2017 and MASH (AASHTO, 2016).
1 While the intention of MASH was to use the 5th and 95th percentile vehicles for testing. With the availability of vehicles, particularly in
the future as the fleet tends to get heavier, the NCHRP 22(14) project team decided to select the 2nd and 90th percentiles. Refer to
Mak and Bligh (2002).

The severity of an impact with longitudinal barriers is defined by Equation 1:
1 1
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝑚𝑚(𝑣𝑣 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)2
2000
where
IS = the impact severity (kJ)
m = the mass of the impacting vehicle (kg)
v = the impact speed (m/s)
θ = the impact angle (°)
The maximum impact severity for each test level is also listed in Table 5.2. MASH indicates that the impact
severity, given by Equation 1, is has been shown “to be a good indicator of the magnitude of loading on a
longitudinal barrier”. The terms in Table 5.2 are defined in Appendix A.
Table 5.2: Impact conditions for longitudinal barriers
Maximum impact severity

Test level Impacting vehicle Impact speed Impact angle
for test level (kJ)
1100C 50 km/h 25°

TL-1
2270P 50 km/h 25° 39 kJ
1100C 70 km/h 25°
TL-2
2270P 70 km/h 25° 76 kJ
1100C 100 km/h 25°
TL-3
2270P 100 km/h 25° 156 kJ
1100C 100 km/h 25°
TL-4 2270P 100 km/h 25°
10000S 90 km/h 15° 209 kJ
1100C 100 km/h 25°
TL-5 2270P 100 km/h 25°
36000V 80 km/h 15° 595 kJ
1100C 100 km/h 25°
TL-6 2270P 100 km/h 25°
36000T 80 km/h 15° 595 kJ
Source: AASHTO (2016)
Testing to MASH requirements does not demonstrate the performance of a road safety barrier installed at all
sites and impacted in all situations. MASH testing is about evaluating barrier systems and not the expected
outcomes from impacts with a range of vehicles. MASH specifies the characteristics of the test vehicles and
test houses tend to use similar vehicles in all tests of the same type. There may well be impacts by other
vehicle types that could cause the outcomes of the impact to differ from those observed in the standard tests.
Barriers that meet a particular test level, may fail in some incidents, even though the impact conditions are
less stringent than the test conditions. Similarly, some barriers may be able to resist impacts by heavier
vehicles than those used in the testing.

The MASH testing should be viewed as a means to rank or classify barrier systems, but not as an accurate
representation of the barrier’s performance under all conditions. Because MASH testing is clearly specified
and because the same vehicle types are generally used, the testing is able to be referenced to assist with
making a fair comparison between different barrier systems.
5.2.3 Austroads Safety Barrier Assessment Panel
Austroads Safety Barrier Assessment Panel (ASBAP) assesses the crashworthiness and suitability of road
safety barrier systems and other devices for deployment on roads under the management and control of
participating road agencies. ASBAP makes recommendations on the acceptability of the barrier system and
removes the need for each road agency to assess the products individually. The evaluations by ASBAP are
strengthened by the collective opinions of and reviews by participating jurisdictions.
The Austroads website states that:

The Panel uses a structured system to assess products proposed for deployment in
Australia and New Zealand. Products are evaluated in accordance with AS/NZS 3845 in
relation to testing protocols and other information, the Safe Design of Structures Code
of Practice published by Safe Work Australia, and the Safety in Design requirements of
the Work Health and Safety Acts enacted by Australian State Governments. The
assessment process streamlines operations for road agencies and ensures they meet
their due diligence obligations.
Note that ASBAP assesses a barrier system consisting of a longitudinal section and appropriate terminals or
transitions to other barrier types. After ASBAP has assessed a barrier system to be acceptable, it issues
“Technical Conditions for Use” (TCUs) as a recommendation to individual jurisdictions. However, a

jurisdiction is free to accept the ASBAP recommendations and TCUs, or not. Consequently, it is important to
review the local jurisdictions accepted product list.
ASBAP also issues Technical Advice notes, which are not part of this Austroads Guide. However, they may
inform or assist Installation Designers and System Installers. These advice notes also provide contemporary
thinking related to the content included in this Part, the operation of ASBAP and the content of the TCU’s.
5.3 Barrier Flexibility
5.3.1 Establishing the Concept of Barrier Flexibility
It has been common practice to classify road safety barriers as being rigid, semi-rigid and flexible
(AS/NZS 3845.1: 2015 and Austroads, 2010). The concept of barrier flexibility has been developed by Dr
Andrew Burbridge (Burbridge & Troutbeck 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2018; and Burbridge, 2020) and adapted
for this Part. This Part therefore classifies barriers by their flexibility and on a continuum.
Burbridge & Troutbeck (2017a) state:

However the assumption that different barriers and the occupant risk they present can
be placed into such discrete categories may be an over-simplification. Rather it may be
appropriate to observe that barriers present a continuum of stiffness, and that occupant
severity outcomes are as much a function of the stiffness of the barrier as the
configuration of the impact.

Burbridge & Troutbeck (2017a) used the Acceleration Severity Index (ASI) to quantify the impact severity.
The ASI is specified in AS/NZS 3845.1: 2015 and MASH. ASI is given by Equation 2:
2 2
𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 2 𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑧𝑧 2
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 �� + � � + � �
𝑎𝑎�𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎�𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎�𝑧𝑧
where
𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 = average acceleration in the longitudinal direction
𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 = average acceleration in the lateral direction
𝑎𝑎𝑧𝑧 = average acceleration in the vertical direction
𝑎𝑎�𝑥𝑥 = the limit values for the acceleration in the longitudinal direction (12 g)
𝑎𝑎�𝑦𝑦 = the limit values for the acceleration in the lateral direction (9 g)
𝑎𝑎�𝑧𝑧 = the limit values for the acceleration in the vertical direction (10 g)
The accelerations are measured at the vehicle’s centre of gravity and in the three orthogonal directions
specified in Figure A.1. The ASI is calculated over a rolling 50 ms period. The ASI is a single parameter that
describes the potential occupant risk. MASH (AASHTO, 2016) states:
With the above definition ASI is a nondimensional quantity, which is a scalar function of
time and, in general, of the selected vehicular point, having only positive values.
Occupant risk is assumed to be proportional to ASI. Therefore, the maximum value
attained by ASI in a collision is assumed as a single measure of the severity, …
Burbridge & Troutbeck (2017a) defined the flexibility of a barrier system as the dynamic deflection divided by
the impact severity. Flexibility is the inverse of stiffness which is the ability of the barrier to resist deformation
or deflection under the action of an applied force indicated by the impact severity. Consequently, flexibility is
given by Equation 3:
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 3
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 =
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
where
IS = the impact severity (kJ). See Equation 1
DD = dynamic deflection (m)
Burbridge & Troutbeck (2017a) found that if the data were classified by the test impact conditions, then a
linear relationship between the flexibility and the inverse of ASI is discernible. This is illustrated in Figure 5.1.
Burbridge & Troutbeck (2017b) derived an equation for ASI as a function of the barrier’s flexibility and the
impact conditions: mass and speed of the impacting vehicle and the impact angle. The performance of the
barrier, as defined by the ASI, forms a continuum on the flexibility scale. Appendix F describes some further
outcomes from this research. Also, refer to Austroads (2022) for more information.

Flexibility scale
Burbridge & Troutbeck (2017a; 2018) listed flexibility values for different safety barrier types. The limits for
each barrier type overlap and there is not a clear demarcation between them. Figure 5.2 illustrates the
approximate ranges of flexibility of a few different barrier types.
Wire rope barrier systems have a wide range of flexibility values depending on post spacings and the tension
in the ropes. While a highly flexible system may be thought to be an advantage in decreasing the potential
ASI and occupant injury variables, these barriers might have other issues of being more easily breached.
The wire rope barriers commonly used have flexibilities less than 0.02.
Figure 5.1: The inverse of ASI against barrier flexibility and test impact conditions
Source: Burbridge & Troutbeck, 2017a
Figure 5.2: Flexibility of different systems
Source: Burbridge, 2020
The flexibility of proprietary flexible W-beam systems is similar to the wire rope systems in common use.
With similar flexibilities, the ASI values, which indicate the likely occupant ride down accelerations, are also
similar, and assist in describing the suitability of barriers for a particular site. This is discussed further in
Section 5.13.

5.3.2 Operation of Different Barrier Types
The previous section has indicated that the different types of barrier systems have different flexibilities.
Impacts into barriers that are more flexible have lower accelerations. This has been well documented in the
literature and standards (for example Austroads (2010) AS/NZS 3845:1999, AS/NZS 3845.1:2015). How the
different barriers operate is a function of the barrier’s flexibility.
This section contains some general statements about the different permanent barrier types. Temporary
barriers can also be classified on a flexibility continuum.
Wire rope barriers

Wire rope barriers have a flexibility of 0.009 m/kJ and higher. The flexibility is dependent on the post spacing
and the rope tensions
A wire rope is weak in bending and can easily be forced up or down on impact. Wire ropes bend around a
vehicle component if that enables the ropes to be in a lower tensile state. Consequently, wire ropes can ride
up and over vehicles and vehicle wheels can override cables. To be effective, the ropes need to cut into
relatively soft body work to prevent their movement over or under the vehicle. This action is illustrated in
Figure 5.3 showing the ropes riding over a bonnet of a vehicle and also cutting into the vehicle’s body work
when impacting a wire rope barrier. In these views, the vehicle is also traversing an embankment.
Figure 5.3: The operation of wire rope barriers

Source: Marzougui et al (2012)
Flexible W-beam barriers

Flexible W-beam barriers have a flexibility of 0.009 to 0.011 m/kJ. These barriers have a connection between
the post and the beam that is designed to disengage quickly after a predetermined load on the post occurs.
This prevents the beam from dropping too quickly or being dragged down by the post bending at grade. But
as a W-beam is stiffer than a cable in the vertical direction, there is less potential for the beam to ride up or
down the vehicle. These barriers do not use block outs.
Essentially, the beam acts in tension in a similar manner to a cable system with the posts offering little
resistance to the impacting vehicle. The primary task of the posts is to keep the beam at the correct height.
These barrier systems operate differently from the older style weak-post W-beam guardrails documented in
the US Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO, 2011a). These older style barriers, which are considered to meet
NCHRP 350 TL-2 requirements, do not have a disconnecting mechanism between the post and beam.

Thrie-beam systems on lighter posts

These barrier systems incorporate a Thrie-beam mounted on relatively light posts and use a similar post-
beam breakaway system as used in the Flexible W-beam systems. The development of these Thrie-beam
systems followed the development of the flexible W-beam barrier systems. Neither system use block outs.
The system operates by the beam maintaining its height as the posts become dislodged from the beam on
impact and as the posts are bent to the ground.
Permanent concrete barriers

Permanent concrete barriers have zero or nearly zero flexibility. The impact energy of the vehicle is
managed more than it is dissipated through the crushing of the body work. The vehicle is redirected and
slides along the barrier system. Previously, these barriers have been termed rigid barriers.
Conventional non-proprietary W-beam barriers (legacy systems)

These barriers, with stiffer posts and W-beams, are able to resist the loads generated in the impact in a
localised area. But, there is an increased probability that vehicles will snag on the posts. This more localised
action can cause the vehicles to pocket or for the rear of the vehicles to rise up in the latter part of the
redirection. These barriers were previously termed semi-rigid barriers.
These barriers are considered to be “legacy” barriers by ASBAP as they have not passed MASH testing.
Jurisdictions need to determine the extent of damage or threshold for existing conventional W-beam barriers
to be repaired. If the damage is greater than this threshold, then the conventional W-beam barriers should be
replaced with a MASH compliant barrier system. Jurisdictions should also determine if conventional W-beam
barriers will continue to be installed in some circumstances. For comparison, these non-proprietary W-beam
barriers have a flexibility of 0.007 to 0.008 m/kJ.
5.4 Barrier Configurations
5.4.1 Barrier System Components
The components of a road safety barrier system are:

• longitudinal barrier
• terminals and terminating sections
• transitions to another barrier system or a terminal.
These components are present in both permanent and temporary barrier types including temporary barriers
installed as permanent installations.
The longitudinal barrier is homogeneous; the post spacings or other ground fixings are the same along its
length. If the barrier is a gravity system where its resistance to movement is through friction, then it is
assumed that the resistance will be constant along the barrier’s length. A longitudinal barrier section is tested
with the impact conditions listed in Table 5.2.
A description of the barrier must include its components and their connections, as well as the anchorage and
ground fixing arrangements. A transition will be required if a barrier system is connected to another barrier
system of different flexibility (or strength), profile or height. See Section 5.7 and Section 6.14.4.
5.4.2 General Configurations and Ground Anchorages
Terminals, transitions and longitudinal barriers need to resist lateral movement. Posts embedded in the
ground or attached to a concrete deck or pad provide this resistance. A ground anchorage may also be
provided to enable the tension in the beam to be developed and to further assist in resisting the lateral loads.

Figure 5.4 illustrates different ground anchorage systems for both the longitudinal barrier and the terminal. A
description of each barrier and terminal arrangement is described Table 5.3. Figure 5.4 does not include
permanent concrete barriers which have continuous lateral restraint and additional lateral restraint and
impact strength in the terminal sections.
Figure 5.4: Ground anchorages for longitudinal barriers and terminals

Source: Based on Queensland TMR Roadside Design Training Guide. TMR (2017)

Table 5.3: Description of the ground anchorage conditions shown in Figure 5.4
Configuration Description
A This category includes permanent W-beam systems and wire rope barriers.
The posts are at a uniform spacing, and the flexibility of the terminal and the longitudinal barrier
are similar. Depending on the terminal type, there may be an additional ground anchorage at the
ends of the terminals to assist in developing tensile resistance in the beams.
B This category includes permanent Thrie-beam systems.
These are post and rail systems that are similar to A above. The flexibility of the terminal is
greater than the flexibility of the longitudinal barrier; that is the longitudinal barrier is stiffer.
Consequently, there needs to be a transition section between the terminal and the longitudinal
barrier. Again, depending on the transition type, there may be an additional ground anchorage at
the ends of the terminals to assist in developing tensile resistance in the beams. (See
Section 5.7 for further information about transitions)
C This is typically a temporary barrier system.
The terminal and the longitudinal barrier are pinned to the pavement. The frequency of pinning
may be different in the longitudinal barrier and the terminal; although, the longitudinal barrier is
pinned at regular intervals along its length.
D This is a temporary barrier system.
The terminal is pinned to the pavement and the longitudinal barrier is free-standing. The lateral
forces are largely resisted by friction when the barrier elements move across the pavement or
ground.
E This is a temporary barrier system.
The longitudinal barrier is pinned at regular intervals to the pavement and the terminal is free-
standing. The lateral forces in the terminal are largely resisted by friction when it moves.
F This is a temporary barrier system.

Configuration F could be considered to be a combination of configurations C and E. Here the
barrier is pinned at the ends only. An end of the system with its attached terminal is considered
to be a “terminating section”. The longitudinal barrier is the portion between the terminating
sections.
G This is a temporary barrier system.
Both the longitudinal barrier and the terminal are free-standing. The only restraint to lateral
movement of the barrier or the terminal is friction between the barrier elements and the
pavement or ground. The ability to resist the lateral impact loads will depend on where the
impact occurs, along the barrier’s length,
Source: Based on Queensland TMR Roadside Design Training Guide. TMR (2017)
Illustrations C to G in Figure 5.4 show a connecting element. This is often required if the longitudinal barrier
and the terminal have a different profile. The connecting piece is to allow vehicles to slide from the terminal
to the longitudinal barrier in the forward direction or to slide from the longitudinal barrier to the terminal
travelling in the reverse direction. It may also be required to make a positive connection between the barrier
and the terminal to resist longitudinal loads or moments through a vertical axis of the connection.
Illustrations D and G in Figure 5.4 show longitudinal sections in temporary barriers that have no ground
anchorages, posts or pins. A transition is required if a barrier system is connected to another barrier system
of different strength or flexibility. For some terminal - longitudinal barrier combinations there may need to be
a transition between them as shown in illustration B,
The longitudinal barrier is further defined by the location of the points of redirection. This is addressed later in
Section 5.5.4.

5.5 Barrier System Performance Measures
This section gives guidance on barrier performance measures. Definitions and terminology are also given in
Appendix A.
5.5.1 Test Levels
The test level of a barrier relates to its ability to redirect and contain vehicles of different masses or impact
speeds and angles. The test vehicles, specified in MASH, are the design vehicles usually adopted for
selection and design of road safety infrastructure. The design vehicles are passenger vehicles including
larger utilities and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), single unit trucks up to 10 000 kg in mass, articulated
vehicles with a conventional flatbed load area or an articulated tanker vehicle. These vehicles may be
different from design vehicles used in the design of the geometric elements of a road.
A ‘Test Level’ is demonstrated by successful MASH crash tests (AASHTO, 2016) and described by the
notation TL-1 to TL-6. For each test level, there are at least two full-scale tests required.
5.5.2 Working Width, Deflection and System Width
Working width is defined in ‘AS/NZS 3845.1:2015’ as

“The distance between the traffic face of the road safety barrier system before the
impact and the maximum lateral position of any major part of the system or vehicle
during and after the impact.”
As some temporary safety barriers have feet that extend beyond the traffic face, this definition is clarified to
conform with the description in EN1317.2. Consequently, working width is measured from the outermost
extremity on the traffic side, regardless of shape, to the furthest extremity of any part of the system or vehicle
during and after the impact.
Working width is recorded during full-scale crash testing and contains three sub-elements.
• Dynamic deflection - defined as “the largest transverse deflection of any part of a road safety barrier
system recorded during a full-scale crash test”. Note the dynamic deflection differs from the permanent
deflection which is the deflection of the barrier after the impact. (Refer to Appendix A.)
• System width – The width of the system during or after impact and including any deformation. The
system width is zero if the system is crushed or embedded into the vehicle, as occurs in some impacts
with wire rope barriers.
• Vehicle roll allowance – is the lateral distance a vehicle protrudes beyond the deflected barrier. If the
vehicle does not protrude beyond the deflected barrier, then the vehicle roll allowance is zero.
These elements, illustrated in Figure 5.5, are different for each barrier and are influenced by the impact
characteristics (e.g. vehicle type, speed and angle), the flexibility of the barrier (e.g. frequency of pinning),
and how the barrier deforms during impact.
MASH crash testing requires the working width to be recorded. MASH states:
The working width is the maximum dynamic lateral position of any major part of the
system or vehicle. These measurements are all relative to the pre-impact traffic face of
the test article. For the working width, the height of the maximum working width should
also be documented and reported.
The working width of a barrier is equal to the dynamic deflection plus the system width and any roll
allowance. The recorded working width from MASH testing is related to the test vehicle’s dimensions and the
impact conditions.

Indicative working widths recorded in the test reports for different barriers are given in Table 5.4. Working
widths for permanent concrete barriers are discussed in the next section.
Figure 5.5: Working width measurements showing dynamic deflection, system width (SW) and vehicle roll
allowance
Legend: SW = System width

Source: ASBAP (2020a) Technical Advice 20-002
Table 5.4: Indicative working widths
Permanent barriers Temporary barriers
Barrier type Working width Barrier type Working width

Wire rope barrier 1.5 to 4.0 m Plastic (free standing) 2.0 to 2.5 m
Flexible W-beam 1.2 to 1.7 m Steel (free standing) 2.2 to 2.5 m
Stiff steel barriers 0.9 to 1.4 m Steel (pinned) 0.7 m
Concrete (free standing) 1.4 to 1.8 m
Source: Vic DoT, Vic
5.5.3 Working Widths for Concrete Barriers
The Zone of Intrusion (ZOI) was a concept introduced in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO,
2011a). The concept described the areas where both the cab of a truck or the cargo deck of a single unit
truck or the trailer of an articulated vehicle would intrude into the area above and behind a barrier. These
diagrams were based on NCHRP 350 tests and based on F-shape and vertical barriers 815 mm high.
Austroads (2022) demonstrates that there was limited information relating to barriers 900 mm and higher and
consequently, the use of these ZOI diagrams is not recommended.
Working width from impacts into barriers should be used to identify the possible intrusion into the area
behind a barrier. Impacts with taller barriers result in less body roll and smaller working widths. The height of
the cargo box in the TL-4 tests was typically 3.6 m high and the height of the trailer in the TL-5 tests was
4.06 m. Using data from Polivka et al (2005), Rosenbaugh et al (2007), Williams et al (2011), Sheikh et al
(2012), Williams et al (2018) and Shiekh et al (2019), the working widths adopted for vehicles that are 4.6 m
high are listed in Table 5.5. These working widths were based on single slope barriers but are also
applicable to F-shape barriers. A factor of safety should be used when these values are applied in a design.
(Refer to Section 6.13.1)

Table 5.5: Minimum working widths for vehicles with a maximum height of 4.6 m
Test level, Test Barrier height Working width

TL-3 3-11 915 mm 0.5 m *
915 mm 2.3 m
TL-4 4-12
1070 mm 2.2 m
5-12 1070 mm 2.4 m
TL-5
5-12 1370 mm 1.5 m
* The working widths for TL-3 barriers are much smaller than those for other tests because of the lighter and lower test
vehicle.
5.5.4 Points of Redirection
For any barrier system, there are two points of redirection - an approach point of redirection and a departure
point of redirection. The literature to date has concentrated on the approach point of redirection and has
considered this to be the only one. In this section, the approach point of redirection is discussed, before
discussing the departure point of redirection.
Safety barrier systems must have sufficient length to enable vehicles to be redirected satisfactorily. In
addition, barrier terminals require sufficient support to perform (e.g. absorb energy) as designed and tested.
The terminal must also provide support to the longitudinal barrier by resisting the tensile loads generated as
the barrier redirects vehicles.
The approach point of redirection is where the leading terminal and longitudinal barrier, operating as a
system, are able to resist the lateral impact loads and enable the vehicle to be redirected. Impacts upstream
of the approach point of redirection may result in the barrier or terminal gating and the vehicle proceeding
past the barrier line.
All safety barrier systems have a departure point of redirection. At the departure point of redirection, a
vehicle is redirected before reaching the trailing terminal. Impacts downstream of this point are not redirected
as the barrier system gates. This is illustrated in Figure 5.6. The longitudinal barrier enables vehicles 2, 3
and 4 to be redirected, shown by the blue trajectories. The leading terminal gates for vehicle 1, the barrier
and the terminal are unable to support the lateral loads for trajectories 5 and 6 and the system gates. These
are shown by the red trajectories.
Figure 5.6: Points of redirection and typical trajectories of impacting vehicles
For carriageways with two-way traffic, the approach points of redirection for both directions of traffic are
used. For carriageways with one-way traffic, the approach and departure points of redirection (for that
direction of traffic) are used.

Approach points of redirection

W-beam barrier systems have approach points of redirection that may be at the terminal - barrier interface or
it may be within the terminal depending on its design. The characteristics of the terminal should be obtained
from the supplier to determine where the approach point of redirection is located. The approach points of
redirection are illustrated in Figure 5.7 which is in a similar format to Figure 5.4 above. Refer to Table 5.3 for
a description of the barrier types. The approach points of redirection for W-beam barriers are described in a
jurisdiction’s list of accepted terminals, in the Austroads Technical conditions of use and the manufacturers’
product manuals for terminals.
As there are presently no terminals for Thrie-beam barriers, a W-beam terminal and a transition to a Thrie-
beam are installed. For this system, the approach point of redirection for the Thrie-beam system is
downstream of the transition. See Case B in Figure 5.7, Case B also includes designs where the longitudinal
barrier has a higher test level.
For work-zone barriers, the approach point of redirection depends on the barrier and terminal type. If the
terminal is pinned, then the approach point of redirection is at the downstream end of the terminal. Note that
the terminal may be able to redirect some vehicles, but the system’s approach point of redirection is based
on the qualities of the longitudinal barrier system. See Cases C and D in Figure 5.7.
If the terminal is freestanding (or not pinned) and the longitudinal barrier is pinned consistently along its
length, then the approach point of redirection will be where the pinning is sufficient to withstand the lateral
impact loads. See Case E in Figure 5.7. The location of the approach point of redirection depends on the
type of longitudinal barrier. If the terminal is freestanding and the longitudinal barrier is pinned at its ends,
then the location of the approach point of redirection is at the downstream end of the pinning. See Case F in
Figure 5.7.
Finally, for Case G where the terminal and the longitudinal barrier are freestanding, there needs to be a
length of barrier and upstream of the approach point of redirection. The mass of this length of barrier, termed
the development length, is required to create sufficient resistance, through the frictional forces, to enable the
longitudinal section to resist the lateral loads caused by the impact.
The points of redirection are typically based on impacts by a 2270 kg pickup vehicle as defined in MASH
(AASHTO, 2016). For TL-4, TL-5 and TL-6, barriers in Case B the points of redirection should be based on
where the longitudinal barrier is able to resist the impact loads

Figure 5.7: Approach points of redirection for different barrier and terminal configurations
Note that these drawings are diagrammatic and refer to all barrier types. Refer to Table 5.3 for comments about each
barrier type.

The approach points of redirection for wire rope systems are described in a jurisdiction’s list of accepted
products, in the Austroads Technical conditions of use and the manufacturers’ product manuals.
Departure points of redirection

The departure points of redirection are shown in Figure 5.8. Refer to Table 5.3 for a description of the barrier
types. The departure points of direction need to be located so that the vehicle is redirected before the
downstream terminal gates. The location of the departure points of redirection is based on the approach
points of redirection for traffic in the opposing directions and the typical length of barrier that a vehicle
remains in contact with as it is being redirected. In some instances, the test vehicle runs along the barrier
without being redirected. In these cases, the departure point of need cannot be ascertained. Note that for the
departure point of redirection, the terminal’s ability to redirect vehicles is not a consideration. The terminal
needs to have at least three posts to maintain its structural integrity.
Indicative locations for the departure point of redirection from the end of the trailing terminal are:
• 16 m for non-proprietary W-beam systems
• 20 m for flexible W-beam systems,
• 35 m to 39 m for wire rope barriers depending on the length of the terminal and the vehicle contact length
in a 3-11 test.
These values should be applied to installations where the likely impacts are consistent with TL-3 test
conditions. If these barriers are installed on urban roads where the expected impact speeds are 70 km/h, or
less, then the locations of the departure points of redirection from the end of the trailing terminal are:
• 13 m for non-proprietary W-beam systems

• 16 m for flexible W-beam systems.
Concrete barriers also have approach and departure points of redirection which depend on the structural
strength of the barrier. They may be quite close to the end of the barrier.
The departure point of redirection should be used to determine the required barrier length on one-way roads,
using the concepts in Section 6.9.1. The same procedure should also be used to check the barrier length for
impacts in both directions on two-way two-lane roads

Figure 5.8: Departure points of redirection for different barrier types

Note that these drawings are diagrammatic and refer to all barrier types

5.6 Terminals and Crash Cushions
5.6.1 General
Barrier terminals are required to meet the requirements in the Australian and New Zealand Standard,
AS/NZS 3845.1; 2015. A crash involving a vehicle impacting an untreated or inappropriately treated end of a
barrier can have serious consequences for the occupants because:
• the vehicle is stopped abruptly
• the barrier may penetrate into the occupant space of the vehicle
• the vehicle may be launched and rollover.
Barrier terminals and crash cushions:

• permit controlled penetration by the vehicle into an area behind the device
• decelerate a vehicle to a safe stop within a relatively short distance
• contain and redirect the vehicle
• a combination of the above.
5.6.2 Classification of Terminals and Crash Cushions
Terminals and crash cushions are classified by whether they are “redirective” or “non-redirective”. Most
current terminals and crash cushions are redirective. Some crash cushions, like sand barrels, do not redirect
vehicles but capture them. However, these are no longer used.
Terminals and crash cushions are also classified as being “gating or “non-gating” based on their ability to
redirect vehicles that impact along the side of the terminal or crash cushion. The location of the approach
point of redirection, described in Section 5.5.4, is a function of the terminal’s or crash cushion’s gating
qualities. The user need not be concerned with this classification and the documentation in the jurisdictions’
accepted product list or the product specifications from the suppliers indicate where the approach point of
redirection is located. Figure 5.9 and Figure 5.10 illustrate these concepts.
AASHTO (2011a) also classifies W-beam guardrail terminals as either flared or tangent (parallel) designs.
Tangent terminals may be installed with up to a 600 mm offset from the line of the barrier over the entire
terminal length to minimize nuisance hits. Flared terminals generally require a larger offset depending on the
terminal type. Tangent terminals should not be installed with excessive flare. The choice to use one type
over another depends on site conditions.
AASHTO (2011a) has also classified terminals as being “energy-absorbing” as they attenuate a significant
amount of kinetic energy in a head-on crash. Other terminals, including most flared designs, are classified as
being “non-energy-absorbing” as the errant vehicle travels for some distance behind and parallel to the
guardrail installation or along the top of the barrier when struck head-on at high speed.
Only terminals approved by a jurisdiction should be used. Ramped ends and buried in backslope ends are
not desirable and should not be installed except with the justification included in a design exception report
with appropriate jurisdictional approval. These end treatments can cause the errant vehicle to vault over the
terminal or be wedged under it.

Figure 5.9: Gating and non-gating systems

Figure 5.10: Redirective and non-redirective systems

5.6.3 Run Out Areas for Terminals and Crash Cushions
Section 5.6.2 indicates that all terminals “gate” to some extent and will not redirect vehicles upstream of the
approach point of redirection. In these circumstances, the vehicle passes behind the terminal and a notional
“run out area” is required behind the terminal that is free of hazards. The run out area has typically been
applied to terminals. However, the concept can also be applied to crash cushions when a vehicle is not
arrested and is deflected to the side of the cushion.
ASBAP reviews of full-scale test reports and videos have been used to develop appropriate dimensions for
run out areas for permanent terminals and crash cushions. Errant vehicles, impacting either gating or non-
gating terminals, may travel into run out areas shown in Figure 5.11.
Figure 5.11: Run out area for terminals to permanent barriers

Source: ASBAP (2021a) Technical Advice 21.003
The run out area for plastic water-filled terminals used for temporary barriers is shown in ASBAP Technical
Advice SBTA 21-003 (ASBAP, 2021a). For these terminals, the run-out length is dependent on the likely
impact speed and is measured from the nose of the barrier. As such, run out areas must be provided at all
terminals.
Crash cushions attenuate the energy of vehicles that impact head-on. However, if a vehicle impacts the side
of the crash cushion, then it will be deflected to the side and behind the cushion. A run out area should be
provided at all crash cushions as shown in Figure 5.12.
Figure 5.12: Run out area for crash cushions
Source: ASBAP (2021a) Technical Advice 21.003
The run out area should contain no fixed hazards (e.g. poles and trees) and be traversable, with a lateral
slope of 6:1 or flatter.

5.7 Transitions and Overlaps
5.7.1 Transitions
A transition is required when one type of barrier is connected to another, for instance, a steel W-beam barrier
to a concrete barrier. The connection requires a transition section that allows for the stiffness to gradually
increase, or decrease, from the stiffness in one barrier to the stiffness of the next. A transition is required if
the two barrier systems have similar stiffness, but different dimensions or cross-sections. An example is the
connection of barriers with different heights.
Impacts with a transition should provide smooth redirection of the vehicles. An effective transition from a
more flexible barrier system to a stiffer one is critical. Impacts in this type of transition, if not designed and
installed appropriately, can cause vehicles to pocket or snag on the stiffer barrier. Transitions from a stiffer
barrier to a flexible one, do not create a snagging issue although it should still be evaluated to demonstrate
that it can redirect vehicles. A transition needs to be long enough to provide this gradual change in stiffness
and needs to be evaluated using full-scale MASH tests.
Inappropriate, incorrectly installed or missing transitions present a hazard to vehicles impacting barriers at or
near the transition.
A transition is not to be used to connect a flexible wire rope barrier to other barriers. In this case, the barriers
are overlapped.
5.7.2 Overlaps
An overlap is used when a wire rope barrier and a stiffer steel or concrete barrier are installed as shown in
Figure 5.13. As wire rope barriers have a maximum length between terminals, this requires two barrier
systems are overlapped. The barriers are not connected and the two terminals and two longitudinal barriers
must collectively redirect vehicles. For some impacts on some overlaps, the first barrier gates and one
behind is required to redirect the errant vehicles. Overlaps are typically used on one-way carriageways so
that the leading terminal is shielded by the trailing terminal. More information about the design of overlaps is
given in Section 6.14.6.
Inappropriate, incorrectly installed overlaps present a hazard to vehicles impacting the barriers at or near the
overlap.
Figure 5.13: Barrier overlaps

5.8 Barriers for Heavy Vehicles
Table 5.1 indicates that TL-3 barriers are not tested with a truck and these barriers cannot be expected to
contain or redirect trucks. TL-4 barriers can redirect 10 000 kg single-unit trucks. TL-5 and TL-6 barriers can
redirect some articulated vehicles.
If a heavy vehicle impacts a TL-3 or TL-4 barrier, there is a possibility that the barrier will be breached.
Depending on the circumstances of impacts into TL-3 and TL-4 barriers, heavy vehicles may be contained or
redirected in some instances, although this is not a reliable measure of the barrier’s performance. The only
reliable measure of the ability of a barrier to redirect heavy vehicles is through full-scale testing.
The maximum roll angle of heavy vehicles when impacting concrete barriers is affected by the height of the
barrier. This changes the working width associated with the appropriate MASH test. Taller barriers provide a
better crash test outcome for heavier vehicles than lower barriers.
The transverse loads on a barrier are dependent on the height of the barrier and whether the vehicle is a
single-unit truck or an articulated vehicle. These transverse loads are not only dependant on the gross mass
of the vehicle but also on the loads supported on each wheel bogie. (Refer to Giavotto & Pernetti, 2001;
Faller et al, 2004 and Saez et al, 2012.)
Impacts by passenger vehicles into concrete barriers can be severe and, in some situations, there is a need
for two levels of protection. The first to protect the occupants of errant passenger cars, the second to protect
a vital piece of infrastructure from impact by a heavy vehicle or to address the risk of high-severity crashes
involving heavy vehicles. Two levels of protection can be achieved by placing a flexible barrier in front of a
concrete barrier as discussed in Section 6.18. Note that this is not an overlap as described in Section 5.7.2.
When designing for impacts by heavier vehicles, it is important to evaluate the consequences if the barrier is
breached. The likely trajectory of the vehicle should be ascertained. The use of taller and stiffer concrete
barriers may be required to mitigate any identified risks.
5.9 Barriers for Motorcyclists
Motorcyclists, who impact a safety barrier, have a significantly higher probability of being killed or seriously
injured than drivers and occupants of cars. The increase in probability depends on the location of the barrier
system and, to a degree, on the barrier type. Often barriers are placed relatively close to the road and are
the first objects to be hit. The installation of barriers with motorcycle protection devices assists in reducing
the risk to motorcyclists.
Daniello & Gabler (2011) reviewed impacts with safety barriers by motorcyclists. They found that there was
not a statistically significant difference between the risks of severe injury when a rider collides with a
concrete barrier, a W-beam guardrail or a wire rope barrier. This supports previous studies by Grzebieta et al
(2009), Duncan et al (2000) and EuroRAP (2008). Grzebieta et al (2012) established that motorcyclists
colliding with trees are more hazardous for the rider than when colliding with a barrier.
A number of authors have commented that there is a greater propensity for motorcyclists to crash at curves
(Mehta et al, 2009; Kim et al, 2002; Rifaat & Choe, 2005; Chimba et al, 2006; Perandones et al, 2008 and
Schneider et al, 2010). Curves with a length of more than 120 m and a radius less than 90 m are thought to
be more problematic as are multiple curves. Austroads (2015b) reported on an in-depth study of motorcycle
crashes and indicated that the presence of curves and rough or potholed road surfaces were significant
causal crash factors.
The Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3845.1:2015 indicates that the CEN Technical
Specification CEN/TS 1317-8 (European Committee for Standardization, 2012) testing protocols could be
used for evaluating motorcyclist protection devices (MPDs). The standard also indicates that the thorax
compression criteria should be used in addition to the Head Injury Criteria (HIC).

The European TS 1317- 8 requires an anthropomorphic dummy to be projected at the MPD, headfirst at
speeds of 60 and 70 km/h and at an angle of 30 degrees. There are tests for continuous systems, like the
MPD shown in Figure 5.14 and tests for discontinuous MPD, for instance, padding around posts.
TS 1317-8 limits the Head Injury Criterion (HIC36) to 1000 and, at this limit, Kleinberger et al (1998) reported
that the rider has a 47 per cent chance of skull fracture. Baker et al (2015) reported on tests on continuous
MPDs. They stated:
… the addition of MPS to a standard W-beam may reduce the risk of fatality and serious
injury to sliding motorcyclists, without compromising the safety of other road users
Bambach et al (2010, 2013) reviewed coronial files on 78 fatal motorcycle crashes into barriers.
Approximately half of the incidents occurred with the rider upright. Grzebieta et al (2013) questioned whether
the current testing requirements were sufficient as it only involved sliding motorcyclists. Berg et al (2005) and
Wenall (2015) and others have been testing barriers with the rider upright on the motorcycle.
Figure 5.14: Testing of barrier under-run (rub-rail) systems

Source: Baker et al (2017)
When designing for motorcyclists, some issues that should be noted are:
• An area free of obstructions allows for riders who fall or are thrown from their motorcycle to slide to a
stop.
• Sealed shoulders in rural areas are very cost effective in reducing run-off-the-road motorcycle crashes.
The most cost-effective width for sealed shoulders for motorcyclist safety is not known, however, any
sealed shoulder width is safer than unsealed shoulders.
• Semi-mountable kerb profiles are preferred over barrier kerbs if the road has a high proportion of
motorcyclists.
• Seal or drainage lips or raised concrete aprons can snag motorcycle foot pegs and create instability when
ridden over and should be avoided.
• Kerb colours should contrast with road pavement colours
Regardless of whether an MPD is installed on a barrier or not, every effort should be made to reduce the
number of sharp edges, protruding bolts and fittings that allow limbs or fingers to get caught in steel
members of safety barrier systems.

5.10 Barriers for Pedestrians and Cyclists
There are two types of barriers that are used to protect pedestrians and cyclists. The first is a barrier placed
in the roadside that is intended to shield pedestrians and cyclists and to redirect errant vehicles. If a fence, to
restrain pedestrians and cyclists, is mounted on another barrier, then it is important that the fence still allows
the barrier to redirect vehicles satisfactorily. This must be ascertained through MASH tests. It is also
important to quantify the extent of vehicle or safety device intrusion into the area behind the barrier, the
working area, and the resultant damage to the fence. A damaged barrier and fence may present a
significant hazard to cyclists and pedestrians until it is repaired. Similarly, a terminal that extrudes the rail to
the side of the terminal head, may cause additional risk to cyclists and pedestrians.
Posts in a barrier system can snag pedals or be a hazard to out-of-control cyclists. A barrier system that has
reduced potential for snagging is preferred. Relocating the path further from the roadside safety barrier is
another option if space is available.
The second barrier type is one provided on cycle and pedestrian paths. These barriers should have sufficient
height to prevent a rider from going over them and have ends that will not snag a cyclist. There should be no
elements that can spear a rider, or any other road or path user, and there should be no vertical uprights in
the barrier that can jamb a cycle wheel or catch a brake lever. Even seemingly minor elements, like
delineator brackets can cause injuries and these should be frangible and not sharp. The reader is directed to
Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A Paths for Walking and Cycling (Austroads, 2021b).
5.11 Barriers in Narrow Medians

The minimum median width required to accommodate a safety barrier depends on the overall width of the
barrier and the clearance required between the barrier and the edge of the traffic lane. Austroads Guide to
Road Design Part 3 Appendix F defines the narrow median width to be 2.2 m or less (Austroads, 2021d).
The offset to a central barrier from the edge of the traffic lane has important functions of:
• maintaining sight lines and sight distance
• providing recovery area for errant vehicles
• reducing the risk to opposing traffic lane through the dynamic deflection of a barrier
• minimising nuisance hits requiring ongoing repair and maintenance.
The offset will depend on the working width expected under impact by the design vehicle or a nominal
minimum clearance necessary for drivers to feel comfortable travelling adjacent to the barrier. Concrete
barriers have minimal working widths and steel and wire rope barriers will deflect to varying degrees and will
have a wider working width depending on the system. Deflection and working width are discussed in Section
5.5.2 and Section 6.7
Additional width will be required where a median barrier is located within a curve and the barrier will impede
sight distance to objects on the road or the brake lights of vehicles preparing to stop in the median lane (e.g.
due to an incident such as congestion or a crash).
A vehicle that impacts a wire rope barrier or a flexible steel barrier can intrude into the opposing lane and
may cause the barrier wires, the rail or the posts to be a hazard after the impact. While experience shows
that barriers reduce the consequences of head-on collisions by reducing the speed of the crash-causing
vehicle, it is desirable to provide sufficiently wide medians to limit encroachment into an opposing
carriageway.

The risk of a collision due to a vehicle impacting a wire rope barrier in a narrow median and colliding with an
oncoming vehicle is related to the traffic volumes (AADT), the working width associated with the impact and
the time the errant vehicle has intruded into the opposing traffic lane. Tests at 80 km/h and 25° impact angle
on a 200 m radius curve show that the cables will become disengaged from the damaged barrier posts and
lie across a cord and about 1.6 m off the line of the barrier after impact. The errant vehicle crosses the line of
the barrier for about 1.2 seconds. Refer to Crashlab (2005).
It is acknowledged that for some applications there are safety benefits of providing a central barrier in a
narrow median, with a width less than 2.0 m, to address the risk of head-on crashes. The reduction of risk
from the barrier outweighs most other associated risks. These risks should be evaluated by considering the
impact frequencies, expected deflections and incident reports from trial installations. See Austroads (2016b)
and Vic DoT (2018).
The minimum width of a median with a barrier is a point of discussion. A 1.6 m wide median usually allows
for the dislodged cables and bent posts or the rail from damaged installations to be contained in the median.
The Victorian Department of Transport Road Design Note 03-08 (Vic DoT, 2018) indicates that flexible W-
beam barriers or wire rope barriers can be installed in medians 1.4 m wide in constrained environments and
subject to a risk assessment that includes assessment of available sight lines and impact on stopping and
manoeuvre sight distance. The risk should be further mitigated by sealing the verge shoulder, using audio-
tactile line-marking and reducing the operating speed.
Where an existing pavement cross section is reconfigured to include a central barrier in a narrow median, the
pavement surface condition should be assessed to determine the extent of wheel path rutting and its
location. Should rutting in the old wheel path be located near the barrier as a result of repositioning
linemarking, there is a risk of more frequent barrier impacts due to vehicles inadvertently tracking in these
ruts, as a result of shifting lane positions for the new cross section. Particular care is also needed to ensure
that any pavement widening joints required to incorporate narrow median treatments are not located in wheel
paths of the new cross section configuration.
5.12 Continuous Barriers
As the name indicates, a continuous safety barrier extends along as much of the road length as possible
after allowing for property accesses and intersections. It aims to shield the entire roadside as effectively as
possible. VIC DoT (2019a) states:
Rather than designing a barrier to shield a specific hazard(s), continuous safety barrier
is designed as a longitudinal element of the road to maximise driver protection and to
contain errant vehicles before they roll, impact a hazard or cause a head-on collision
Each break in a continuous barrier is a constraint and reduces the barrier’s performance. If possible,
accesses or intersections should be removed or relocated to reduce the risk. If the frequency of these
constraints is high, a continuous safety barrier may not achieve its objective of shielding the entire roadside.
It is important to ensure that adequate sight distances for all movements are provided where intersections
and access points require breaks in a continuous barrier. The continuous barrier needs to be positioned to
allow for disabled vehicles to stop clear of the traffic lane.
The use of continuous barriers is based on a jurisdictional policy. Consequently, there is no need to establish
the risk and compare it with the NRRIT. There is also no need to calculate the length of need for a barrier.
However, there is a need to consider the risk of hazards that are unshielded at barrier openings and for
appropriate sight distances to be provided for vehicles at intersections and property access points.
Continuous safety barriers should aid the safe and sustainable operation of the road while allowing for
effective maintenance of the road, median and roadside.
In addition, all unprotected areas or hazards should be recognised and the risk mitigated with other
treatments.

5.13 Road or Route Containment Level
There are three inter-related terms used in selecting an appropriate barrier. These are:
• The containment level is the property of the road network or a particular roadside and describes the
characteristics of impacts in which the vehicle is able to be contained. That is the vehicle is redirected or
captured by the barrier system.
• The performance level describes the containment level for a structural element such as a bridge barrier or
parapet based on risk-assessments usually informed by AS5100. The performance levels are low, regular
medium and special, although other levels have been added by some jurisdictions. The impact loads are
detailed for each performance level. Refer to AS 5100.1 2017 or the Bridge Manual (NZ Transport
Agency 2013) as appropriate.
• The test level is a barrier system property. It describes the most severe impact tests on the barrier
system. For a barrier to achieve a MASH test level requires a number of tests using different vehicle
types. Refer to Section 5.2.2 and Section 5.5.1.
The desired containment level is a function of a road’s characteristics and context and is determined by
considering:
• the design vehicle or vehicles to be contained by the road safety barrier
• the design traffic flow
• the proportion and number of heavy vehicles
• the road’s operating speed and speed environment
• the road’s cross-section including the proximity to potentially hazardous infrastructure elements in the
cross section such as bridge piers, gantries, and so on
• the adjacent land use and
• the consequences if a barrier is breached or penetrated.
The minimum containment level should be specified in the network planning stage and before the design of a
safety barrier installation is commenced at the project level.
The containment level for roadsides is frequently defined by the test levels defined in MASH; that is a test
level from 1 to 6 and in doing so specifies the required test level of the barrier to meet the required
containment level for the road segment or corridor. It is common to define the containment level for
structures as performance levels defined in AS5100.1 given the change in risk resulting from positioning
structural elements along the road segment or corridor.
Concrete barriers need an appropriate cross section and height to contain the heavier vehicles. The
structural strength of these barriers is defined by the associated performance level described above.
5.13.1 Choosing an Appropriate Minimum Containment Level
The minimum containment level should be TL-3, to redirect passenger vehicles. TL-2 containment level
should only be considered where the operating speed is 70 km/h or lower, and where the likelihood of a
heavy vehicle running off the road is low. Designers will need to justify the use of a TL-2 containment level.
Figure 5.15 illustrates the containment level selection guidance.

Figure 5.15: Barrier containment level selection guidance
Source: based on Victorian DoT (2019a)
As a guide, a TL-4 containment level should be used if there is a high proportion of commercial vehicles.
Similarly, a TL-5 containment level may be appropriate for road sections with a significant number and
proportion of heavier commercial vehicles. Some jurisdictions have selected a higher containment level when
the commercial vehicle traffic exceeds 20 per cent of the traffic in the design year. if there is a high
proportion of buses or other higher occupancy vehicles, then this may also be used to justify a TL-4 or TL-5
containment level.
On most freeways and motorways, a TL-4 or TL-5 containment level is preferred given the traffic flow and the
percentage of heavy vehicles. A TL-5 containment level should be the default for medians of urban freeways
to separate traffic in opposing directions which typically carry high volumes with high proportions of heavy
commercial vehicles.
5.13.2 Containment Levels at High Risk Sites
The containment level is chosen for a route or corridor. However, high risk sites, like those at high
consequence infrastructure or land, may require a higher containment level. Also refer to Section 2.3.2 and
Appendix C.2. A risk assessment should be used to justify whether the use of a TL-4 or TL-5 containment
level is appropriate at these sites or whether a higher containment level is warranted. A TL-6 containment
level, to redirect tanker type articulated vehicles, could be used at higher risk sites, alternatively the
containment level for a barrier could be defined by a performance level described in AS5100.1. In this case
the designer would be required to design the structural strength of the barrier in accordance with the loads
specified in AS5100.1 or the Bridge Manual (NZ Transport Agency 2013) as appropriate,
5.14 Choosing an Appropriate Barrier
The first choice of a barrier type should be those with the greatest flexibility as described in Section 5.3.1.
Further consideration of desired operational and maintenance characteristics associated with the barrier
system then informs the barrier type adopted.
The test level of a barrier must meet or exceed the containment level for the route, the corridor or a particular
high-risk site.
Table 5.6 lists the limitations and advantages of different barrier types. These may affect the choice of
barriers and require the designer to give more consideration to their use. Designers should also consult the
relevant national or state/territory guidelines and their accepted product lists in choosing a barrier.
On most urban freeways, motorways and highways, TL-4 and TL-5 concrete barriers are the preferred
barrier type given the traffic flow, the percentage of heavy vehicles and the requirement to be able to safely
access the barrier system for maintenance or repair.

For a mountainous rural road frequently used by motorcyclists with tight radii corners, a flexible W-beam
barrier with a rub rail MPD is likely to be the most appropriate alternative. For urban environments, the
choice of a barrier may be influenced by its impact on the movements of pedestrians and cyclists. This topic
is cover in more detail in Section 6.6.
Table 5.6: Limitations and advantages for different barrier types
Type of
Limitations Advantages
barrier
Wire • Generally, have relatively large deflections that • The exit angles are generally small.
rope are temperature related. • Produces lower forces on the occupants.
barriers • Wire rope tension may cause the posts to bend • May be installed close to other stiffer barriers
on small radii horizontal curves. provided that there is sufficient distance between
• Tension in the rope might not be developed in the barriers. (See two-stage protection in Section
the installation on the inside of small radius 6.18).
curves. • Terminals are matched to the longitudinal barrier.
• On sharp sag curves, the tension in the ropes • Can use post pads as a discontinuous MPD.
may cause the posts at the bottom of the dip to
• Some systems have met MASH TL-4.
lift out of their sockets, especially in cold
weather. • Allows for water to drain under the barrier.
• Cannot be directly connected to any other • Are less visually intrusive.
barriers or bridge parapets. • Can be installed in narrow medians on a two-lane
two-way road.
Flexible • Generally, have relatively large deflections • The exit angles are generally small.
W-beam • May need to transition in height when being • Produces lower forces on the occupants.
systems
connected to an existing non-proprietary G4 • May be connected to a concrete or Thrie-beam

system. (G4 system is an older style ‘Legacy’ barrier through a transition section.
W-beam barrier described in the
• Can incorporate an additional rub rail as a
AS/NZS 3845:1999).
continuous MPD.
• Tension in the rail might not be developed in the
• Allows for water to drain under the barrier.
installation on the inside of small radius curves.
• Has been demonstrated to perform satisfactorily
in a second impact.
• Can be installed in medians.
Thrie- • Tension in the rail might not be developed in the • Perform well on the outside of curves, even those
beam installation on the inside of small radius curves. of relatively small radius,
systems • Some systems have met MASH TL-4
• Can incorporate an additional rub rail as a
continuous MPD.
• Can be attached to a concrete barrier through a
transition.
• Allows for water to drain under the barrier.
Concrete • While not hazardous, the occupants of errant • Can be connected to W-beam and Thrie-beam
barriers vehicles are subjected to higher forces than systems.
other systems. • Some systems have met MASH TL-5 and TL-6.
• Should generally not be used in situations • Have reduced maintenance costs.
where high-angle impacts are likely.
• Can sustain multiple impacts.
• Outlets need to be provided to discharge
• Have essentially no deflection.
stormwater from the road pavement which may
include pits and an underground drainage • Can be used in constrained situations and on
network. structures.

5.14.1 Preferred Safety Barrier Systems for a Road Stereotype
The preferred barrier provides the safest overall outcome for all road users. Flexible W-beam barriers with a
rub-rail MPD should be the default starting point. The designer should then justify the use of another barrier
type appropriate to the context being addressed. Table 5.7 lists preferred barriers for common road contexts.
Table 5.7: Preferred barrier in common contexts
Common road characteristics Preferred Barriers

Roadsides permitting a barrier offset of 3-6 m from the traffic lane with
Wire rope barrier
hazards offset 1.5-2.3 m from the barrier
Roadsides permitting a barrier offset of 1.5 m or less from the traffic lane Flexible W-beam
Roads with a geometry less than 200 m radius Flexible W-beam
Where the installation length is short Flexible W-beam or concrete barriers
Higher risk motorcycle routes Flexible W-beam with rub rail
Wide medians (> 6.2 m) without fixed hazards, excluding the scenarios
Wire rope barrier
above
Narrow medians (≤ 6.2 m) without fixed hazards, excluding the scenarios
Wire rope barrier or Flexible W-beam
above
Narrow medians (≤ 6.2 m) with kerb and channels and without fixed hazards,
Flexible W-beam
excluding the scenarios above
Wire rope barrier, Flexible W-beam or
Divided high speed roads
concrete barriers
Divided high speed roads with a large percentage and volume of heavy
Concrete barriers
vehicles
Urban roads Flexible W-beam or concrete barriers
Where barrier maintenance is a high-risk activity Concrete barriers
Table 5.7 is not exhaustive and is intended to give some initial guidance only.

6. Road Safety Barriers
6.1 Introduction
This section provides guidance for selecting an appropriate type of barrier and designing suitable layouts for
permanent barriers. A possible, and probable, outcome of roadside safety assessments during the design of
a new road or upgrade is that roadside hazards will need to be shielded by a safety barrier system.
The requirements in this section predominantly relate to permanent barriers. A barrier should only be
installed when it reduces the risk associated with the roadside. However, in many, if not most locations, the
installation of a roadside barrier is likely to be the design option that provides the safest outcome (Austroads
2018a). Generally, the likelihood of striking a barrier is greater than striking the hazard (e.g. a tree located
some distance from the road). However, the severity of an impact with the barrier is usually much less than
that associated with striking the hazard.
Section 5 provides background information on the fundamentals of safety barriers which assists when
designing an unconventional layout.
Installation of temporary barriers is covered in jurisdictional notes and in part in Section 9. The Austroads
Guide to Temporary Traffic Management should also be consulted.
This section does not cover the selection, design and construction of bridge barriers. The reader should
consult AS 5100.1-2017 or the Bridge Manual (NZ Transport Agency 2013) along with further jurisdictional
guidance where available.
Only road safety barriers and end treatments accepted by the local jurisdiction should be used. When using
proprietary products, it is important that reference is made to the manufacturer’s manuals and specifications.
There are increased risks associated with road safety barriers and terminals when:
• the vehicle impacts an inappropriate barrier (e.g. barrier not suited to site contexts or constraints,
improper dimensions, poor positioning or untreated terminations)
• the vehicle impacts an improperly maintained barrier
• vehicles breach the barrier
• the distance between the barrier and the hazard is less than the working width of the barrier when
impacted, allowing the vehicle to deform the barrier and contact the hazardous features
• the height of the barrier is too low
• the barrier installation length is too short and does not adequately shield a hazard
• the anchorage is insufficient
• the transition or overlap is inadequate
• they are too high and/or have insufficient offset to the traffic lane and limit sight distance
• the barrier effectiveness is reduced due to terrain effects, kerbing, drains etc.
• an end treatment is installed without a hazard-free run out area.

6.1.1 Design Philosophy
The correct installation of safety barriers is integral to providing a safer road system. Too often, the design of
an installation is an after-thought and sub-optimal installations have occurred. The design philosophy
incorporated in this part is to appreciate the context of the roadside environment and understand the purpose
the barrier is to achieve, to select an appropriate barrier type and to perform a preliminary and detailed
design.
The preliminary design will establish the length of the barrier and the appropriate lateral location or offsets
from the traffic lane and hazards. Finalising the design is often a circular or iterative process. A barrier could
be chosen and, with its attributes, checked to see that the roadside space available will accommodate the
barrier, or with the proximity of the hazards, a barrier is selected which best fits the roadside environment. In
the preliminary design, a designer needs to consider the characteristics of the barrier and its relationship to
the roadside’s geometric constraints.
Once satisfied that the barrier will be suitable, then the installation is designed in detail. This includes
modifying the design to suit particular barriers and the selection of end treatments. The designer is
encouraged to use scale drawings that show services, embankments and other constraints impacting the
detailed design. These drawings should be used in the documentation of the installation.
The last stages of the design are to confirm that the barrier system meets the objectives set earlier and to
document the designed installation for construction.
The process as it is presented here might appear to be a long one, but there is a need to be thorough, and
the process can be applied to a reasonably long section of road. The important outcome is that the design
drawings show a well-considered solution that will reduce construction issues when it is installed while
providing a safer roadside outcome.
6.2 Road Safety Barrier Design Process
Once a road safety barrier has been established as the preferred treatment using the risk mitigation process
in Section 3.5 and Section 3.6, its installation can be designed by using the following process that is divided
into four stages; establish and define the context, the preliminary design, the detailed design and
documentation. The type and location of the hazards in a road section are established using processes
described in Section 3.
Define the context stage

Defining the context stage has the following steps.
• Step 1. Collect information about the site such as geometry, speed zoning, AADT (Section 6.3)
• Step 2. Define the objectives of the proposed barrier (Section 6.4)
• Step 3. Define the minimum containment level for the proposed barrier (Section 6.5). Identify any
significant hazards that warrant higher containment levels
• Step 4. Identify barrier types that meet the objectives and the containment level (Section 6.6).
Preliminary design stage

At this point, the designer should be able to select an appropriate barrier to suit the requirements and start
the preliminary design. The choice of barrier type is likely to be limited to one or two types. An important
factor is the working width of the barrier. This is covered in the next step.
• Step 5. Select a barrier system and define its working width. (Section 6.7)
The next two steps define the length of the barrier and the appropriate offsets from the road and other
roadside features.

• Step 6. Define the restraints on the lateral position of the barrier (Section 6.8). This includes:
– the offset from the traffic lane (Section 6.8.1)
– the minimum distance of a barrier from hazards (Section 6.8.2)
– the minimum lateral distance of a barrier from an embankment hinge point (Section 6.8.3)
– the barrier setback from the kerb (Section 6.8.4)
– the lateral location of barriers in medians (Section 6.8.5)
– the required number of median barrier runs (Section 6.8.6)
– the location of barriers in narrow medians (Section 6.8.7)
– the flaring of barriers and terminals (Section 6.8.8)
– the installation of barriers in constrained locations (Section 6.8.9)
• Step 7. Determine the longitudinal location of a road safety barrier (Section 6.9). This includes
– the length of need (Section 6.9.1 and Appendix G)
– the length of need for hazards that extend some distance perpendicular to the road (Section 6.9.2)
– the length of need on curved roads (Section 6.9.3)
– The use of continuous barriers and the length of need concept (Section 6.9.4)
As part of Step 7, the designer should identify possible access locations and whether they need to be
maintained for all movements.
If the chosen barrier type is unsuitable as the space available is too constrained for the barrier and the
roadside cannot be changed (widened or cleared) to accommodate the barrier, the designer should select an
alternative barrier and repeat the preliminary design stage with the new barrier attributes in steps 5, 6 and 7.
This is represented by Step 8 which is the last step in the preliminary design stage.
• Step 8. Evaluation of the selected barrier for the roadside (Section 6.10).
Detailed design stage

The detailed design stage consists of minor modifications to the placement of the barrier and the selection
and design of the installation of terminals, transitions or overlaps. It uses the following five steps.
• Step 9. Evaluate the Strength of the Soil at the Proposed Barrier Location (Section 6.11). If the soil
characteristics are unable to provide sufficient strength to support the operation of the barrier or a variant,
then another barrier type should be selected and the designer must repeat the preliminary design stage
with the attributes of the new barrier using steps 5, 6 and 7. It is acknowledged that there may be few
options and the geometry of the site may need to be re-engineered.
• Step 10. Structural design of the proposed barrier and footings (Section 6.12)
• Step 11. Detailed Installation refinements (Section 6.13). This includes
– Modification of the working width (Section 6.13.1)
– Minimum length of barrier system (Section 6.13.2)
– Maximum barrier length (Section 6.13.3)
– Sight distance requirements, including at access locations (Section 6.13.4)

• Step 12. Select End treatments to Longitudinal Barriers (Section 6.14). This includes
– Terminal Selection (Section 6.14.1)
– Selection of crash cushions (Section 6.14.2)
– Run out areas (Section 6.14.3)
– Transitions and overlaps (Sections 6.14.4 to 6.14.6)
– Transition in barrier heights (Section 6.14.7)
• Step 13. Apply guidance for a barrier installation to meet specific requirements. The topics in include:
– Access through barriers (Section 6.15)
– Continuous barriers on the verge (Section 6.16)
– Vulnerable Road Users (Section 6.17)
– Two-stage shielding (Section 6.18)
– Barriers across drainage structures and to avoid underground conflicts (Section 6.19)
– Protecting critical infrastructure close to barriers (Section 6.20)
– Fauna crossings (Section 6.21)
– Installation of concrete barriers on superelevated roads and stepped medians (Section 6.22)
– Aesthetic Road Safety Barriers (Section 6.23)
– Other minor topics (Section 6.24)

• Step 14. Develop a plan on how the barrier is to be maintained. (Section 6.25)
Documentation stage
This stage has two steps, culminating in detailed plans for the installation. These steps are:
• Step 15. Confirm that the Barrier Meets the Objectives (Section 6.26)
• Step 16. Document the design (Section 6.27)
Figure 6.1 illustrates this process.

Figure 6.1: Road safety barrier design process


6.3 Collect Site Information (Step 1)
Site information that details the size and position of hazards, embankment details, the operating speed of the
road and so on would have been collected for the risk assessment described in Section 3. The information
that may be required to install a safety barrier includes:
• general site details
• the size and position of identified hazards requiring protection or shielding (length, width and offset from
the carriageway) and their risk levels
• detailed topographic information such as embankment details, lateral widths, road and shoulder crossfalls
• features of the site that could pose difficulties such as public utilities, access to property, drainage
installations, site geology, maintenance access requirements to road furniture and the like
• locations where restrictions to sight distance could be critical, such as curves and intersections
• the location, type and condition of any existing barriers
• traffic volume and mix, including pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, heavy vehicles
• the operating speed for the road
• the required containment level for barriers along the route or corridor
• the required containment level for hazards at high-risk sites identified along the route or corridor
• the nature and strength of the ground where the proposed barrier system is to be installed
• provisions for access (e.g. emergency vehicles, pedestrians, fauna crossings)

• existing delineation
• operational temperature range
• the potential for flooding.
6.4 Determine the Objectives of the Proposed Safety Barrier (Step 2)
The designer should determine the objectives of the proposed barrier for the site, by considering who or what
is to be protected or shielded and the required containment level for the route or corridor and any increase
containment level for high-risk sites. The test level of a proposed safety barrier must meet or exceed the
route or corridor containment level which is described in Section 5.13, Also refer to Section 6.4.
In the majority of cases, the primary objectives of the proposed barrier are to shield hazards and to protect
the occupants of errant vehicles, motorcyclists and other vulnerable road users. The vast majority of barrier
installations are provided for the purpose of redirecting errant vehicles away from hazards thereby reducing
the risk of severe consequences. On roads with high volumes of heavy vehicles, the objective would also be
to redirect heavy vehicles.
In some cases, however, the primary objective is to also shield high consequence infrastructure or land as
described in Section 2.3.2. However, this must not be at the expense of the occupants of the errant vehicles.
Note that even concrete barriers with almost zero flexibility are designed to protect the occupants of the
impacting errant vehicles without serious injuries.
If a vehicle is redirected by one barrier system into a barrier on the other side of the carriageway, then the
second barrier may not be able to redirect the vehicle which could breach the second barrier. In these
circumstances, the objective, for one or both barriers, is to have a lower probability of being breached.
The designer should decide if the barrier is to be continuous or whether it will be installed to shield isolated
hazards. Refer to Section 5.12. This decision is often made at the network or corridor level.

It is also useful to document what the barrier is not designed to achieve and why.
6.5 Determine the Containment Level for the Proposed Barrier (Step 3)
The containment level defines the characteristics of vehicle impacts that can be managed by a barrier
system. In some higher risk locations, the required containment level may be increased above the route or
corridor containment level. (Refer to 6.5.1)
The containment level is applied to a road or corridor and should be defined before the safety barrier
installation design is considered. The selection of a minimum containment level should be undertaken at the
network planning stage and applies to a route or corridor.
If a minimum containment level has not been provided for the site, then the designer should evaluate an
appropriate containment level by considering:
• the design vehicle or vehicles to be contained by the road safety barrier
• the design traffic flow
• the proportion and number of heavy vehicles
• the road’s operating speed and speed environment
• the road’s cross-section including the proximity to potentially hazardous elements in the cross section
such as bridge piers, gantries, and so on
• the adjacent land use and
• the possibility and consequences if the barrier is breached or penetrated.
The minimum containment level should be TL-3, to redirect passenger vehicles. TL-2 containment level
should only be considered where the operating speed is 70 km/h or lower, and where the likelihood of a
heavy vehicle running off the road is low. Designers will need to justify the use of a TL-2 containment level
and obtain approval from the relevant jurisdiction for its use. Figure 6.2 illustrates the containment level
selection guidance.
Figure 6.2: Barrier test level selection guidance
Note this is also Figure 5.15

Source: based on Vic DoT (2019a)

As a guide, a TL-4 containment level should be used if there is a high proportion of commercial vehicles.
Similarly, a TL-5 containment level may be appropriate for road sections with a significant number and
proportion of heavier commercial vehicles. Some jurisdictions have selected a higher containment level when
the commercial vehicle traffic exceeds 20 per cent of the traffic in the design year. if there is a high
proportion of buses or other higher occupancy vehicles, then this may also be used to justify a TL-4 or TL-5
containment level.
On most freeways and motorways, TL-4 or TL-5 containment level are preferred given the traffic flow and the
percentage of heavy vehicles. A TL-5 containment level should be the default for medians of urban freeways
to separate traffic in opposing directions which typically carry high volumes with high proportions of heavy
commercial vehicles.
6.5.1 Increasing the Containment Level at Higher Risk Sites
High consequence infrastructure or land may also warrant a higher containment level than was specified for
a route or corridor. Refer to Section 5.13.2. The decision to use a higher containment level is based on the
risk associated with the barrier being breached or vehicles impacting infrastructure elements, such as bridge
piers. The containment level could be TL-4, although it is more likely to be TL-5 or TL-6. The TL-6 level
provides the ability to redirect tanker type articulated vehicles. Alternatively, the containment level for a
barrier could be defined by a performance level described in AS5100.1. In this case, the designer would be
required to design the structural strength of the barrier in accordance with the loads specified in AS5100.1 or
the Bridge Manual (NZ Transport Agency 2013) as appropriate. Refer to Figure 6.2.
6.6 Identify Barriers that Meet the Objectives and the Containment Level (Step 4)
6.6.1 Containment Level and a Barrier’s Test Level
The test level of any potential barriers for a site must exceed the containment level for the route and that
required for any identified higher risk sites. (Refer to Section 6.5)
As a number of proprietary barriers meet MASH TL-4 requirements, these may be cost effective alternatives
that also provide a higher containment level. Currently available TL-5 barriers are concrete barriers with a
single slope or F-shape profile, although concrete barriers with steel top rail are also used in New Zealand.
6.6.2 Other Barrier Selection Considerations
Designers should also consult accepted product lists from the relevant jurisdiction. Only barriers and their
accepted variants in these lists should be installed. The chosen barrier system should be the one that
provides the best protection to all road users. Traffic composition is a major consideration informing barrier
selection.
Generally, there is only a limited number of barrier types that meet a particular test level. Table 6.1 lists other
considerations that affect the choice of a barrier system. A barrier system includes the longitudinal barrier
length, terminals and, possibly, transitions.
TL-3 barriers include flexible W-beam and wire rope barriers and these should be the first choice. These
barriers are more flexible as described in Section 5.3.1 and therefore subject vehicle occupants to lower
forces. For TL-3 barriers, the defaults should be a flexible W-beam barrier with a motorcyclist protection
device (a rub-rail) or a wire rope barrier. In some jurisdictions, the default is to provide protection to
motorcyclists as part of the system. The decision to use another barrier type should be documented.
There have been designs for 810 mm high TL-3 concrete barriers in the past, but these should be no longer
installed as they tend to have larger working widths if impacted by larger vehicles. TL-3 barriers 915 mm high
or higher are preferred. The non-proprietary G4 W-beam barriers, defined in the Australian and New Zealand
Standard 3845; 1999, are now considered to be “legacy” barriers that would normally only be installed to
repair an existing guard fence or where a jurisdiction has established a policy for its use.

For TL-3 barriers, the defaults should be a flexible W-beam barrier with a motorcyclist protection device (a
rub-rail) or a wire rope barrier. In some jurisdictions, the default is to provide protection to motorcyclists as
part of the system. The decision to use another barrier type should be documented.
TL-2 barriers systems are often TL-3 barriers with TL-2 terminals and usually use W-beams. There may be
more permanent TL-2 barriers available in the future. Some work zone barriers have a TL-2 rating. The
difference in the installation costs between a TL-3 barrier and a TL-2 barrier is often small.
TL-4 barriers include wire rope barriers and some Thrie-beam barriers. They also include reinforced concrete
barriers and slip-formed barriers with a single slope or F-shape profile and incorporating cable strands.
Table 6.1: Additional selection considerations for roadside barrier systems
Consideration Comments
Working width The expected maximum deflection of a barrier should not exceed the available room to deflect.
Site conditions The presence of kerbs may preclude the use of some barrier types. Similarly, some barriers are
better suited in lower strength soils
Compatibility A barrier should be compatible with other barriers used in the vicinity. If this is not the case, then
the designer should consult with the asset owner.
Maintenance The ability to maintain the barrier and the roadside should be considered
WHS Workplace safety considerations when repairing a barrier must be considered and a concrete
barrier used if there is a high risk to maintainers.
Routine Some systems require a significant amount of routine maintenance. Some systems have the
ability to be extended or modified to meet future needs. Some barrier systems allow for
pavement overlays by being able to be raised or have a single slope profile.

Collision Generally, the more flexible systems, flexible W-beam and wire rope barriers require more
significant repair after a collision. Concrete barriers require only minor repairs.
Inventory The fewer different systems that are used, the fewer inventory items and the less storage space
required by a road agency.
Environmental A wide temperature range affects the tension in wire rope systems. Thermal expansion may
cause steel systems to move out of alignment. Fires can affect the performance of some
systems. Corrosion might be an issue in coastal regions.
Aesthetics Occasionally, barrier aesthetics is an important consideration.
Field experience The performance and maintenance requirements of existing systems should be monitored to
identify problems, especially those which could be lessened or eliminated by using a different
barrier type.
Life cycle costs The life-cycle cost of the barrier systems should consider their safety performance, including
injury, property damage and maintenance costs, refurbishment costs and removal costs.
Source: Adapted from AASHTO (2011a).
TL-5 barriers are similarly reinforced concrete barriers or slip-formed barriers with a single slope or F-shape
profile and incorporating cable strands, while TL-6 barriers are typically reinforced concrete. These barriers
are higher than TL-4 barriers to prevent larger vehicles from breaching the system by rolling over the barrier.
For narrow medians, the selection of barriers is a choice between back-to-back flexible W-beam barrier, wire
rope barrier and concrete barriers. Table 6.2 list the advantages and some challenges of using flexible
systems.

Table 6.2: Benefits of using a flexible back-to-back W-beam barrier or a wire rope barrier
Flexible back-to-back W-beam barrier Wire rope barrier

Flexible W-beam barriers can sustain secondary impacts Wire rope barriers cannot be installed on curves less
whereas wire rope barriers may be disabled once hit. than 200 m radii.
(This can be important in remote areas where
maintenance response may be challenging)
Flexible W-beam barriers can incorporate forgiving Higher containment than Flexible W-beam barriers. This
motorcycle friendly options is of importance when there is a high percentage of
heavy vehicles.
It does not have a minimum length of installation and Less impacts on existing pavement when installed and
does not require an overlap impacted
It is more difficult to terminate back-to-back W-beam Wire rope barrier systems can be more easily terminated
barriers
Source: Adapted from Vic DoT (2018)
The use of concrete barriers in narrow medians can be more constraining on road user movements, can be
more hazardous to vehicle occupants and can affect drainage. Concrete median barriers can be used if no or
little barrier deflection can be tolerated or required, if there are a large number of motorcyclists or heavy
vehicles or if future maintenance of the barrier system might be hazardous.
A concrete barrier may be selected for roads with high traffic volumes to minimise the cost of repairs after
impacts and to minimise the risk to maintenance and repair crews.
If there is more than one barrier system that could be used for the context being considered, then the
designer would select one, typically the more flexible one, and complete Steps 5 and 6. Some of the
requirements in these sections are barrier dependant. If the requirements for locating the barrier in the
median or in the verge cannot be met in Step 7, then an alternative barrier should be chosen or the cross-
section modified so that an acceptable barrier can be installed.
When selecting barriers for urban environments, the designer should also consider its impact on access of
pedestrians, cyclists and those users with a disability, bus access and routes and the provision of local
services.
Section 5.14 provides further advice on barrier type selection.
6.7 Select a Barrier System and Define its Working Width (Step 5)
This is the first step in the preliminary design stage. An important quality of a barrier is its flexibility as
described in Section 5.3. More flexible systems result in larger deflections and, consequently, working widths
(Section 5.5.2) and they also result in lower occupant forces demonstrated by lower ASI values
(Section 5.3.1).
The working widths are measured during the MASH compliance testing. See Section 5.5.2. Designers should
be aware that the deflections and working widths, published in test reports, may be exceeded in the field for
some impacts. Working widths for particular safety barriers are documented in a jurisdiction’s accepted
safety barrier list.
The preliminary design working widths for different types of permanent barriers are given in Table 6.3. These
values have been taken from TL-3 and TL-4 crash test reports and are acceptable for a preliminary design.

Table 6.3: Preliminary design working widths for steel beam and wire rope systems
Barrier type Configuration Test level Preliminary design working width

Flexible W-beam 2 m post spacing TL-3 1.65 m
TL-3 1.55 m
Thrie-beam system 2 m post spacing
TL-4 2.8 m
3 m post spacing, TL-3 3.05

Wire rope systems
and for a 250 m installation length TL-4 3.05
For wire rope barriers, the deflection is affected by the rope tensions, the length of the ropes and whether the
barrier is on a radius or not. The working width of wire rope barriers is further adjusted for the length of the
ropes and if curve radii are less than 1500 m. These factors are described in Section 6.13.1 and are
considered further when a more detailed design is undertaken.
The working width for concrete barriers is given in Table 5.5, which is repeated here for convenience in
Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Recommended minimum working widths for vehicles with a maximum height of 4.6 m.
Test level Test Barrier height Working width

TL-3 3.11 915 mm 0.5 m *
915 mm 2.3 m
TL-4 4.12
1070 mm 2.2 m
5.12 1070 mm 2.4 m
TL-5
5.12 1370 mm 1.5 m
* This working width relates to an impact with a 2270 kg vehicle.
6.8 Define the Constraints on the Lateral Position of the Barrier (Step 6)
The lateral location of a barrier needs to be defined first as it affects the length of the barrier to be installed.
Barriers are roadside objects that can be hazardous to errant vehicles and the lateral location of a barrier can
affect the safety outcome. Designers should understand that:
• A barrier located relatively close to the traffic lane has an advantage because vehicles impact it at a
slightly lower angle and hence the impacts are less severe. (Refer to Appendix F.)
• There are fewer impacts if the barrier is located further from the traffic lane. The impact angles might be
slightly higher and therefore slightly more severe. This is greater issue if the offsets are very large.
• Barriers located too close to the traffic lane are likely to be impacted more frequently, cause more
damage to vehicles and the barriers and hence result in higher property damage costs for road users,
higher maintenance costs for road agencies and higher risks to maintenance or repair personnel.
In addition to operational considerations, a barrier and its footings should not:

• interfere with any utilities, drainage conduits or structures
• impair access of personnel or machinery to any utilities, drainage conduits or installation, or structures.

The lateral position of a longitudinal barrier is influenced by:

• road and roadside cross-sections
• barrier-to-hazard clearances
• sight distances
• the barrier’s working width
• the trajectory of vehicles when crossing kerbs and embankment slopes
• the desire to avoid nuisance damage
• property maintenance access
• vehicle swept paths.
6.8.1 Offset from the Traffic Lane
Road safety barriers should be located (e.g. offset, lateral position) as far as possible from the edge of the
traffic lane as site conditions permit but within the limits described below. This enables more errant drivers to
recover and regain control of the vehicle, minimising the frequency of barrier impacts. Wider offsets can
reduce nuisance impacts on the barrier and enable disabled vehicles to be free of the traffic lanes on a high
speed road, therefore reducing the risk of secondary crashes.
Providing a consistent barrier offset is especially important for long lengths of continuous barrier. Consistent
barrier design creates a uniform view, while frequent changes in barrier offset can mislead drivers and
negatively impact decisions while driving, especially in adverse visibility conditions.
The offset is measured from the edge of the traffic lane to the face of the W-beam or Thrie beam barrier. For
wire rope barriers it is measured to the barrier post and for concrete barriers it is measured from the lower
edge.
On rural roads, barriers should be located clear of shoulders which are required for several purposes. On
urban roads, the provision of parking lanes, bus lanes or bicycle lanes affects a barrier’s lateral location.
Guidance on cross section requirements is provided in AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2021d) which includes the
appropriate shoulder widths for various contexts.
The offset needs to ensure that the available stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance are not
impeded. Increased offsets allow vehicles to stand clear of the adjacent traffic lane after an impact if the
vehicle is disabled and for maintenance activities. The practicality and costs of maintenance of a barrier and
the areas on both sides of the barrier should be considered along with Occupational Health & Safety
implications.
Table 6.5 lists the recommended offsets to barriers for Normal Design Domain (NDD) treatments in both
rural and for urban areas. Roads with higher operating speeds should have wider offsets. Part 3 of the Guide
(Austroads, 2021d) recommends shoulder widths of 2.5 m on roads with higher traffic volumes. For these
shoulders to be effective for both desired safety and operational outcomes, the minimum barrier offset is set
to 3.0 m on rural and urban high speed roads with an operating speed greater than or equal to 80 km/h in
Table 6.5 2. A proposal to adopt barrier offset widths less than 3 m shall include an assessment of desired
operating practices, including emergency response, maintenance and police enforcement. A jurisdiction may
use offsets less than those recommended in this table, by developing an EDD limit for nominated roads or
through the design exception process.
2 If a shoulder is not required to provides for disabled vehicles, then an offset can be reduced: For example, median barriers on
carriageways with less than three lanes.

Table 6.5: Offset from the traffic lanes for Normal Design Domain treatments
Rural Rural
Urban freeways 3 Urban roads 2
high speed 1,3 low speed
Desirable 4.0 – 6.0 m 3.0 – 6.0 m 4.0 – 6.0 m 2.5 - 3.0 m
Minimum 3.0 m 2.5 m 3.0 m 1.0 m
Notes:
1 Operating speed greater than or equal to 80 km/h
2 The offset may be governed by the required offset to kerbs
3 Adoption of barrier widths less than 3 m shall include assessment of desired operating practices, including
emergency response, maintenance and police enforcement
4 Shoulder widths and barrier offset from traffic lane dimensions may differ. Refer Part 3 of the Guide
(Austroads 2021d) for additional information regarding shoulder widths
It should be noted that barriers must not be closer than 0.5 m from traffic lanes on rural roads to minimise
nuisance hits and to allow for drivers to track their vehicles in a way that is not significantly affected by the
presence of the barrier. Similarly, the minimum offset on urban roads is 0.3 m. These minimum offsets must
be justified by a design exception report that is approved by the relevant jurisdiction.
Every effort should be made to achieve the desirable offsets which provide for stationary vehicles to stand
clear of traffic lanes. Desirably for installations on rural roads, the maximum length of barrier with offsets less
than 3 m should be 500 m and for offsets less than 2 m, the maximum length should be 200 m. When a
narrower offset is proposed, designers should check whether the width provided allows for provision of
appropriate sight distance and for the swept path of the design vehicle. When an offset can be increased
after a narrowing, designers should consider whether to end the barrier, provide a barrier opening (see
Section 6.15) and, using an overlap described in Section 6.14.6 start another barrier after the opening. The
alternative is to flare the barrier as described in Section 6.8.8.
Barrier offsets greater than 6.0 m should be avoided and be limited to a specific need such as an emergency
stopping bay or maintenance access.
The tests defined in MASH (AASHTO 2016) and AS/NZS 3845.1:2015 involve test vehicles impacting a
barrier with a flat surface in front and behind the barrier. While this condition should be replicated, in practice
this is not always possible (e.g. where it is necessary to provide kerbs). (It is acknowledged that MASH also
specifies testing wire rope barriers on embankments.)
Installations in urban areas are often very short when accommodating pedestrian movements. This can
make it difficult to include safe end treatments. Where it is necessary to install a barrier to shield a vulnerable
site (e.g. childcare centre) it is preferable to locate the barrier close to the fence line rather than at the kerb
line.
The designer should also consult Section 6.8.2 for the minimum lateral distance from a barrier to hazards
and Section 6.8.4 for barrier set back from kerbs.
6.8.2 Minimum Lateral Distance of a Barrier from a Hazard
The minimum offset to a hazard is the working width of the barrier. Section 5.5.2 indicates that the working
width is measured from the outermost extremity on the traffic side, regardless of shape, to the furthest
extremity of any part of the system or vehicle during and after the impact.
The working width of a barrier system is documented in a jurisdictional accepted barrier list and in Section
6.7. It may need to be further refined in the detailed design section in Section 6.10.

6.8.3 Minimum Lateral Distance of a Barrier from an Embankment Hinge Point
The area between the traffic lane and the front face of a barrier should be a trafficable surface with a
crossfall of 10:1 or flatter. The area between the face of the barrier, to the full extent of the working width,
should desirably have the same slope as the areas in front of the barrier. See Figure 6.3. This will increase
the probability that the vehicle will remain upright during the impact.
As shown in Figure 6.3, the distance from the front of the barrier to the embankment hinge point should be
equal to or greater than the preliminary design working width of the barrier listed in Table 6.3. For the
detailed design of the safety barrier installation, the working widths of a chosen barrier system may be used,
See Section 6.13.
Figure 6.3: Verge barrier location

This slope is usually determined by the crossfall of the shoulder or lane. Details of crossfall and batter rounding are
provided in Section 4.4.3 of AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2021d).
The offset to the hinge point may be reduced where there is no other option.
The barrier is intended to be generic.
It is important that there is sufficient width of reasonable flat ground behind the posts in a safety barrier so
that the posts can resist the lateral impact loads. This support width also provides space for maintenance
crews. ASBAP (2017a) recommends that W-beam barriers should be at least 1.0 m from the hinge point, as
shown in Figure 6.4. However, for other barrier types, space is needed behind the barrier for it to be
supported and for maintenance. It is possible to design a concrete barrier on the edge of a retaining wall and
for it to resist the lateral impact loads. In this case, structural advice should be obtained.
Figure 6.4: Absolute minimum distances between W-beam barriers and embankments
Note: Locating a barrier at the minimum offset may be in the EDD


6.8.4 Barrier Setback from Kerbs
As a general principle, it is preferable that surface conditions in front of and beneath barriers should be
similar to the conditions under which barriers are tested (i.e. relatively flat). However, this is not possible
where kerbs are required.
A basic requirement in MASH is that the critical impacts are tested. This is a heavy vehicle and a lighter
vehicle impacting at a rational high speed and angle. These test conditions produce extreme trajectories.
However, when reviewing the impacts with kerbs in front of barriers the trajectories will depend on the impact
speed, impact angles, vehicle type and kerb and barrier dimensions and type. Trajectories for a range of
impact conditions need to be evaluated to determine whether vaulting or under-running the barrier will be an
issue. As there is a range of vehicle speeds on all roads, so the evaluations should also include a range of
speeds. It is therefore not possible to fully evaluate the effect of kerbs with one or two tests.
When a vehicle strikes a kerb, the suspension is compressed as the wheels ride over the kerb, after which
the front of a vehicle has a damped sinusoidal path. The trajectory will depend on the speed and angle of the
impact, the height and shape of the kerb, and the vehicle dimensions and tyre and suspension
characteristics. This makes it difficult to accurately predict the trajectory path, especially on high speed
roads.
Previous guidelines have tended to indicate that there is one trajectory of interest when many trajectories for
different speeds, impact angles and vehicle types need to be reviewed. This information is not repeated in
this edition. See Austroads (2022).
The barrier system must be located to ensure that the errant vehicle does not:
• vault over the barrier

• go under the barrier causing snagging on the barrier and not being redirected.
Locating kerbs in front of barriers makes it more difficult to ensure that these two conditions are achieved.
Wire rope barriers may be installed with the foundation at the back of the kerb. Similarly, Flexible W-beam
barriers may be installed with the posts as close as possible to the back of the kerb. As shown in Figure 6.5.
In these installations, the height of the barrier is referenced off the projected line of the shoulder or pavement
surface at the kerb face.
Beyond the face of the kerb, there is a region where the barrier may be vaulted or under-run for different
trajectories. A barrier in this area is not be able to redirect all design vehicles and the barrier is likely to be
breached. A barrier should not be installed in this area. This area is shown in Figure 6.6.
Figure 6.5: Barrier close offset to kerbs

Figure 6.6: Barrier offsets from kerbs
Note: This figure applies to all barrier types
Table 6.6 lists the minimum offsets from the kerb face for a barrier to be able to redirect a range of vehicles
at different speeds and impact angles.
While Table 6.6 indicates that the offsets for wire rope barriers and flexible W-beam systems are
independent of the kerb type, 100 mm mountable and semi mountable kerbs are preferred. Evidence
suggests that the performance of flexible W-beams systems is less affected by their offset from the kerb.
However, to simplify the guidance, the offsets of wire rope and flexible W-beam barriers are made the same.
Table 6.6: Minimum offsets from kerb to barrier face
Barrier type
Kerb type Operating speed (km/h)
Flexible W-beam Stiff W-beam
Wire rope barrier
barrier barrier
Greater than 80 km/h Not recommended

Barrier kerb, 100 mm
Between 70 and 80 km/h 4.5 m 4.5 m 7.0 m
high
Less than 70 km/h 2.5 m 2.5 m 6.0 m
Mountable and Semi- Greater than 80 km/h 4.5 m 4.5 m 6.0 m
mountable with a
Between 70 and 80 km/h 4.0 m 4.0 m 5.0 m
maximum height of
100 mm Less than 70 km/h 2.5 m 2.5 m 4.0 m
While it is not a preferred placement option, concrete barriers can be located behind kerbs. Where there is a
need to install a barrier system behind semi mountable kerb using less than the minimum barrier offset, and
adoption of a concrete barrier system is not practicable, use of a flexible W-beam system is preferred over
wire rope barrier. There is a risk that the vehicles will impact the barrier higher than normally expected and
this effect should be evaluated in a design exception report, including whether adoption of a higher barrier is
warranted to mitigate this risk. A design exception needs to be approved by the relevant jurisdiction.
Where it is necessary to place a steel beam barrier close to a kerb, the face of the barrier should be aligned
vertically with the face of the kerb. Where this is not practicable because of design constraints, or there is a
high probability of minor nuisance vehicle impacts (e.g. where the kerbside lane is narrow) the barrier may
be offset a small distance, with the preferred option being 200 mm behind the kerb as shown in Figure 6.6.
The 200 mm offset minimises nuisance impacts while still reducing the possibility of a vehicle snagging
under a barrier element. The notion is to install the barrier as close as possible to the top of the sloping face
of the kerb.
On urban roads with operating speeds less than 80 km/h, the installation of a flexible W-beam barrier in the
centre of a narrow median should be considered within the Normal Design Domain and a design exception is
generally not required.
The anchors and terminals may need to be located further from the kerb, because of their wider foundation
width. A better solution is to return the kerb to be behind the terminal.

6.8.5 Lateral Location of Barriers in Medians
It could be thought that the most desirable median is relatively flat (slopes of 10:1 or less), free of hazards
and wide enough to enable virtually all errant vehicles to come safely to a stop without encroaching into the
opposing carriageway. However, the median would need to be very wide, as Austroads (2014a) reported that
some vehicles were found to travel more than 50 m across a roadside. Wider roadsides give a greater
chance of vehicles overturning. The installation of safety barriers in medians is the preferred solution. Refer
to Section 6.8.7 for guidance that relates specifically to narrow medians.
The application of road safety barriers to medians depends on the median width and the cross section.
Section 4.7 of AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2021d) provides guidance on medians and median width. The width
of the median will influence the choice of barriers.
The design of an installation of median barriers should consider:

• Required containment level and the appropriate test level of the barrier. See Sections 5.13 and 6.5,
• Appropriate offset to the traffic lane, median slopes, kerbs and other hazards in the median,
• Whether there should be one central barrier or two barriers, one on each side of the median,
• Sight distance requirements and aesthetics, i.e. the effect that the barrier will have on a driver’s sight
distance and the visual impact of the barrier. This requirement applies to drivers on the carriageways but
also to drivers making turns through the median. See AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2021d),
• Drainage including the effects on surface water run-off. See AGRD Part 5B (Austroads 2018b),
• Requirements for barrier terminal treatments. See Section 6.14,

• Requirements for landscaping in the median.
The selection of a median barrier and its location will depend on the width of the median. Flexible W-beam
barriers and wire rope barriers that are typically used in verges can also be used in medians, particularly in
rural contexts. Also refer to the comments for narrow medians in Section 6.8.7.
The requirement for locating a median barrier is the same as for a verge barrier. For median barriers:
• Use Section 6.8.1 for the appropriate offsets from the traffic lanes. Noting that the offsets need to be
acceptable to lanes in both directions.
• Use Section 6.8.3 for the location of barriers with respect to median slopes
• Use Section 6.8.4 for barriers set back from kerbs
• Use Section 6.8.2 for the minimum barrier distances from any hazards.
As is the case for verge barriers, an important consideration when locating median barriers is accessibility for
maintenance crews undertaking repairs and the occupational health and safety issues surrounding such
activities.
6.8.6 Number of Median Barriers Runs
Safety barriers should be located so that they satisfy the offset requirements for both traffic directions which
results in two barrier runs where the median is greater than 10 m. While two runs are desirable, it may not be
practical for all road sections and one run of flexible wire rope safety barrier may be considered in the
median where the conditions in Figure 6.7 are satisfied. Table 6.7 provides further comments about the
cross-sections in Figure 6.7.

Figure 6.7: Recommended median barrier locations

Final designs are always based on site-specific circumstances

See Table 6.7 for more details of the cross-sections
Source: Based on TMR (2017) Roadside Design Training Guide
Table 6.7: Location of median barriers
Cross-sections Comments
A barrier is required on each side of the median because it is non-traversable (in either direction),
1
slopes are 4:1 or steeper, there is water ponding or protruding rocks
A single barrier is permitted if the median meets the offset conditions listed in Table 6.5. The
barrier’s lateral position in the median need not be in the centre. Offsets from the median centre
2 depend on the vertical curvature of the road, sight distance requirements, and surface drainage.
Alternatively, barriers can be installed along each side of the median as in cross-section 1.
Median slopes that are traversable (1V:4H) from both sides but greater than 1V:10H could have
3 barriers placed on the high side if the median meets the conditions listed in Table 6.5. This allows for
gravity to assist errant vehicles’ recovery.
For relatively flat but depressed medians it is preferred to have one barrier on one side of the
4 median if the median meets the conditions listed in Table 6.5. Barriers should not be constructed in
the drainage channel and the water should not pond in the median.
A median with an apex is undesirable and every effort should be made to avoid this cross-section.
The energy dissipated by vehicles travelling up the slope is minor and steeper slopes make
5
maintenance tasks more difficult. Alternatively, barriers can be installed along each side of the
median as in cross-section 1.
Source: Based on TMR (2017) Roadside Design Training Guide

Figure 6.7 shows the appropriate location of barriers depending on the characteristics of the median. A
barrier should not be placed in a drainage path or where water ponds as the posts will not have sufficient
support. The final decision to install at a barrier at one location or another depends on the characteristics of
the site. Barriers can be placed along the median shoulders in all cross-sections.
If a single run is proposed, then it would be desirable to allow for the installation of a second run of safety
barrier should there be a future need. Both runs of barrier should be designed to meet the requirements in
this Part.
A wire rope or flexible W-beam barrier located on both sides of the median has the advantage that it
maximises the opportunity to contain deflections within the median. However, a central location has
advantages in that:
• debris from damaged barriers is less likely to encroach into the carriageway (however may be more likely
to encroach onto the opposing-flow carriageway)
• sight distance past the barrier on curves is maximised
• the barrier sustains fewer nuisance impacts than a barrier on the side of the median
• the cost is less than a barrier on both sides of a median.
6.8.7 Location of Barriers in Narrow Medians
The safety benefits of safety barriers in narrow medians are described in Guidance on Median and
Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties (Austroads 2016b). A narrow median is defined as
being one that is less than 6.2 m between opposing traffic lanes. Desirably, the requirements in narrow
medians are the same as those for wider medians documented in Section 6.8.5.
At most locations, the preferred solution is a centrally located barrier that is capable of directing vehicles from
either side. Concrete barriers are often chosen in these situations, particularly for urban freeway contexts,
but back-to-back flexible W-beam barriers or wire rope barriers may be used where appropriate. These are
shown in Figure 6.8.
Figure 6.8: Examples of road safety barriers for use in narrow medians
It is preferable that deflection is contained within the median. However, because of the median’s narrow
width, impacts with the barrier may cause the errant vehicle to encroach into the opposing carriageway.
While experience shows that barriers reduce the consequences of a head-on collision, it is desirable to
provide sufficiently wide medians to limit this encroachment. The probability of a collision due to
encroachment is related to the probability of an opposing vehicle being in the impact area during the short
time of the incident, approximately 1.5 s.

On urban roads with operating speeds less than 80 km/h, there is often a need to locate a barrier in the
centre of a narrow median with semi-mountable kerbs. Section 6.8.4 recommends that barriers be offset
4.0 m from the kerb. However, this requirement can be relaxed if there a flexible W-beam barrier is used.
A wire rope barrier should not be used behind kerbs except with the offsets listed in Table 6.6.
The minimum width of a median for a central barrier is discussed in Section 5.11. There is a trade-off when a
barrier is installed in a very narrow median; there are likely to be more impacts and there is an increased
probability of impacts between an errant vehicle and those from the opposing direction, while there is a
significant reduction in the number of head-on crashes. The design median widths are listed in Table 6.8.
Installation of barriers in medians narrower than 2.2 m require a design exception report that is approved by
the relevant jurisdiction. Discussion in Section 5.11 should assist in the preparation of this exception report.
Table 6.8: Design criteria for barriers in different median widths
Median width Design criteria

6.2 m and greater. Normal Design Domain (NDD)
2.2 to 6.2 m. Extended Design Domain (EDD).
Less than 2.2 m Design Exception (ED)
Source: Vic DoT (2018). Road Design Note 03-08
The following aspects should be evaluated and documented in the exception report:
• The effectiveness of the traffic operations on roads with median barriers including consideration of future
traffic operation scenarios.

• Steep grades and the inability to overtake will affect traffic operations significantly.
• There is a small risk that a vehicle might be arrested in the opposing lane and this may create additional
risk.
• The restrictions for installing wire rope barriers on vertical and horizontal curves should not be relaxed
when installed in narrow medians.
• The access to properties and minor roads and the means to enable vehicles to make U-turns needs to be
evaluated and documented.
• The expected impact rates should be investigated and documented.
• Wire rope barriers have not been designed to arrest or redirect heavy articulated vehicles. A risk
assessment of the likelihood and outcome of heavy vehicles colliding with the barrier should be
evaluated. Note that the presence of a number of heavy vehicles using the road does not preclude the
use of wire rope barriers in the median, but the risk due to their presence should be evaluated.
• The end treatments used in wire rope barriers perform quite differently. Terminals that limit the chances of
causing a vehicle to roll over are preferred. The implications of an impact on the terminal releasing the
tension in the cables should be evaluated. The location and installation details of a terminal should be to
minimise the likelihood of vehicle impacts.
• The length and radii of horizontal curves, the crossfall and super-elevation, the location of the crown are
issues that may affect the performance of the road or barrier.
Providing a barrier to shield a central hazard

Figure 6.9 details how a rigid object such as a bridge pier can be shielded in a narrow median. The treatment
will differ depending on whether the barrier only shields an isolated object or whether it is to be incorporated
into a longer barrier system. The flare rate of the barrier is described in Section 6.8.8

When specifying barriers for narrow medians it is essential that appropriate approach delineation and signing
is included. Designers should refer to AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2021d) for guidance on minimum median
width.
The safety benefits of safety barriers in narrow medians are described in Guidance on Median and
Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties (Austroads 2016b).
Figure 6.9: An example of a barrier layout for shielding a rigid object in a median
Notes:
1. Designers should also investigate the use of a crash attenuator to shield the hazard.
2. The barrier tapers should be aligned to be consistent with the flare rates, as suggested in Section 6.8.8.
6.8.8 Flaring of Barriers and Terminals
Generally, there should be uniform clearance between traffic and roadside features, particularly in urban
areas where there are many roadside features. Uniform alignment enhances road safety by providing the
driver with a certain level of expectation, thus reducing driver concern for and reaction to the roadside
features and barriers. In previous editions, shy line offsets have been used to specify barrier offsets that will
cause some drivers to slow down or move towards the centre of the carriageway. Tay & Churchill (2007)
Bergh & Carlsson (1999) and Opus (2016a) have questioned the use of the shy line concept.
Opus (2016b) discusses the effect of a flared terminal on the behaviour of drivers and concludes that:
Flared guardrail terminations may cost more and are likely to have no or minimal impact
on “shying” behaviour. On this basis, it may be better not to have flares at the
termination of guardrail sections.
It should be noted that many terminals have been designed to be not flared. Older style non-proprietary
terminals had incorporated a parabolic flare to cause the terminal to have a controlled kinking behaviour.
These terminals have not been used for many years. If a flare is used the terminal specified must suit the
flare. Designers should refer to the manufacturers’ published information.
When a barrier or terminal is flared, the effect is to increase the likely impact angles by the flare angle.
Caution should be used in applying flaring as barriers are designed to work best with a glancing impact.
Flaring may lead to vehicles impacting a barrier at a high angle that will lead to hazardous consequences.
Accordingly, the longer flare rates (and small flare angles) should be used if the barrier is installed closer to
the traffic lane than the values shown in Table 6.9. Similarly, the maximum flare rates for concrete barriers
are higher than those for more flexible barriers.

Table 6.9: Flare rates
Barrier offset distances requiring Flare rate for Flare rate for Flare rate for
Operating higher flare rates (m) barriers closer to stiffer barriers flexible barriers
speed further from the further from the
the road 1,4
(km/h) Verge (left) Median (right) road 2,4 road 3,4
side side (d:1) (d:1) (d:1)
50 1.5 1.0 13:1 8:1 7:1

60 1.5 1.0 16:1 10:1 8:1
70 1.5 1.0 18:1 12:1 10:1
80 2.0 1.0 21:1 14:1 11:1
90 2.5 1.5 24:1 16:1 12:1
100 3.0 2.0 26:1 18:1 14:1
110 3.0 2.0 30:1 20:1 15:1
Notes:
1. These flare rates refer to barriers located with offsets from the road less than those listed in columns 2 and 3
2. Stiffer barriers include concrete barriers, Thrie-beam barriers and the legacy non-proprietary W-beam barriers
3. Flexible barriers include wire rope barriers and flexible W-beam systems.
4. For a flare of d:1, the barrier is located 1 additional unit laterally for every d units longitudinally.
Source: Based on AASHTO (2011a).

Flaring of barriers can have the following disadvantages:

• The greater the flare angle the higher the impact angle and the subsequent severity of crashes.
• The likelihood of a vehicle, being redirected back onto the roadway following an impact with the flared
section, is increased.
• Higher flare angles may also increase the need for additional earthworks and batter slope flattening in the
area between the roadway and the barrier.
The advantages of using a flare are that it allows for shorter barrier lengths and for longer lengths of the
roadside to be shielded. This is particularly important if “continuous” barriers are required, where the
objective is to shield as much of the roadside as possible.
6.8.9 Barriers in Constrained Locations
The following issues must be addressed and documented when below minimum barrier offsets are being
considered to ensure that reasonable steps have been taken to achieve the most appropriate offset for the
roadside.
1. Can the site constraints (e.g. trees, poles, batters, etc) be removed, relocated or modified to enable a
greater barrier offset?
2. Has the appropriate type of barrier been used? – Below minimum barrier offsets will have a greater
frequency of nuisance impacts.
3. Have offsets been maximised, where it is less than 4 m?
4. Have emergency stopping bays, wider offsets within the barrier length, or breaks in the barrier been used
to provide areas where vehicles can stop?
5. On divided roads where a 3 m offset cannot be provided on the median side, have stopping opportunities
on the left side of the road been maximised or vice versa?

6. Has the probability of conflict between moving and stopped vehicles where the barrier is installed been
considered?
7. Have traffic volumes (including truck volumes), and vehicle speeds been considered? – There are higher
risks on roads with high traffic volumes, speeds and high percentages of trucks
8. Have traffic lane widths been considered? – Wider lane widths are desirable to minimise nuisance
impacts.
9. Has the shoulder between traffic lane and barrier been sealed to provide areas for errant vehicles to re-
gain control been considered?
10. Has sight distance on the approach to barriers been considered to ensure that a parked vehicle
protruding onto the traffic lane is able to be seen by approaching drivers? (Refer to AGRD - Part 3:
Geometric Design, Section 5.5 for sight distance requirements).
11. Have the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists (especially at bends), horse riders, etc. been
considered?
12. Has the need and ability for a vehicle with a disabled driver/passenger to stop on the side of the road and
the risk of a collision involving such a vehicle been considered?
13. Has the ability for maintenance activities (including repairs to barriers, grass mowing and weed spraying)
to be carried out safely been considered?
14. Has the ability for motorists to identify safe locations to stop both during the day and night, been
considered?
15. Have mitigation measures, such as speed reduction, signs or other advisory information, freeway
management systems (e.g. variable speed/lane use), stakeholder education/awareness (e.g.
maintenance and fire and rescue services) and user education or public awareness, been considered?
6.9 Determine the Longitudinal Location of a Barrier (Step 7)
Section 6.8 has identified the restriction on the lateral positioning of a road safety barrier. This section
describes the longitudinal requirements for a road safety barrier.
The barrier length of need is a function of the distance that it is located from the edge of the driving lane and
can most readily be obtained graphically,
6.9.1 Determine the Length of Need
The “length of need” is the length of barrier required to redirect an errant vehicle and shield hazards and is
defined by the distance between the leading and trailing points of need. Points B and D in Figure 6.10 and
Figure 6.11 represent the leading and trailing points of need respectively, while points A and C represent the
extremities of hazards relating to points B and D. Figure 6.10 illustrates the concept where a barrier can be
impacted from both directions of travel and Figure 6.11 where a barrier can only be impacted from one
direction of travel. There needs to be an effective barrier in the length of need, which is between points B
and D.

Figure 6.10: Length of need – two directions of travel
Source: Based on Roads and Maritime Services (2016).
Figure 6.11: Length of need – single direction of travel

Source: Based on Roads and Maritime Services (2016).
There are two basic requirements to calculate the length of need. The first to ensure that a barrier is installed
if an errant vehicle is unlikely to stop before colliding with the hazards. The second provides for vehicles
leaving the road at a shallow angle, travelling in a straight line, and not colliding with the hazards. The ability
of a vehicle to be stopped is described by the run-out length. The 15th percentile departure angle (7°) is
used to determine if the barrier will shield hazards from vehicles leaving the road at a shallow departure
angle. The inclusion of departure angles is new and is consistent with issues of using only run-out lengths
that have been raised by Riexinger et al (2021).
The process is to calculate the length of need using the leading and trailing points of need calculated from
the run-out lengths. The departure angle is then checked against a minimum value of the 15th percentile
departure angle.
The evaluation of risk in Section 3, uses the lateral distance to a hazard; that is the distance to the point on
the hazard that is closest to the road. The risk reduces as the lateral distance to a hazard increases. On the
other hand, the length of need is based on the further-most point of the hazard. For hazards that are point
hazards located some distance from the traffic lanes, the risk will be low and possibly less than the NRRIT
and not require shielding and a length of need for these hazards would not be relevant. Significant hazards
that extend some distance from the road are likely to have a higher risk and may have longer lengths of
need.

Appendix G contains worked examples to calculate the length of need. It also provides equations and
practices where there is a flared section of barrier installed. The procedure does provide a means to
calculate the length of need although in many instances it should be checked in installation drawings.
Application to straight, or nearly straight, roads

The barrier sections described here are not flared. See Appendix G if the barrier has been flared.
The run out lengths (LR) are shown in Table 6.10 and are the theoretical distances needed for a vehicle that
has left the roadway to come to a stop and are therefore dependent on vehicle speed. It is measured from
the upstream extent of the obstruction along the roadway to the point at which a vehicle is assumed to leave
the roadway, although the actual distance travelled is along the vehicle departure path.
The run-out lengths establish the barrier ‘length of need’ to shield hazards for traffic approaching from both
directions and for traffic approaching in the left lane for a carriageway with traffic in one direction. This is
illustrated in Figure 6.12.
Table 6.10: Run-out lengths for barrier design
Run-out length LR (m) for AADT range

Operating speed
(km/h)
> 10 000 5 000–10 000 1 000–5 000 < 1 000
110 110 101 88 76
100 91 76 64 61
90 80 67 56 54
80 70 58 49 46
70 60 49 42 38
60 49 40 34 30
50 34 27 24 21
Note: The values are based on research and observations and are shorter than in previous editions of this Part.
Figure 6.12: Run-out length method to determine the leading point of need on two-way roads

Two-way carriageways
For two-way traffic on a carriageway, and for installations where the barrier is not flared, the distance X1
locates the leading point of need as shown in Figure 6.13. It is given by:
[LA - L2 ]
𝑋𝑋1 = 4
L
�LA �
R
where
X1 = the location of the leading point of need in advance of the hazards
LR = run-out length (Table 6.10)
LA = lateral extent of the hazards
L2 = barrier's lateral distance from the edge of the traffic lane
The value of X1 may need to be adjusted to account for drivers drifting off the road using the following
process. The leading angle of departure is given by:
LA
𝑎𝑎𝐿𝐿 = 5
LR
where
aL = leading angle of departure in radians
If aL is greater than 0.125 (~7°), then X1 is recalculated as X1’ using Equation 6.
[LA - L2 ]
𝑋𝑋1 ′ = = 8[LA - L2 ] 6
0.125
where
X1’ = the revised required length of need in advance of the hazards

The effect of Equation 6 is to increase the length of barriers for drivers who drift off the road. See Austroads
(2022). Equations 4, 5 and 6 can be combined to give:
𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
𝑋𝑋1 = max �� (𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 ), 8(𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 )� 7
𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴
where
The trailing point of need for traffic in two directions is given by Equation 8, which is the same as Equation 7,
but with a different measure of the LA. In this case, all lateral dimensions are measured from the edge of the
opposing traffic lane that is nearest to the hazards. Figure 6.13 illustrates these measures.
𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
𝑋𝑋2 = max �� (𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 ), 8(𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 )� 8
𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴
where
X2 = the location of the trailing point of need in advance of the hazards based on traffic in
direction 2

Figure 6.13: Run-out length method to determine the trailing point of need on two-way roads

The length of need for two-way carriageways is given by equation 9:
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿= 𝑋𝑋1 + 𝑊𝑊 + 𝑋𝑋2 9
where
X1, X2 are calculated using Equations 7 and 8
W is the width of the hazards
One way carriageways
For one way carriageways, the leading point of need is given by Equation 7 with the dimensions illustrated in
Figure 6.12. The trailing point of need, on the other hand, is calculated using Equation 10 and with the
concepts illustrated in Figure 6.14. The assumed trailing angle of departure is the 85th percentile angle (22°),
but for convenience, the reciprocal of the angle is taken to be 4.0 rad-1. Therefore,
𝑍𝑍 = 4.0 [L3 - L2 ] 10
where
Z = the revised required length of need in advance of the hazards
L3 = distance from the edge of the traffic lane to the edge of the hazards closet to the road.
L3 - L2 = distance between the barrier and the hazards

Figure 6.14: Trailing point of need on a one-way carriageway
Notes:
L2 is the barrier's lateral distance from the edge of the traffic lane.
L3 denotes the distance from the edge of the traffic lane to the nearest point on the hazards.
The length of need (LoN) is then:
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿= 𝑋𝑋1 + 𝑊𝑊 − 𝑍𝑍 11
where
X1 is calculated using equation 7
Z is calculated using equation 10
W = is the width of the hazards
It should be noted that:

• The distance between the edge of the traffic lane and the barrier affects the length of need; placing a
barrier further from the road can result in a shorter barrier and lower installation and maintenance costs
associated with shielding hazards. Designers should refer to Section 6.8 for discussion on lateral location
issues.
• The influence of roadside batter slopes on the design may be considered by completing the layout
procedure on a scale plan, highlighting the hazards and showing the contour lines.
• LA is the distance from the edge of the running lane to the far side of the fixed object or hazards.
Austroads (2022) gives some additional discussion on the length of need calculations.

6.9.2 Length of Need for Hazards that Extend Long Distances Perpendicular to the Road
Hazards like rivers and streams that are aligned perpendicular to the road have a high LA value. A review of
Equation 1 indicates that the X value will be less than or equal to the LR. However, if the adjustment for the
departure angle and a large LA value are used, as in Equation 5, the length of need would be very long,
approaching 8 times LA. Riexinger et al (2021) has demonstrated that the length of need values (using
Equation 4) are underestimated at higher LA values and that the calculated X value should be doubled and
the departure angle correction not applied. (Also see Austroads, 2022).
It is recommended that the length of need, X values, be calculated using Equations 12 and 13 when the LA
value exceeds 10 m and with the hazards extending is perpendicular to the roads. Typical hazards are rivers,
cliffs and other road infrastructure.
𝑋𝑋1 = 2 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 12
𝑋𝑋2 = 2 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 13
where
X1 = the location of the leading point of need in advance of the hazards based on traffic in
direction 1
X2 = the location of the trailing point of need in advance of the hazards based on traffic in
direction 2
These equations refer to dimensions shown in Figure 6.15.
Figure 6.15: Leading and trailing points of need for hazards extending long distances from the road
Structures, including barriers, perpendicular to hazards such as rivers and streams shall be designed in
accordance with AS5100 or the Bridge Manual (NZ Transport Agency 2013) as appropriate.

6.9.3 Length of Need on Curved Roads
The TMR (2017) Roadside Design Training Guide has developed a procedure to calculate the length of need
on curves. This procedure is based on similar measures to those described above and differs from the
approach given in AASHTO (2011a) although the concepts are the same. Appendix G describes the
procedures for curved roads based on the Queensland TMR procedure and a review of the departure angles.
6.9.4 Continuous Barriers and the Length of Need Concept
For continuous barrier installations, the commencement of barrier lengths should not be determined using
the length of need calculation presented in this section. Safety barrier lengths should commence at the
earliest possible location and extend as far as practical. (See Section 6.16.2.)
6.9.5 Length of Need for TL-5 and TL-6 Concrete Barriers at High Risk Sites
The length of need for TL-2 to TL-4 barriers should follow the requirements in Section 6.9.1. For the
installation of TL-5 and TL-6 barriers at defined high-risk sites, a departure angle of 15° should be used to
define the length of need for these heavier vehicles. Note there may well be a requirement to install TL-4
barriers upstream and downstream of the TL-5 or TL-6 installations. Refer to 6.18.2 which describes points
of need for two-stage shielding.
6.10 Evaluation of the Selected Barrier (Step 8)

At this point in the design, the barrier system type has been selected and the roadside characteristics
requirements for the chosen barrier system have been identified. If the roadside characteristics do not allow
for the chosen barrier type to be installed, then another barrier type or an accepted variant that can be
installed at the roadside should be chosen and evaluated against the site characteristics in Sections 6.8 and
6.9. Only barriers accepted by the jurisdiction may be used.
Another option is to change the site characteristic so that the proposed barrier can be used at the site.
Section 6.8.9 provides some additional guidance.
If another barrier type is chosen, then the designer must repeat the preliminary design using the attributes of
this barrier.
6.11 Evaluate the Strength of the Soil at the Proposed Barrier Location (Step 9)
The first element of the detailed installation design is an evaluation of the site’s soil strength. An element of
the roadside characteristics required in Section 6.3, is the nature and strength of the ground where the
proposed barrier system is to be installed. The barrier needs to resist the loads from an impacting vehicle
and this action requires the soil strength to be commensurate with the strength of the soil used in testing
under the MASH protocol (AASHTO, 2016). This is often an AASHTO standard soil, which is a well
compacted granular soil with a CBR (California Bearing Ratio) or approximately 60. Some barriers have
been tested in a MASH weak soil, which is categorised as the finer aggregate or sand that is used in
concrete. The CBR for weak soils is judged to be between 8 and 10 (Austroads 2022).
While stronger soils are in the shoulders, they may not exist in areas beyond the shoulder and this may
require either using a different post variant of the barrier type, improving the strength of the soil or using a
ground beam. These options need to be variants to the barrier type proposed and are accepted by the local
jurisdiction after an evaluation by ASBAP.
Again, if another barrier type is chosen, then the designer must repeat the preliminary design using the
attributes of this barrier.
It is acknowledged that there may not be an option to use a different barrier or variant, and the roadside
cross-section will have to be changed to accommodate the barrier.

6.12 Structural Design of the Proposed Barrier (Step 10)

Proprietary safety barrier systems should not be compromised. Only accepted barrier systems or accepted
variants are to be used. An exception is the construction of a ground beam as described in NZTA (2014).
The structural strength of concrete barriers, their anchorages and their terminating sections should be
designed using the loading characteristics defined in AS5100.1 or the Bridge Manual (NZ Transport Agency
2013) as appropriate for the containment level defined by the performance level.
6.13 Detailed Installation Refinements (Step 11)

This section describes the installation requirements in more detail. If the requirement precludes the use of a
barrier system, then another alternative system should be proposed or the site geometry changed. This
section describes additional requirements for the more usual installations.
6.13.1 Modification of the Working Width

Section 6.7 defines the working widths of different barrier types with an indication that the designer should
consult the details in the accepted product list. The design working widths are measured during the MASH
compliance testing. See Section 5.5.2. Designers should be aware that the deflections and working widths,
published in test reports, may be exceeded in the field by some impacts by errant vehicles.
Wire rope barriers

For wire rope barriers, the deflection is affected by the rope tensions, the length of the ropes and whether the
barrier is on a corner or not. Table 6.11 and Table 6.12 list generic correction factors for TL-3 wire rope
systems. Table 6.12 applies to impacts convex on the convex side of the barrier, for impacts on the concave
side the correction factor is 1.0. These deflection values will affect the working width of TL-3 barriers. For
some TL-4 barriers, the vehicle rolls over the barrier beyond the deflected barrier, for these barriers the
tested working width is used.
Table 6.11: Rope length correction factors for the deflection of TL-3 wire rope barriers
Rope length Correction factor

0 to 250 m 1.0
251 to 350 m 1.1
351 to 500 m 1.15
Greater than 500 m 1.2
Note: Rope length is the length between anchor connections

Source: Based on Vic DoT (2016) and Alberson et al (2003)
Table 6.12: Curve radii correction factors for the deflection of TL-3 wire rope barriers
Barrier radius Correction factor

Less than 400 m 1.5
401 to 500 m 1.4
501 to 600 m 1.3
601 to 800 m 1.2
801 to 1500 1.1
Greater than 1500 m or straight 1.0
Note: Correction applied where the wire rope barrier can be impacted on the convex side; the barrier on the left hand
side of the carriageway on a left hand curve or the right hand side of the carriageway on a right hand curve.
Source: Based on Vic DoT (2016) and Alberson et al (2003).

Reducing the working width

Some systems can be strengthened locally by adding additional posts or by reinforcing the rail element (i.e.
using a double beam or nested rails) to shield individual fixed hazards that are within the deflection distance
for a single-beam barrier. In addition, the deflection of a wire rope road safety barrier can also be reduced by
adopting closer post spacing. However, it should be noted that the practice of using closer post spacings to
reduce deflections is based on a limited number of tests with light European test vehicles. Reducing the
spacing of posts may affect the performance of the barrier and should be limited to relatively short lengths of
the system. It is not clear how far in advance of hazards that the reduced post spacing is required for the
smaller deflection to be achieved and if the same magnitude of reductions would be achieved with heavier
test vehicles. Only accepted variants should be used.
The working width is checked against the barrier-to-hazard clearance. If the working width is greater than the
barrier-to-hazard clearance available, the barrier may not prevent an impact with the hazards. In this case,
designers should consider:
• changing the barrier to a stiffer one or a variant of the proposed barrier
• changing the lateral position of the barrier.
In previous editions of this Part, a table has been provided for a vehicle’s roll allowance. This Table is not
included in this edition as the roll allowance is incorporated in the barrier’s working widths. When
infrastructure, that must not be damaged, is placed behind a barrier, then a factor of safety should be applied
to the working width values listed in Table 6.3 and Table 6.4. If there is a site where the crossfall is greater
than a nominal crossfall and a bridge pier or a support for a large sign or gantry is to be installed behind a
barrier, then an even greater factor of safety should be applied to the working widths.
Victorian Department of Transport (Vic DoT, 2019b) has proposed a ‘sway protection modification’ to barriers
to reduce body roll. It states that:
Concrete barriers with sway protection must retain the F-Shape profile in accordance
with SD 3901 to an effective height of 920 mm above pavement level
Figure 6.16 illustrates an example. The modification still allows for vehicles to be smoothly redirected.
However, its use should be considered to be a design exception with relevant jurisdictional approval.
Figure 6.16: Example of sway protection
Source: Victorian Department of Transport, (2019c) Road design Note 0613.

In some situations, some smaller signs and luminaire supports may be placed in the working width on the
understanding that on impact these items will be damaged. This includes items installed on top of a concrete
barrier. In these cases, the installation of these items should be justified using a design exception report with
relevant jurisdictional approval.
In an EDD and for some contexts, a road agency might accept that the cargo van corner colliding with a
hazard, but that the cabin of the truck should not, then the working widths for TL-4 and TL-5 concrete
barriers could be reduced by the ratio of the height of the cab (2.7 m) to the height of the van (4.6 m).
6.13.2 Minimum Length of Barrier System
To perform satisfactorily, barrier systems must have sufficient length to enable the strength to be developed
through the system and into the posts as an impact occurs.
MASH requires the minimum tested barrier length to be at least three times the length in which deformation
occurs. However, shorter lengths of barrier will perform satisfactorily.
The lengths to be considered in the design of barriers are those of the components of a system, namely:
• terminal length
• transition length
• minimum length
• development length.
Design minimum length of barrier system

For road carriageways with traffic in both directions, the minimum design length of barrier is where the
barrier’s redirective section is equal to the length of need to shield the hazards. That is, the barrier’s
approach point of redirection for the adjacent traffic is at the leading point of need, and the barrier’s approach
point of redirection for the opposing traffic is at the trailing point of need. The redirective section of the
longitudinal barrier can extend beyond the points of need. Figure 6.16 shows the length of need, calculated
by the procedure in Section 6.9.1 and shown by the red shading. The redirective part of the barrier system is
illustrated by the green shading.
For a carriageway with traffic in one direction, the minimum design length of a barrier is based on similar
concepts. The barrier’s approach point of redirection is at the leading point of need and the barrier’s
departure point of redirection is at the trailing point of need. Again, the redirective section of the longitudinal
barrier can extend beyond the points of need. (See Figure 6.18).

Figure 6.17: Design minimum length of barrier system for an installation for a road with two-way traffic
Figure 6.18: Design minimum length of barrier system for an installation on a carriageway with traffic in one
direction

Practical minimum length of barrier system

For W-beam barriers, the design minimum length of barrier should be compared with the practical minimum
barrier length. ASBAP (2021e) Technical Advice SBTA 21-002 described the practical minimum length (for
W-beam barriers including terminals), based on terminals being redirective from the third post. The ASBAP
Technical Advice recommends that:
An installation of a barrier should be longer than both the practical minimum barrier
length and the design minimum barrier length. The practical minimum barrier length was
based on crash testing and the absolute theoretical barrier length. The practical
minimum length of TL-3 W-beam barriers are:
• 24 m for non-proprietary W-beam systems.
For urban roads where 70 km/h impacts are expected, the practical minimum barrier
length can be reduced to:
• 22 m for non-proprietary W-beam systems.
If a proposed barrier is shorter than the practical minimum barrier length, then the proposal should be
considered to be a design exception in which the designer documents the risks and advantages of the
installation for approval of the relevant jurisdiction.
Eliminating short lengths of barrier

Consideration should be given to eliminating short lengths of barrier as this eliminates a leading terminal,
which is more hazardous than the longitudinal section.
6.13.3 Maximum Barrier Length
While most barrier systems do not have a maximum physical length, the maximum installation length
depends on the effects on barrier performance and the ability for the system to be maintained and repaired.
If a wire rope barrier is hit, particularly at the end anchor, the ability of the barrier to resist subsequent
impacts before the barrier is repaired is uncertain. To reduce the risk of long lengths of wire rope barrier
being disabled by a single vehicle impact, a maximum wire rope barrier length of 1 km is recommended. A
new barrier run should commence using an overlap.
While the decision to use wire rope barrier lengths longer than 1 km is not prohibited, designers must first
consider the effects on barrier performance (i.e. increased deflection) and the risk of second impacts on an
under tensioned system. Where this can be managed, a wire rope barrier length of up to 2 km is possible.
The performance of terminals in a wire rope barrier is satisfactory although it can be less predictable than the
performance of the longitudinal section. Terminals should be located so as to minimise the effect of particular
geometric or roadside conditions on a barrier’s performance.
Flexible W-beam barriers do not have a maximum length, given that barrier performance is unchanged and
impact damage is localised.
6.13.4 Sight Distance Requirements
When assessing sight distances, it must be assumed that drivers cannot see objects between the posts and
that drivers must be able to see over the top of a barrier and any delineators. Barriers can restrict the view
significantly and it is appropriate to assess various object heights in some sight distance measures to assess
risks and compensate where appropriate.

In cases where sight distance is already sub-standard and the installation of a roadside barrier is likely to
reduce sight lines below what is currently available, designers should review the sight distances against the
requirements in Section 5 of AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2021d) for mid-block situations including horizontal
curves. When sight lines on the inside of horizontal curves are substandard, a barrier system that reduces
deflection and located so that it maximises offset to the traffic lane should be considered.
For sight distance requirements associated with intersections and interchanges, designers are referred to the:
• Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections (Austroads 2021g)
• Guide to Road Design Part 4B: Roundabouts (Austroads 2021h)
• Guide to Road Design Part 4C: Interchanges (Austroads 2015c).
In the vicinity of side roads and private property access points, sight distance requirements should be
assessed where safety barriers are to be installed (including Minimum Gap Sight Distance (MGSD) and Safe
Intersection Sight Distance (SISD)). If necessary, the barrier could be flared to a minimum offset of 3.0 m
from traffic lanes to reduce the impact on sight lines for vehicles exiting from the side road or property
access. Where this is not possible, individual risk assessments are recommended. Designers should
consider the viability of relocating access roads before accepting that a lower level of protection is the most
cost-effective solution.
6.14 Select End Treatments to Longitudinal Barriers (Step 12)
Once the barrier has been located longitudinally (using the length of need) and laterally to accommodate
working widths and sight distance, suitable leading and trailing terminal or end treatments must be selected.
Terminals are an integral part of a barrier system. A longitudinal barrier is not assessed or approved for use
by ASBAP unless there is an acceptable terminal available. Only terminal - longitudinal barrier combinations
that have been accepted by the local jurisdiction are to be used where they may be hit by an errant vehicle. It
is therefore imperative that terminal treatments are installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s
specifications and road agency guidelines.
Similarly, only crash cushions that have been assessed by ASBAP and approved by the local jurisdiction are
to be used. Crash cushions are to be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and road
agency guidelines. Crash cushions are often used to terminate permanent concrete barriers.
Terminals and crash cushions are designed and tested on flat and level terrain with a vehicle impacting at
the normal height. It is important to replicate these ground conditions in practice as failure to do so may
result in the device failing to perform as intended. Terminals and crash cushions must therefore be placed on
a relatively flat surface (10:1 maximum slope) and the area between the road and these devices must be
clear of any irregularities or obstructions, such as excessive slopes or kerbs. These features can cause a
vehicle to become airborne and ride over the device or roll over on impact. Maximum crossfalls are
recommended for various types of proprietary systems. For installations in lower speed urban areas, it may
not be possible to install end treatments clear of kerbs. In these cases, the installations should be treated as
design exceptions with the appropriate jurisdictional approval.
Section 5.6 provides general details and a classification of terminals and crash cushions.
6.14.1 Terminal Selection
A terminal for a barrier must be an accepted terminal for the proposed barrier. Consult the jurisdictions
accepted terminal list, which also contains the location of the (approach) point of redirection.
There must be
• space available for installation and deformation of the terminal
• space available for the run out area behind the terminal.

Generally, there are only limited terminal options for a particular barrier. However, if more than one terminal
is available for a longitudinal barrier, then the designer might choose a terminal on its ability to resist minor
impacts, whole of life costs and maintenance and repair costs.
The selection of terminals for temporary barriers uses the same concepts as for permanent barriers. It is
important that the designer use a barrier-terminal combination that is approved by a jurisdiction.
All wire rope barriers have terminals designed to suit. No other terminal is to be used other than the design
specified by the barrier’s manufacturer and accepted by the local jurisdiction. The end anchors are designed
to ensure that when impacted the wire ropes are restrained and not a hazard to adjacent traffic. An errant
vehicle running into the end of a wire rope barriers straddles the cables and may be arrested by them as the
vehicle progressively flattens posts and comes to rest.
Terminals for W-beam barriers may also be classified as gating or non-gating depending on where the point
of redirection is located. Gating terminals have the approach point of redirection further from the nose of the
terminal. Non-gating terminals are therefore more able to shield hazards in constrained locations where the
length of the barrier is limited by an access road or a median opening. In some cases, a designer is able to
choose whether to use a gating or non-gating terminal.
W-beam barrier terminals are either flared or tangent (parallel) designs. Tangent terminals may be installed
with a maximum offset of 600 mm from the line of barrier over the entire terminal length. Flared terminals
must be installed on a flare; the offset is larger than for tangent terminals and depends on the terminal type.
The extent of the flaring must be in accordance with the manufacturer’s requirements to enable the terminal
to function as designed and tested.
The installation of W-beam barrier terminals on the right side of the divided carriageway or on the trailing end
of a road with two-way traffic may require the beams to be lapped so that the beams are able to slide over
each other. Refer to ASBAP (2017b). A note on the installation plans is desirable, as this is an issue that is
often overlooked.
As MASH compliant TL-4 terminals are not available at present, a TL-3 terminal is used and a transition
section to a TL-4 barrier is used. In this case, the approach point of redirection is downstream of the
transition as shown in Figure 5.7.
Where a kerb is present at the site then the preferred process is to return the kerb to be behind the barrier so
that the terminal is located on flat terrain. Otherwise, the kerb needs to be extended upstream of the terminal
by a distance of 20 times the terminal’s offset to the road.
A non-crashworthy end treatment should only be considered where a detailed assessment concludes that
the likelihood of an end on impact with the barrier is negligible. Trailing terminals on barriers on road
carriageways with traffic in one direction are an example.
In some locations (such as at interchanges with local roads) it may not be possible to comply with all
recommended practices and the designer may need to make judgements as to which aspects of the design
need to be compromised and/or optimised to develop an acceptable solution, that is justified in a design
exception and approved by the relevant jurisdiction. Any additional costs should not be a trade off against
safety.
Appropriate sight distance checks should be made to the terminal located at the commencement of median
barrier systems, particularly those in narrow medians, with appropriate delineation to minimise the possibility
of traffic inadvertently ending up on the incorrect side of the barrier for the direction of travel.

6.14.2 Crash Cushion Selection
Crash cushions are designed to arrest vehicles impacting on the nose and to redirect vehicles impacting on
the sides. The performance of crash cushions is based on the kinetic energy of vehicles that can be arrested
in the head-on tests described in MASH (AASHTO, 2016). Current approved permanent crash cushions are
redirective. (See Section 5.6.2).
The selection of crash cushions should consider:

• The impact performance level based on the maximum impact speed or test level. Some cushions have
achieved multiple test levels and, for some products, the system supplier can provide configurations for
different design impact speeds rather than various test levels.
• Their configuration. Crash cushions may be available in different configurations including width, anchoring
in terms of rigid backstops, different colours of nose cones and only certain configurations may be
acceptable to the road agency. Side panel or rail laps may vary depending on whether the adjacent
passing traffic is one way or two-way. For some systems, the side panels are aligned to accommodate
the direction of travel.
• Transitions from the crash cushion to a barrier. ASBAP assesses these transitions for consideration by
jurisdictions. The designer must use a transition that has been accepted by the jurisdiction.
• Foundation options. Some cushions have a range of foundation options and only certain options may be
acceptable to the road agency or applicable to the site in which the cushion is to be installed.
• Site conditions. There are design limitations (e.g. maximum crossfall) that may limit the use of certain
devices.
• Kerbs and pavement elevations - To reduce the likelihood of a vehicle vaulting there should be no kerbs
or islands for a distance of at least 16 m in front, or to the rear of the unit. When it is necessary to place a
kerb then a mountable kerb of no more than 130 mm in height shall be used. Delineators and signs
should be relocated behind the unit.
• Maintenance requirements. Some crash cushions can be repaired on-site. Some crash cushions have
reusable components.
• Orientation. The unit should be orientated to accommodate the probable impact angle of an errant vehicle
to maximise the likelihood of head-on impacts and proper operation of the crash attenuator. This
orientation is not as important for crash cushions that have redirective capabilities. The desired
orientation angle will depend upon the design speed, roadway alignment and lateral offset to the device.
A maximum angle of 10 degrees between the longitudinal centre line of the roadway and the crash
attenuator is often considered as appropriate.
• Rebound energy. Some systems have components that cause the system to have some energy stored in
elastic components after the vehicle is arrested. This may result in the vehicle rebounding, or for this
energy to be released as the crash cushion is being repaired. These systems may still have been
accepted by road agencies, but these qualities should be noted by the installation designer.
Crash cushions operate by crushing material and attenuating the kinetic energy of the vehicle. There needs
to be a stiff back up or support to resist the forces to crush material of the vehicle and cushion, usually in the
form of a ground anchor or other linkage back up (such as part of the barrier), or both.
Full scale crash testing has demonstrated a higher risk if a vehicle impacts the connection between a
longitudinal barrier and a crash cushion in the reverse direction. This connection should be located to
minimise the likelihood of reverse impacts at this connection. A risk assessment may be required to
document the decision-making process. Refer to ASBAP (2021c).

6.14.3 Run Out Areas
Terminals are designed to gate when vehicles upstream of the approach point of redirection. These vehicles
pass behind the terminal and into a notional “run out area”. Impacts with crash cushions will also result in
vehicles deflected to the side of the cushion. A hazard-free, traversable area is required for these errant
vehicles to not have secondary impacts with hazards.
Errant vehicles, impacting either gating or non-gating terminals and crash cushions, may travel into the run
out area as shown in Figure 6.19 and Figure 6.20. As such, run out areas should be provided at all terminals
and crash cushions. The dimensions of the hazard-free areas are listed in Table 6.13.
Figure 6.19: Run out area for barrier terminals

Source: ASBAP Technical Advice 21.003 (ASBAP 2021a). This is a copy of Figure 5.11.
Figure 6.20: Run out area for crash cushions
Source: ASBAP Technical Advice 21.003 (ASBAP 2021a). This is a copy of Figure 5.12.

Table 6.13: Run out areas for terminals and crash cushions
Device Run out area at 100 km/h Run out area at 70 km/h
Flexible W-beam terminal 18.5 m L x 6 m W from approach point of redirection
Wire rope barrier 18.5 m L x 6 m W from approach point of redirection
18.5 m L x 6 m W from approach point of redirection 10 m W x 6 m L from approach
Plastic water filled terminal
(Consult jurisdiction’s technical conditions of use) point of redirection
8 m L x 12 m W from nose
Crash cushion Not required
(it is wider than it is longer)
Source: ASBAP Technical Advice 21.003 (ASBAP 2021a).
The run out area should contain no fixed hazards (e.g. poles and trees) and be traversable, with a lateral
slope of 6:1 or flatter.
Where the minimum run out area is not achievable, consideration in order of precedence shall be given to:
1. Extending the barrier upstream of the proposed location to achieve the minimum run out area
2. Providing the maximum achievable run out area given existing site constraints also supported with a
documented risk evaluation, or
3. The area should at least be similar in character to the adjacent unshielded roadside area, supported by a
documented risk evaluation.
6.14.4 Transitions and Overlaps
Transitions and overlaps are described in Section 5.7.
Wherever it is necessary to change from one type of barrier to another or to physically join them together
(e.g. a road barrier to a bridge barrier), the interface must be designed to ensure that the overall system will
perform safely when impacted by a design vehicle. Table 6.14 indicates whether a transition can be used or
an overlap is required.
Table 6.14: Transition or overlaps required
Barrier radius To concrete barriers To W-beam systems To wire rope barriers

Transition required if the Transition to allow for Overlap, wire rope barrier
From concrete barriers
shape of height is different different barrier flexibilities in behind
Transition to allow for
Transition to allow for Overlap, wire rope barrier
From W-beam barriers different barrier flexibilities
different barrier flexibilities in behind
or barrier heights
Overlap, wire rope barrier Overlap, wire rope barrier Overlap if the systems are
From wire rope barriers
in front in front different
Source: TMR (2017) Roadside Design Training Guide
6.14.5 Transitions
A TL-3 transition between a W-beam barrier or a Thrie-beam barrier and a permanent concrete barrier has
been tested and evaluated by Austroads (Austroads 2020b). Its design has been incorporated into a
jurisdiction’s standard drawings and is available as an ASBAP Technical Advice (ASBAP 2021d). This
design is to be used on bridge approaches. Although this is a TL-3 device it can still be used to connect to
TL-5 concrete barriers and bridge barriers. See Figure 6.21.

Figure 6.21: Transition from a W-beam section to a concrete barrier
Other transitions between TL-3 and TL-4 developed by industry are recorded in the jurisdictions accepted product
lists. Only transitions in these lists should be installed and comply with manufacturers’ specifications, and
jurisdictions’ standard drawings and guidelines. Other designs not included in these lists should not be used.
Several criteria are important when designing a transition section or connection (AASHTO, 2011a). Although
AASHTO provides this guidance in relation to bridge approaches, the following principles apply where any
flexible barrier system is connected to a stiffer barrier:
• The connection point of the two systems must be as strong as both barriers.
• The transition must be designed to minimise the likelihood of snagging an errant vehicle, including one
from the opposing lane on a two-way carriageway.
• The transition should be long enough to ensure that changes in flexibility do not occur over a short
distance and that the decrease in flexibility is continual.
• As with longitudinal barriers, kerb and slope features must be addressed. The slope between the edge of
the road and the barrier should not be steeper than 10:1.
• Drainage features such as kerbs, kerb inlets, raised inlets or open drains should not be constructed in
front of a transition area, as they may initiate vehicle instability and adversely affect the crashworthiness
of the transition.
Designers should not design customised transitions. Designs used on the road should pass MASH testing,
be evaluated by ASBAP and be accepted by the road agency.
Transitions, from a stiffer barrier to a more flexible one, are not as critical as those from a flexible barrier to a
stiffer one. However, a gradual change in flexibility for the former transition is desirable.
6.14.6 Overlaps
Interfaces between flexible wire rope barriers and stiffer systems can only be achieved by overlapping the
different systems. See Table 6.14. The overlap should be designed on the basis that the terminating system
will overlap in front of a system that is beginning, irrespective of the system type. This is to minimise the
possibility of vehicles colliding with the leading terminal.
The barriers should be separated by a clearance of at least equivalent to the dynamic deflection of the
terminating system to ensure neither barrier adversely affects the performance of the other. Although overlaps
have not been tested, the principle of having each barrier separated by the deflection distance should enable
the barriers to operate independently under impact and is considered to be a sound and safe practice.
Desirably, the leading and trailing points of redirection for each barrier length should be longitudinally aligned
to prevent exposure to any adjacent roadside hazards. Shorter overlap lengths that are outside the EDD
requirements must be justified using a design exception report that is approved by the relevant jurisdiction.
Ideally, overlaps should be located at lower risk locations along a road section.

Wire rope barrier to W-beam barrier overlap

Figure 6.22 shows the layout of a wire rope to W-beam barrier overlap. Note that the separation of the barrier
systems is the dynamic deflection of the wire rope barrier. Desirably the departure point of redirection for the
wire rope barrier should coincide with the approach point of redirection for the W-beam barrier. In
constrained locations, using EDD principles, the critical errant vehicle path can be used to align these points
of redirection. An angle of departure of 25° can be assumed.
The flaring of the downstream barrier provides a more consistent barrier offset. If the downstream barrier is
already in place, then the upstream barrier may be flared to provide the required deflection.
Figure 6.22: Overlap for a wire rope barrier to W-beam barrier
Note: Diagrammatic and not to scale

W-beam barrier to wire rope barrier overlap

Similar to Figure 6.22, Figure 6.23 shows the layout of a W-beam overlap with wire rope barrier. The
separation of the barrier systems is the dynamic deflection of the W-beam barrier. Again, Desirably the
departure point of redirection for the W-beam barrier should coincide with the approach point of redirection
for the wire rope barrier. In constrained locations, EDD principles allow for these points of redirection to be
aligned along the critical errant vehicle path assuming an angle of departure of 25°.
The flaring of the downstream wire rope barrier provides a more consistent barrier offset. If the downstream
barrier is already in place, then the upstream W-beam barrier may be flared to provide the required
deflection.
Figure 6.23: Overlap for a W-beam barrier to wire rope barrier

Wire rope barrier to concrete barrier overlap and vice versa

Figure 6.24 shows the layout of a wire rope to concrete barrier overlap and Figure 6.25 shows the layout for
a concrete barrier to a wire rope barrier. The separation of the barrier systems is based on the dynamic
deflection of the barrier that is terminating. As the concrete barrier has no deflection, the wire rope barrier
can be placed immediately behind the concrete barrier.
Desirably the departure point of redirection for the barrier in front should coincide with the approach point of
redirection for the barrier behind. In constrained locations, EDD principles allow for these points of redirection
to be aligned along the critical errant vehicle path assuming an angle of departure of 25°.
Figure 6.24: Overlap for a concrete barrier to wire rope barrier

Figure 6.25: Overlap for a wire rope barrier to concrete barrier
Overlaps of barriers of the same type

For wire rope barriers, the same barrier type should be used and then an overlap can be treated as an
intermediate terminal. If this is not possible, then the overlap should be based on the same principles as
other overlaps and the layout will be a combination of Figure 6.24 and Figure 6.25.
A transition section that has been accepted by the jurisdiction can be used to join different types of W-beam
systems.
Overlaps of barriers of the same type are also be used to provide access through the barrier. See Section
6.15.1.

6.14.7 Transition in Barrier Heights
Different profiles of steel barrier and different profiles of concrete barrier can all be interfaced. ASBAP
Technical Advice SBTA 20-001 (ASBAP, 2020b) states
In Australia and New Zealand, the standard w-beam length is 4 m, therefore, it is
recommended that the height of W-beam barriers should be adjusted over a minimum
of two full lengths of guardrail for height differences of up to 200 mm. This equates to a
maximum angle of 1.4°.
For changes in height of concrete barriers, it is recommended that the AASHTO (2011[a])
requirement be used and the top of the barrier be ramped upwards at 1 on 10 or 5.8°.
Refer to the Technical Advice SBTA 20-001 (ASBAP, 2020b) for further information.
6.15 Access Through Barriers
The preferred practice is to avoid providing breaks in a road safety barrier, particularly on high speed roads.
It is necessary to consider breaks at locations where access to the median and properties is required and at
intersections where pedestrians cross the road. Section 6.15.1 is applicable to access opening in verge
barriers. Access through median barriers is covered in Section 6.15.2 and Section 6.15.3 and barriers at
intersections in Section 6.24.10.
6.15.1 Access Through Barriers in the Verge

The preferred locations of accesses in the verge are:

• on sags or straights where sight distance is greatest
• away from diverge or merge points where the risk associated with run-of-the-road crashes is higher
• not on the outside of curves
• to allow for culverts and drainage structures to be maintained
• at lower risk areas.
Access through barriers could be provided for the road and roadside maintenance and responses by
emergency services. The frequency of access points and locations must be determined in the context of a
specific road section; its environment, whether it is in a high fire risk or flood-prone area. Accesses along a
road length should be reviewed to establish if some can be consolidated or eliminated. Accesses for
emergency services should be considered at 500 m intervals desirably to prevent delays to access from
barrier dismantling, delays from travelling around barriers, and restricted escape routes. The maximum
recommended length between accesses is 1000 m.
Strategically located gaps in the barrier systems allow access to services and assets or provide for roadside
maintenance activities. These accesses should be designed in consultation with and consideration of
affected asset owners.
The access should be designed as an overlap as described in Section 6.14.6 so that errant vehicles cannot
pass through the opening. The separation between the barriers depends on the projected use. Access gaps
designed for frequent use by maintenance trucks mowers, tractors, etc should be 3.5 m wide. If infrequently
used plant, like cranes and excavators, need occasional access, then the barrier could be temporarily
dismounted.
As described in Section 6.14.6, overlaps with the points of redirection aligned laterally to the road are
preferred. The EDD solution of aligning the points of redirection along the 25° angle of departure line is
acceptable. A design exception is required if the points of redirection are aligned along smaller angles of
departure or the barriers are not overlapped (that is there are two separated barriers). A design exception
report must be approved by the relevant jurisdiction.

The approach terminal should be flared to maximise protection as far as practicable. Any unprotected
hazards located in close proximity to a break in barrier (i.e. outside of the length of redirection) must be
reviewed for removal, relocation or alternative protection.
Providing a sealed pavement between the barrier and other road furniture or between overlapping barriers
should be considered when the area in the gap is difficult to maintain. While maintenance practices differ
between jurisdictions, a gap of 2.5 m or less should generally be paved.
6.15.2 Median Barrier Openings
The requirements for openings in median barrier include the requirements for barriers in the verge as well
the designer should consider:
• whether, if there are two runs of barriers, the accesses can be staggered so that they allow for at least
one median barrier. See Figure 6.26.
• Impacts with the rear side of a barrier. A back to back or symmetrical barrier should be used.
• locating the accesses so that drivers’ visibility is not restricted, particularly as the driver will be entering
traffic on the right hand side.
• using a suitably crash tested system (for example, a fabricated sliding steel gate in a concrete barrier) to
provide emergency or temporary access.
Figure 6.26: Staggered median opening

Note: The angle of departure for the critical errant vehicle paths is 25°
If a full median opening is required for police enforcement, then the designer needs to be aware of the risk of
errant vehicles not being redirected. Barriers are not redirective from the departure point of redirection of the
upstream barrier to the approach point of redirection of the downstream barrier and, consequently, vehicles
may be able to cross the median or collide with the rear of the median barrier for the opposing traffic. This is
illustrated in Figure 6.27. The design of these median opening should minimise this risk while allowing for
emergency and maintenance vehicles to make a U-turn.

Figure 6.27: Risk associated with not having a redirective barrier
6.15.3 Barriers at Intersections and Property Accesses
Intersections present additional issues for barrier design because the corner radius is relatively tight and
rather than impacting at acute angles typical of barriers adjacent to highway alignments, the impacts may be
at any angle, including at right angles. Using stiff barriers will result in a high severity crash whereas a
flexible barrier is unsuitable for such small radii.
Intersection corners often accommodate road furniture such as signs, utility and signal poles and traffic
control boxes, and any fixed hazards should be moved as far away from the traffic lane as practicable. The
barrier systems that could be installed to shield these fixed objects may represent as much or even more of a
hazard than the objects themselves.
Where the intersection is adjacent to an overpass, consideration should be given to the protection of the
traffic on the road or rail below the overpass. If there is a high volume of traffic on the lower road, so that an
errant vehicle would be likely to be involved in a secondary crash, then it may be appropriate to close or
relocate the intersecting road. If this is not possible, then provide a strong barrier around the intersection
corner to minimise this risk. In lower speed locations, a concrete barrier may be used.
Sight distances to and from side roads must not be impeded by barriers.
If a break in a longitudinal barrier is required for property access, consideration should be given for service
vehicles, such as garbage trucks, to stop clear of the adjacent traffic lane. A nominal 18 m distance should
be considered between end terminals at driveway locations, subject to other requirements in this Part being
met. If the designer, using sound engineering judgement, chooses to use a configuration where gaps exist
between adjacent lengths then:
• the number of such discontinuities is to be minimised so that the number of ends is reduced to as few as
possible
• both the upstream and downstream rail ends should be equipped with an appropriate end treatment and
should be flared where appropriate
• barriers should be located so drivers’ visibility is not restricted, especially in the vicinity of intersections.
The prevailing site conditions (such as turnouts from driveways) may require the barrier to be installed in
segments thereby creating short gaps between adjacent lengths. The barrier lengths must be greater than
the practical minimum length described in Section 6.13.2.

6.16 Continuous Barriers on the Verge
As described in Section 5.12, continuous barrier refers to the design and installation of barriers along the
entire road length. Continuous barrier installations transform the way roads are used and maintained.
The objective is to shield the entire roadside, or as much as possible, with an effective barrier. In some
cases, this may mean using offsets that are below the desired values to extend the length of roadside
shielded. This may require the use of EDD and design exceptions with jurisdictional approval.
6.16.1 Barrier Offsets
The barrier offset is especially important on freeways and highways, and projects should consider greater
barrier offsets between 4.0 m and 6.0 m where existing conditions permit to allow for vehicle breakdowns.
6.16.2 Continuous Barrier Lengths
The commencement of barrier lengths should not be determined using the approach in Section 6.9.1. The
barrier should start at the earliest possible location and extend as far as practical. At each barrier terminal,
the concepts in Section 6.9.1 should be used to determine the area of hazards that are not shielded from
errant vehicle impacts. The designer should consider:
• removing hazards that are not adequately shielded by the barrier
• relocating hazards to ensure they are adequately shielded by the barrier
• using point protection systems or crash cushions for single hazards that may not be practical to remove
or relocate, such as power poles
• provide the run out area for vehicles that may impact the gating terminal (see Section 6.14.3)
• ensure openings are in accordance with Section 6.15.1 and Section 6.15.2.
The type of barrier chosen should be selected with the intent of providing a consistent roadside design. Often
decisions involve installing a length of barrier between existing installations. The designer should note the
existing barrier types and their lengths to establish whether they should be replaced. A barrier is improved if
the number of transitions between barrier types is reduced.
Recognising that barrier types will eventually need to change to suit specific site constraints and barrier
performance requirements, a general aim is to not change the barrier type more frequently than once every 5
km (i.e. 3 minutes of travel at 100 km/h), but this is not mandatory.
Maintenance practices along a road corridor may influence the number of barrier types that are installed in
the corridor.
6.16.3 Provision for Roadside Stops
Long lengths of continuous barrier can limit the locations where drivers can stop. Where the road has 2 lanes
or less in each direction, provision for emergency stops can be managed entirely within the roadside on the
verge. Where the road has three or more lanes in each direction, it is preferable to have a provision for
stopping on both sides of the carriageway to limit the number of lanes a vehicle may have to cross in the
event of breakdowns. Continuous barriers should be offset 3 m or greater from the edge line so that
occupants can open the doors of a passenger vehicle clear of the traffic lane. See Section 6.8.16.15.2.
Where a continuous barrier is installed at an offset less than 3 m from an edge line then this length should be
limited and drivers advised of alternative opportunities to stop.

For discretionary or non-urgent stopping, it is preferable to have stopping opportunities off the main
carriageway. Otherwise, it is recommended that Emergency Stopping Bays (ESBs) are provided at least
every 1 to 4 km to give drivers additional space to stop further from the traffic lane. The precise location will
depend on a route plan, minimising the cost of earthworks, providing adequate sightlines, and targeting high
risk stopping sections such as steep grades and reduced barrier offsets. Regular spacings are more likely to
meet driver expectations and increase use.
A preferred layout of an ESB should allow for a space of 55 m in length with a barrier offset of 5 to 6 m from
the edge line. Designs will differ slightly depending on the barrier type. Standard drawings from the
jurisdiction should be used where available. Where the percentage of commercial vehicles is high, the
designer should consider providing a suitable ESB for these vehicles, although these extended bays may be
less frequent.
6.17 Vulnerable Road Users
Barriers and some of their features can be very hazardous to motorcyclists and cyclists who crash into them,
whether on the vehicle or not. The provision of inappropriately located and designed barriers in close
proximity to footpaths and bicycle facilities can also cause injury to these road users when impacted.
6.17.1 Motorcyclists
The risk to motorcyclists should be considered when designing any barrier installation. The following
locations warrant additional treatments for motorcyclists:
• where there is a high risk of a motorcyclist leaving the road and colliding with a roadside hazard, such as
on tight curves (say with a radius of 200 m or less) or demonstrated by a crash history.
• where the volume of motorcyclists is high; for instance, on mountainous roads with frequent curves.
The hazardous aspect of barriers for motorcyclists includes exposed barrier posts, sharp edges, protruding
components and so on. ASBAP considers these issues when assessing a barrier system. All barriers present
a risk to motorcyclists, although the flexible W-beam barrier with a rub rail is generally preferred.
When designing barrier systems to take into account motorcyclists, the following should be considered:
• Motorcyclist protection devices are evaluated in accordance with the procedures listed within
AS/NZS 3845.1:2015. See Section 5.9.
• About half of the motorcyclists who hit barriers are sliding along the ground and continuous motorcyclist
protection (i.e. rub-rails) reduce the potential for serious injuries.
• Flexible W-beam systems are preferred as the posts do not protrude above the W-beam.
• Concerns about adverse effects caused by impacts with the cables in wire rope barriers have not been
realised in practice.
• Post cushions on wire rope barriers can attenuated some of the impact energy for errant motorcyclists at
low speeds only. Their effectiveness at higher speeds has not been proven.
• Barriers and their terminals need to have surfaces (sides, tops and under) as smooth as possible.
Protrusions, added devices or entrapment areas should be avoided or covered. Systems that provide an
unbroken surface are preferred where potential motorcycle impacts are being catered for in design.
• Driveable pavement or shoulder surface should be extended up to the barrier. Surfaces should be free of
loose gravel.
• The benefit of shrub planting in front of barriers to ‘cushion’ motorcyclist impacts is unknown, although it
may have some effect the outcome is considered unpredictable.
• Delineator brackets on a barrier should be frangible, not sharp and should not be located in the W shape
of beams.

Table 6.15 outlines optional and mandatory requirements for additional treatments for motorcyclists.
Table 6.15: Treatments for motorcyclists
Barrier System Optional treatments Mandatory treatment

Flexible W-beam and Consider an accepted continuous Frangible delineator brackets mounted
Thrie-beam barriers motorcyclist protection device (a rub- above the W-beam.
rail). The top of the post must be mounted below
the top of the w-beam.
Transitions require plastic motorcyclist
covers to shield sharp edges and
protrusions.
Wire rope barriers Consider post cushions in high-risk
motorcyclist locations where the
operating speed is low.
Consider using flexible W-beam or
Thrie-beam barriers with continuous
motorcyclist protection
Concrete barrier systems Consider taller median barriers to Ensure that the surface is smooth and free of
mitigate motorcyclists from being obstructions and indentations.
projected into oncoming traffic.
Stiff G4 W-beam barriers Consider using an accepted continuous Frangible delineator brackets mounted
(now classified as legacy motorcyclist protection device (a rub- above the W-beam.
barriers) rail). Transitions require plastic motorcyclist
covers to shield sharp edges and
protrusions.
Repairs after impact Repair of the whole system needs to be
carried out promptly.
Kerbs near barriers Use mountable kerb types where
possible.
Source: Vic DoT (2019a)
6.17.2 Pedestrians and Cyclists
Pedestrians or cyclists may require shielding by a road safety barrier in situations where they are considered
to be exposed to a higher than normal risk of being struck by an errant vehicle. Where a pedestrian or cyclist
facility either exists or is proposed for an existing roadside that has a run-off-the-road crash history, an
assessment of pedestrian, cyclist and bystander exposure should be undertaken so that alternative
treatments can be considered. These areas could have been identified as high consequence land as
described in Appendix C.2.
Situations, where a road safety barrier may be appropriate, are:

• Roads that have an operating speed of 30 km/h or greater and where a pedestrian or bicycle path is close
to the road.
• Shared-use paths separated by less than 4 m from an adjacent heavily trafficked lane, especially if the
geometry is substandard. However, designers should refer to Section 6.8 for discussion on the lateral
location of barriers.
• Sites where there is expected to be large numbers of bystanders congregated adjacent to the road (e.g.
schoolyard, sporting facilities) and the consequences of a crash are expected to be high.
Cyclists and pedestrians may require a fence to prevent them from inadvertently running or falling onto a
traffic lane from an adjacent shared path (e.g. footpath on a bridge with high numbers of young
pedestrians/cyclists). Refer to Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
(Austroads, 2021b) for their design and installation requirements.

Where there is a need to provide a road safety barrier between a path and road traffic it is important that the
rear of the road safety barrier is not a hazard for pedestrians and cyclists. Designers should ensure that:
• adequate clearance is provided between the rear of the road safety barrier and the path, refer to AGRD
Part 6A (Austroads 2021b)
• no sharp edges, burrs or other potential hazards (e.g. protruding bolts) exist
• where sufficient clearance cannot be achieved, consideration is given to the need to increase the height
of the barrier either to prevent errant cyclists from falling over the barrier and into a traffic lane or to
discourage pedestrians from jumping over the barrier to cross the road at an unsafe location
• installations are longer than the minimum lengths so that the barrier will operate as intended.
Where sufficient space is available a frangible pedestrian fence may be erected behind the road safety
barrier at a distance that would accommodate the likely working width of the barrier in front. In situations
where space is restricted, it may be necessary to select a barrier with a narrower working width.
Depending on the site and the objective of the barrier installation, it may be better to install the barrier near
the property line rather than at the kerb.
Designers should not modify or include attachments to a barrier as this may affect its performance.
AS/NZS 3845.1:2015 requires that if an attachment is connected to a barrier, the barrier with the attachment
should be crash tested and subsequently assessed by ASBAP. The use of any barrier with a modification or
attachment that has not been accepted by the local jurisdiction, needs to be justified in an exception report.
6.18 Two-stage Shielding
6.18.1 Layout
Section 6.5 discusses the factors to determine the required containment level for barriers. In most cases, a
single barrier to contain the design vehicle will be chosen. However, a two-stage barrier system,
incorporating a concrete barrier and a more flexible one in front, is appropriate in some circumstances. A
two-stage protection system can provide a barrier system to redirect passenger vehicles and a high
containment barrier for the mitigation of additional risks from heavier vehicles. Flexible barrier systems are
preferred to reduce the impact severity of passenger vehicle occupants.
An example of two-stage protection is shown in Figure 6.28; a concrete barrier, with the required
containment level, is offset from a wire rope barrier by its working width. which is also offset 3.0 m from the
traffic lane.
The following issues must be considered when designing a two-stage shielding:

• Design requirements for working width, length of need and the minimum length of barrier must be met.
The traffic face of the concrete barrier must be offset from the face of a bridge pier to accommodate the
working width of the flexible barrier.
• The structural design of the bridge pier may require a gap between the concrete barrier and the bridge
pier. Alternatively, the concrete barrier may be an integral part of the bridge pier, if the pier has been
designed for high mass, high speed impact loadings.
• The concrete barrier must be designed to ensure it does not overturn when impacted by errant large
mass vehicles.
• It is preferable that the concrete barrier be aligned parallel to the carriageway if it is likely that the
concrete barrier will be extended when additional lanes are added in the future.
• In some situations, the end of the concrete barrier may require a crash attenuator if it is likely that
passenger cars will be able to impact the end of the barrier.
• A cross-slope of 10% or flatter should be provided between the flexible and the concrete barrier.

Figure 6.28: Example of two-stage protection
Source: Vic DoT (2019b)
Two-stage protection will require supports or piers to be offset further from the road and is not always
beneficial unless the additional risk of the structure is considered high or the width is required for future
carriageway widening. While errant heavy vehicles are less likely to penetrate two safety barrier systems
compared to one, the precise interaction and benefit are unknown therefore the containment level should be
selected in accordance with Section 6.5. Computer simulation is becoming more common and may be able
to support complex decision making in constrained locations in the future.
If the full working width cannot be provided between wire rope and concrete barrier, there may be sufficient
energy absorption by the first barrier to provide a benefit. In this case, a crash cushion is required to shield
the end of the concrete barrier. This must be treated as a design exception with relevant jurisdictional
approval.
6.18.2 Points of Need for Two-stage Shielding
The ‘run-out-length method’ must be applied to the primary (front) barrier intended to protect passenger car
occupants. This is the minimum length of barrier to address the run-off-road risk. The secondary (back)
barrier, is to prevent heavy vehicles from colliding with the gantry or support. The leading point of need for
the concrete barrier is based on a 15° departure angle for heavy vehicles. See Figure 6.29
The length of the concrete barrier is sufficient to redirect potential heavy vehicles that may cause the support
to collapse, and the length of the wire rope barrier is to reduce impact severity for the occupants of
passenger cars.

Figure 6.29: Points of need for two-stage shielding
Note: 1. X1 is calculated using the length of need calculation in Section 6.9.1

2. The design departure angle for trucks is assumed to be 15°
Source: Vic DoT (2019c)
6.19 Barriers Across Drainage Structures and to Avoid Underground Conflicts
There are situations where posts cannot be installed because of a drainage structure, a culvert or
underground services. The practice in the past has been to stiffen the beam to account for the missing posts
and to avoid vehicles snagging or pocketing in the wider span. This practice had been developed for the
stiffer W-beam and Thrie-beam barriers which were able to span up to 4 m with a nested beam system.
However, these barriers are now legacy barriers and they should generally only be used to repair existing
installations. If an installation requires the use of these barriers, then the designer should consult the
jurisdictions for standard drawings.
More recently, designs for spanning culverts and the like have been developed and evaluated for flexible W-
beam systems. The designer should check the accepted barrier lists from the local jurisdiction to establish if
a design is suitable. An example is shown in Figure 6.30.
Figure 6.30: Flexible W-beam system to span a drainage structure
Source: Safe Directions
Another option is to install a concrete ground beam with posts mounted on base plates as illustrated in
Figure 6.31. The precise design for proprietary barriers would be included as a variant in the accepted
product list. Only designs accepted by a jurisdiction can be installed. The supplier’s installation manual for
the barrier will contain further information and the supplier should be contacted to obtain design drawings.
This design is also suitable if there is localised unstable soil that does not support the impact loads in the
barrier’s posts.

Figure 6.31: Ground beam and surface mounted posts.
Source: Based on NZTA (2014)
As a guide, it is recommended that the minimum length of the ground beam be 20 m so that it has sufficient
mass to restrain the lateral movement of the posts. The top of the ground beam should be flush with the
shoulder. The trench should be excavated with a minimum of material being disturbed and with all loose
material removed from the trench before pouring concrete. The precise design of the fixing, the concrete
strength and the reinforcement shall be as provided by the barrier supplier.
6.20 Protecting Critical Infrastructure Close to Barriers
This section includes the protection of isolated hazards and continuous hazards positioned behind a barrier.
Isolated hazards include sign supports, gantries and bridge piers. Continuous hazards include tunnel
infrastructure, noise barriers and pedestrian and cyclist fences (see Section 6.17.2). Continuous hazards
should be smooth and free of snagging elements.
Road authorities are often presented with a need to locate continuous objects to the top or back of
successfully crash-tested safety barriers. Keller et al (2003) stated:
The hazard associated with traffic barrier attachments is primarily related to the
mounting location and the rigidity of the attachment. Hardware mounted in a location
that can not be struck by vehicles impacting the barrier obviously pose little safety
hazard. Hardware mounted on or adjacent to a barrier that will potentially be impacted
must be evaluated in terms of potential hazards to the impacting vehicle, as well as the
potential of hazardous debris.
For significant hazards within the working width, Keller et al state:

Based on roll behavior noted in some of the single-unit truck cabs in TL-4 testing and
the fact that in some tests most of the cab extended over the railing, the concern for
these trucks is that the occupant compartment will impact the attachments directly and
deformation and/or intrusion will result. Since the cargo box of a single-unit truck can
extend significant distances beyond the front face of a traffic barrier, severe snagging
between the cargo box and a structurally-stiff attachment could also exist. This
snagging could generate high deceleration forces on the truck and possibly injure the
vehicle’s occupants.
Full-scale crash testing is the preferred and more accurate method to assess the safety outcomes of impacts
with a barrier located close to infrastructure. Roadside barriers should not have attachments unless it has
been shown through full-scale testing that the combined system meets MASH requirements and evaluated
through ASBAP.

Evaluations of critical infrastructure within the working width of a barrier require a design exception report
that is approved by the relevant jurisdiction and which includes:
• justification that all efforts have been made to minimise the working width, including providing a taller or
less flexible system
• justification that a continuous hazard is smooth and free from snag points
• justification that debris from infrastructure dislodged following impact will not result in unacceptable safety
risk to general traffic
• justification that if any snag points exist they are outside of the working width
• a maintenance protocol for repair or reinstatement of infrastructure in the event it is damaged by heavy
vehicles.
6.20.1 Sign Supports
A sign support may be shielded by a barrier with the appropriate containment level, which is based on the
risk of an impact at higher speeds and by larger vehicles. The test level of the barrier should be decided
using the requirements of Section 6.5 and based on the road’s operating speed, the set back of the sign
support, the percentage of heavy vehicles and their type. It is important to consider the consequences if the
barrier is breached and the sign support fails. For example, Wiebelhaus et al (2008) conducted three
NCHRP 350 tests on a single slope concrete barrier that was 815 mm high with a lighting mast installed on
the top of it. The vehicle dislodged the lighting mast while being redirected.
Smaller sign supports could be mounted on concrete barriers. In this case, the risk and consequences of the
sign support and sign becoming detached from the barrier need to be quantified. The sign and its support
may be tethered to restrict its movement. These installations should be justified in a design exception and
approved by the relevant jurisdiction.
At sites with a low risk of sign support being impacted, a sign support may be left unshielded.
6.20.2 Gantries and Bridge Piers
Gantries and bridge piers are frequently placed close to barriers. Impacts with gantries and bridge piers are likely
to have severe consequences. Gantries could fall onto the road and block lanes. Depending on the design of the
bridge, impacts on bridge piers could cause them to fail and may ultimately cause the bridge to fail.
Barriers shielding gantries and bridge piers should be TL-5 concrete barriers as a default. Barriers that are
1370 mm high and have an F-shape profile or a single slope are preferred. Table 6.4 shows the working
width for this barrier to be 1.5 m. The working width is measured from the point on the barrier closest to the
traffic lane to the furthest position of the vehicle during the test impact. The working width is a measured
value from extreme test conditions as documented in MASH. For critical infrastructure, it is appropriate to
apply a factor of safety as described in Section 6.13.1. For gantries and bridge piers, a factor of safety of 1.2
is recommended.
Sway protection shown in Figure 6.16 can also be used to reduce the working width if necessary, although at
the time of writing this guide, this design has not been tested and its installation should be justified with a
design exception that is approved by the relevant jurisdiction. (Refer to Section 6.13.1).
If other barrier types are proposed, their installation should be considered as a design exception which
documents the consequences of the working width being exceeded and the consequences of a barrier
failing.
Two-stage shielding is appropriate for bridge piers in wider medians, Refer to Section 6.18.

6.20.3 Tunnels
Impacts with barriers in tunnels can be problematic as the barrier claddings and control systems are often
installed above and behind barriers. As a heavy articulated vehicle impacts a barrier, it rolls and encroaches
into the space behind the barrier defined by the working width. Tunnel controls, utilities and infrastructure
must be outside the working width of the barrier. It is desirable that the cladding is also outside the working
width of the barrier. However, if this is not possible, then the cladding should maintain its form and structural
integrity if impacted. It should be free of snag points. It should not be dislodged from its support with any
debris from the impact unlikely to endanger occupants of other vehicles. In this case, the cladding can be
considered to be sacrificial, however the wall or cladding must be designed to be repaired or replaced with
minimal disruption to operations. Any debris resulting from an impact with the inner wall (or tunnel cladding
system) must not endanger other vehicles. Ideally, the start of the tunnel wall should be outside of the
working width as these may be snag points.
The design of tunnel cladding located within the working width should be supported by a design exception
report that is approved by the relevant jurisdiction and which uses evidence from physical testing (e.g.
pendulum testing) and/or dynamic modelling of the impact and failure mechanism based on the mass, speed
and impact angle of a nominated design vehicle for road safety barrier infrastructure.
The working widths of concrete barriers are listed in Table 6.4. To minimise the working width, barriers
higher than 1070 mm should be used in tunnels. The tray of the vehicle must engage with the barrier. To
maximise road space, barriers 1370 mm high are appropriate as the working width is 1.5 m. Figure 6.32
shows two views of an impact with a 1370 mm high single slope barrier. The left view shows the prime-
mover being redirected and the right image showing the trailer being redirected. The roll angle of the vehicle
(11°) is the same as the angle of the barrier. If a 1370 mm high F-shape barrier was used, then the angle
from the toe of the barrier to the top of the barrier is 12° and the likely working width would be slightly greater
than 1.5 m.
Figure 6.32: Impacts with a 1370 mm high single slope barrier
Source: Shiekh et al (2019)
A general tunnel cross-section is shown in Figure 6.33. The envelope for a design impacting vehicle is
shown by the blue line. Note that the cladding is beyond this envelope and that the design height of the
impact envelope is 5.3 m. The impacting vehicle is assumed to be 4.6 m high. Further information about the
geometry of tunnels is given in Austroads (2021i)

Figure 6.33: Impact envelope for the design vehicle in tunnels
Source: Transport for NSW
As with any barrier system, the designer should consider the maintenance and repair procedure for the
barrier and cladding and resulting impact on tunnel operations.
6.20.4 Noise Barriers

Roadside barriers should not have attachments unless it has been shown through full-scale testing that the
combined system meets MASH requirements. Consequently, if a noise barrier is installed behind a roadside
barrier, then the operation of the roadside barrier should not be influenced by the presence of the noise barrier.
As is the case for tunnel cladding, noise barriers should be smooth and free from snag points and if any snag
points exist, including the start of the noise barrier, they should be located outside of the working width. The
noise barrier should maintain its form and structural integrity and it should not be dislodged from its support
system on impact. Any debris resulting from an impact of the noise barrier must not endanger other vehicles.
Evidence may involve records of physical testing (e.g. pendulum testing) and/or dynamic modelling of the
impact and failure.
Combined noise barriers and road safety barriers have been designed and crash tested internationally but are
not commonly used in Australia and New Zealand. For instance, Schmidt et al (2019) evaluated a system
incorporating a laminated timber (glulam) rub rail supported on concrete posts that also supported a noise
barrier. Innovative designs should be evaluated by ASBAP before being installed in Australia or New Zealand.
Concrete barriers with integrated noise barriers have been designed using the procedures and loads
specified in AS5100 or the Bridge Manual (NZ Transport Agency 2013) as appropriate.
6.20.5 Poles and Masts with a Breakaway Footing
Keller et al (2003) stated:

In general, these breakaway devices have been tested with respect to frontal impacts
when they are located on the ground surface near the travelway. Since these
attachments are generally designed to be activated by a full-frontal vehicle impact, they
require relatively high forces to activate the breakaway mechanism. Impacts by the front
hood or fender of a pickup truck or the front cab of a single-unit truck would either
require significant deformations before, or not be sufficiently rigid, to activate these
breakaway mechanisms. Therefore, vehicle snagging on these hardware items is
believed to be a potentially serious problem. Secondly, if the breakaway mechanism is
activated, these large devices have the potential for creating debris problems.

Locating poles and masts with breakaway footings within the working width of a safety barrier is considered
outside the Normal Design Domain for usual use of this type of infrastructure. If a jurisdiction requires a
design exception report to justify the pole’s location within the working width, then the design exception
report must be approved by the jurisdiction. The preferred solution is to use a fixed base pole outside the
working width of a barrier that effectively shields the pole.
6.21 Fauna Crossings
Fauna can become trapped on a roadway as they try to cross the road, attempting to pass underneath a
barrier fitted with continuous motorcycle protection systems (MPS). Some treatment options to provide fauna
access may include:
• providing regular breaks in MPS rail as required to accommodate local fauna
• considering removal of MPS rail on straights in sensitive areas (such as floodways etc)
• creating opportunities to break long lengths of barrier systems where topographically possible.
A typical arrangement of a break in the MPS system is shown in Figure 6.34.
Figure 6.34: Example of a break in a typical motorcycle protection system

Source: TMR
The design at a site should:

• decide on the frequency, length and location of breaks in MPS based on the risks
• have the MPS with a minimum span of 2 bays between 3 posts
• have terminals attached at both ends of MSP in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.

6.22 Installation of Concrete Barriers on Superelevated Roads and Stepped

Medians
Guidance given in previous editions of this Part recommended different barrier orientations on superelevated
roads. This guidance has been reviewed and it is now recommended that barriers be installed vertically on
all roads.
A typical barrier design for independently graded carriageways is shown in Figure 6.35. This treatment
requires a foundation designed to provide for the difference in carriageway levels.
Figure 6.35: Concrete barrier in a narrow median with independently graded carriageways
6.23 Aesthetic Road Safety Barriers
Aesthetic barriers might be considered in parks, historic communities, scenic areas or private road
developments. Some concrete vertical wall barriers or constant slope barriers are able to have textured
finishes applied, which do not result in excessive vehicle damage. Alternative textures have been tested in
the USA and found to be acceptable.
If a road asset owner is considering the use of such barriers, it is recommended that the road authority
undertakes a site-specific risk assessment. The approval, by the Federal Highway Administration (2002), for
a textured concrete barrier concluded that:
• the texture or pattern meeting the guidelines can be applied to all crashworthy single slope or vertical wall
designs
• it was clear from the crash test results that textured barriers can result in more vehicular body damage in
a crash due to increased friction even if their crash performance remains within acceptable limits
• although the barriers tested were 1220 mm and 1420 mm high, a review of the crash and post-crash
vehicle trajectories indicated that these guidelines may also be applied to barriers 815 mm or higher
• these treatments may prove acceptable on F-shape concrete barriers if the treatment is applied only to
the upper sloped face of the barriers, but some crash testing would be advisable to verify good
performance with these shapes.
Further tests were conducted by Bullard et al (2006) using the NCHRP 350 protocol for test 3-10 and 3-11.
They provide details of the recommended profile conditions based on the width (W), depth (d) and angle of
the asperity (θ), shown in Figure 6.36. The recommended acceptable pattern was developed for the
acceptable occupant compartment intrusion. While this guidance was based on NCHRP 350 testing, it does
give some guidance to the designer. For relief at an asperity angle of 45° and asperity widths (W) between
25 and 180 mm, the maximum asperity height (d) is 5 mm. Asperities should be at least 25 mm wide. A
surface that had a successful test is shown in Figure 6.37 Changing the asperity angle significantly affects
the results. Bullard et al (2006) and Austroads (2022) should be consulted for further guidance.

Figure 6.36: Asperity dimensions
Source: Bullard et al (2006)
Figure 6.37: Impact results for the failed NCHRP 350 test 3-11 test
Source: Bullard et al (2006) test 4474630-7

Other forms of aesthetic barriers use masonry walls and timber-faced steel barriers. However, these
treatments may not be accepted by a road agency and their use should be supported by a design exception
report that is approved by the relevant jurisdiction.
6.24 Additional Barrier Design Considerations
This section describes further considerations for the design of all barrier installations.
6.24.1 Stepped Offset
Varying offsets to barriers along a length of road may cause drivers problems perceiving travel paths at
night. Varying offsets of delineators on barriers may be confusing in the dark because steps in the barrier
offset create a broken line of reflectors that is not consistent with the lane markings. In such circumstances,
designers should consider omitting the delineators on barriers and use alternative delineation (e.g. raised
reflective pavement markers and guide posts).
6.24.2 Excessive Offset
At night, a large offset between a barrier and the edge of the traffic lane can give the impression that an
extra lane is available between the edge line and the offset barrier. This may lead to crashes where drivers
have moved onto the shoulder and verge in the mistaken belief that an extra lane is available. Alternative
delineation should be provided closer to the road. Refer to AS 1742.2-2009 for details.
6.24.3 Delineation
The terminal ends of barriers should be clearly delineated to avoid impact when drivers pull off the road,
particularly at night. Delineation of the terminal ends of wire rope barriers is especially important because
they are difficult to see both night and day.

Delineation on barriers can conflict with the guidance provided by guide posts and raised pavement markers.
As noted above this may be a problem where a barrier is offset at about a lane width from the traffic lanes.
If a barrier is located beyond the edge of a shoulder, then consideration should be given to the need for
guide posts to define the area where it is safe to pull off the road.
Terminal ends of narrow median barrier systems require appropriate delineation, where gaps in the system
have been provided for access to properties and local roads, to ensure vehicles remain on the correct side of
the barrier system during marginal light conditions.
6.24.4 System Height
An issue associated with barriers is the reduction in their height above pavement level when overlays or
resurfacing are implemented. Reduction in the height of a barrier can adversely affect its operation, by
increasing the risk of a vehicle vaulting the system. A barrier system that allows for the beam height to be
increased should be used. Alternatively, the posts may need to be reinstalled higher.
6.24.5 Sub-Standard Curves
Installation of safety barriers on either or both sides of the road shall be considered where a curve has a safe
operating speed of 10 km/h or more below the 85th percentile approach speed, and there are potential
hazards on the roadside.
6.24.6 W-beam Barriers Close to or on Embankment Slopes
Section 6.8.3 provides guidance for the location of barriers close to embankments. In previous editions of
this Part, guidance was given on acceptable barrier designs on or near an embankment slope. Previous
guidance was developed for the stiff “legacy” W-beam systems. The guidance can be used to support a
design exception but should not be considered to be the best or general practice. A ground beam, as
described in Section 6.19 could be used in these circumstances.
6.24.7 Barriers in Floodplains
The installation of barriers in floodplains needs to be designed so that water can pass through the barriers and
for debris to not overload the barrier. The designer needs to consider the size of suitable gaps between and
under the barriers so the flood waters can pass. Barrier openings, described in Section 6.15.1, are a feasible
solution to increase the permeability of the barrier. A gap in the motorcyclists rub rail could be provided using
the guidance in Figure 6.34. Wire rope barriers would be relatively permeable for overtopping flows.
6.24.8 Barriers in a Road-rail Interface
Designers of an installation of barriers between a road-rail interface need to consider the risk of a vehicle
breaching the barrier and subsequently disabling equipment that controls the passage of trains or lands on
the tracks. The type of barrier and its containment level is a jurisdictional decision. Designers should consult
the requirements of a jurisdiction.
6.24.9 Maintenance of Barriers
Providing a sealed pavement in front of a safety barrier will reduce the frequency of collisions. This reduces
the rate of repair works and the likelihood that an unrepaired barrier will be impacted. Paving can also
support the ongoing maintenance of the road, including eliminating the need to mow the grass between the
traffic lane and barrier, or between the barrier and road furniture. In general, providing pavement for the full
width between barrier and traffic lane is desirable and should be provided when the barrier is offset 3 m or
less from the traffic lane.

Paving behind a barrier can restrict the lateral movement of the posts and the system supplier should be
consulted before paving in this area.
The Occupational Health & Safety implications of the maintenance adjacent to traffic barriers need to be
considered. If there is a localised issue that has been identified as high-risk (e.g. sub-standard sight
distance), additional pavement width should be provided at that location. For retro-fit barrier installations, the
benefit-cost of increasing the existing pavement should be evaluated.
Ideally, barriers should be repaired quickly. Damaged wire rope barriers can have a significantly degraded
performance and should have a higher priority for repair. Flexible W-beam barriers on the other hand may be
able to withstand a second impact depending on type and magnitude of the initial impact. They may be able
to have a lower priority for repair.
6.24.10 Bullnose Treatments for Medians and Short Radius Treatments for Intersections
Earlier editions of Part 6 described a bullnose barrier for terminating two parallel steel barrier systems
approximately 4.5 m apart and a short radius barrier for intersections. Although Bielenberg et al (2020a) and
Bielenberg et al (2020b) have developed and tested a bullnose median barrier terminal to MASH TL-3, it is a
treatment not commonly used in Australia and New Zealand and is not recommended.
Similarly, Abu-Odeh et al (2015) and Abu-Odeh et al (2019) have developed and tested short radius
treatments to the MASH TL-2 and TL-3. Again, these treatments are also not recommended. Further
information on these treatments is provided in Austroads (2022).
6.24.11 Location Additional Hazards in the Area Shielded by a Barrier

Depending on the location of the existing hazards and the location of a barrier with respect to the hazards,
there are additional areas where other hazards can be placed. In particular, trees can be planted in these
areas without compromising the safety of road users. The distance between the barriers and the additional
hazards must conform with Section 6.8.2. Refer to Figure 6.38.
Figure 6.38: Area shielded by a barrier
6.25 Develop a Plan to Maintain the Barrier (Step 14)

While this is the last step of the detailed design stage, its importance should not be underestimated. it is not the
least important step. The safety of workers to repair and maintain a safety barrier is paramount and, hopefully,
it would have been recognised when the barrier was selected. This step is to reinforce this notion and to
encourage designers to think about the barrier’s maintenance regime. Note that jurisdictions may have specific
requirements regarding maintenance of the overall road asset that may influence barrier selection.
Flexible wire rope barriers require periodic maintenance. The ropes should be re-tensioned within 12 months
of their installation to ensure correct tension and to highlight any defects in the installation.
This step requires a plan be developed and documented for maintaining the barrier as described in Section
6.27.

6.26 Confirm that the Barrier Meets the Objectives (Step 15)
When the design has been completed it is prudent to revisit the original objectives of installing the barriers
(Section 6.4) and check that the design will perform the functions that led to the barrier being proposed. If
there is doubt that the design is the best outcome to achieve the objectives, the designer should consider
whether an alternative type of barrier should be considered and return to Step 5 (Section 6.7) and continue
the design process.
6.27 Documentation of the Design (Step 16)
A design needs to be specified both in design drawings and in a design report. It is important that sufficient
information is provided in design documents so that the installer is not required to make design decisions or
barrier selection choices.
The design drawings should be drawn to scale and should contain the following:
• Details about hazards (existing and proposed)
– A unique label so that it can be referenced in the design report
– Slope grade and height
– Drainage infrastructure types
– Poles (utility, lighting, camera, traffic lights and signals)
– Bridges (abutments, barriers, retaining walls)
– Kerbs (type)
– Retaining walls (length and height)
– Trees and vegetation
– Water bodies (depth)
• Details about existing and proposed barriers
– The containment level for the route and the installation.
– The location of the “outermost extremity on the traffic side” as used in the working width definition. For
W-beam and Thrie-beam barriers, this is the “humps” of the beam, for flexible wire rope barriers it is
the line of the posts and for concrete barriers, it is generally the line on the front face (on the traffic
side).
– A unique label so that it can be referenced in the design report
– Barrier type including any variant. For instance, whether base plated posts are used, or whether a
different post spacing is proposed.
– Terminal type – including specific variant and dimensions
– Lateral offset
– Flare rates
– Working widths
– Run out areas - hazard free areas
– Set out of transitions and overlaps
– Barrier height
– Points of need (leading and trailing)

• Details of design constraints

– List and location of all site-specific constraints that affect the barrier design
– Geotechnical data
The accompanying design report should fully document the calculations and decisions for the installation
including:
• Details of the risk assessment including the NRRIT and the site risk score.
• The basis for the design calculations, such as:
– Containment level selection
– Length of need calculations
– Flare rates used
– Geotechnical data
– Working widths
– End treatment selections
– Sight distance checks
• Funding constraints (if any)
• Site modifications required to meet specifications
• Installation design to be in accordance with System Owner’s specifications and any deviations
documented and justified. Confirmation from the system owner may be required.
• Evaluation of the ability to construct, maintain and repair the installation. This includes the availability of
spare parts.
• Life cycle costs analysis, including crash costs
• Interface with surrounding systems, including providing suitable end treatments, transitions and overlaps
• The justification for any openings in the barriers both on the verge and in the median
• Provision of adequate ground support as, over time, softening or erosion may occur and the lateral
restraint will be diminished.
• Design life including the impact of potential pavement overlays in future
• Details of how the barrier installation is to be maintained using Work Health and Safety considerations
• Details of any implications on the maintenance and operation of a road given the presence of the barrier
and how any risk can be mitigated.

7. Installation of Other Roadside Safety Devices
7.1 Introduction
This section covers the design and installation of other roadside devices that are evaluated under
AS/NZS 3845.2. These devices include:
• poles and masts which have either a slip base mechanism or are designed to be energy absorbing.
These poles could be used to support luminaires or larger signs
• sign supports for smaller signs
• permanent bollards that are used to shield hazards and to protect people in low speed environments.
This section also covers the following devices that are subject to AS/NZS 3845.1 and include:
• high profile kerbs and low barriers,
• traversable culvert end treatments.
Brief remarks about audio-tactile line marking are also included in this section.
7.2 Frangible Poles and Masts

7.2.1 General
This section relates to both poles to support luminaires and similar devices and masts which support the
larger signs.
Given that the poles are not shielded by a barrier, the use of frangible poles may be effective in reducing the
severity of pole-related crashes if pole removal or relocation is not feasible. These types of poles are
designed to collapse or breakaway on impact and thereby reduce the severity of injuries to the occupants of
an impacting vehicle, compared to those that could occur if the pole was rigid. Rigid poles do not deform to a
great extent but are designed to remain upright after an impact. Alternatively, frangible poles are designed to
deform upon vehicle impact and are usually used for road lighting as the lighting needs to be close to the
road. No unnecessary poles should be installed in the road corridor.
AS/NZS 3845.2: 2017 describes the testing requirements for poles and masts. Poles and masts that meet
this standard should be installed. The standard requires a test by an 1100 kg vehicle at 50 km/h along with
tests at the speed consistent with the test level. This ensures a safe operation for a range of impact speeds.
Types of frangible poles include:

• slip-base poles that breakaway at the base upon impact, allowing the vehicle to pass beneath the pole to
minimise or avoid injury to the vehicle’s occupants
• impact-absorbing poles that collapse over the colliding vehicle and are designed to bring the vehicle to a
controlled stop at the base of the pole. These deformable poles are designed to remain attached to the
ground foundation after being hit.
The following issues need to be considered when specifying frangible poles to reduce impact severity:
• removing or relocating the pole should be considered before specifying frangible poles
• the area behind the pole should be free of other hazards
• there should be limited pedestrian activity in the vicinity of the pole; energy absorbing poles are
marginally better than slip bases poles if there is pedestrian activity
• the damaged pole and any elements that detach under impact should not pose a risk to other road users.

Aspects to be considered in the selection of pole type and setback from the roadway include:
• surrounding land use
• pedestrian activity
• speed limit
• whether the road has kerbs or not
• location (mid-block or at an intersection)
• whether the pole is to be located behind a road safety barrier
• maintenance.
This may involve locating them at the property line (urban and rural) or in an easement (rural).
Circumstances, where a breakaway design may not be appropriate, are:

• in locations where regular parking or other slow speed activity may result in accidental dislodgement of
the poles
• in narrow medians where the falling pole would not fall clear of the running lanes
• in areas where the fall of the pole would foul overhead electrical conductors.
7.2.2 Slip-base Poles

Slip-base poles consist of a standard pole stem, mounted on two base plates that are clamped together with
bolts that release on impact thus allowing the pole stem to breakaway from its foundation. This is illustrated
in Figure 7.1. The electrical connection is broken in the process and the pole rotates as it falls allowing for
the vehicle to pass under the pole. See Figure 7.2. A disadvantage with slip-base poles is that the dislodged
pole may create a secondary incident by falling on bystanders or adjacent vehicles. Slip base poles should
meet the testing requirements in AS/NZS 3845.2: 2017. This standard also uses MASH tests (AASHTO,
2016) in the evaluation.
The decision to use slip-base poles will depend on the space available and the resultant likelihood that a
falling pole would cause injury to other users of the road or roadside area. For example, a slip base pole will
usually be inappropriate where there are significant pedestrian or cyclist traffic because a falling pole may
pose an unacceptable risk to those road users.
Slip-base poles are designed to operate when impacted at certain speeds. If the poles are installed within
the deflection zone of road safety barriers, then the slip-base may not operate as intended and the
redirection of the vehicle by the barrier may be affected.
Installing slip base poles on embankments often results in the slip base being too high or too low to perform
as designed. In addition, providing sufficient room for maintenance vehicles to stop clear of the through traffic
lanes can be an issue. To overcome these problems, it may be appropriate to provide a 1 m wide flat area
beyond the poles for the full extent of the lighting installation.
Lack of maintenance is a significant problem with slip-base poles. They should be checked regularly to
ensure they are free to slide and the bolt tension is correct. Wind vibration can cause poles to move the
assembly and jam the bolts.

Figure 7.1: An example of a slip-base pole mechanism on impact

Figure 7.2: An impact with a slip-base pole
Source: Bligh et al (1994)
7.2.3 Energy Absorbing Poles
Energy-absorbing poles remain attached to the base structure and absorb impact energy by progressively
deforming and entrapping the impacting vehicle. The deformation of the pole is controlled by a designed
weakening of the pole. As with slip-base poles, an energy-absorbing pole can fall onto the impacting vehicle
causing significant roof deformation. Figure 7.3 illustrates an impact with an energy absorbing pole. Energy
absorbing poles should meet the testing requirements in AS/NZS 3845.2: 2017.

Figure 7.3: An impact with an energy absorbing pole
7.2.4 Slip Base Masts for Larger Signs
Masts that support larger signs are typically constructed with a breakaway or slip base connecting
mechanism to the foundation. As the vehicle impacts the post the mechanism operates, the mast will either
remain attached to the sign and the mast will rotate about this point or the sign and mast will also become
detached from the sign. In either case, the trajectory of the mast and sign must be determined through full-
scale testing to AS/NZS 3845.2: 2017.
The height of the centre of gravity of a dislodged pole reduces the propensity for the mast and sign to fall onto
vehicles. Further, masts and signs with a larger mass moment of inertia rotate more slowly (Bligh et al 2001)
and this also reduces the propensity for the sign and mast to impact the windscreen or roof of the vehicle.
7.2.5 Utility Poles
Any roadway improvement that involves the reconstruction of utility services should take the opportunity to
avoid installing poles close to the roadway. Minimum lateral setback distances for signs and road lighting
poles are specified in AS 1742.2 2009 and AS/NZS 1158.1.2 2010, respectively. Where possible, poles
should be located so the risk to the occupants of an errant vehicle is low. Utility poles are not considered to
be crashworthy under AS/NZS 3845.2; 2017.
Pole relocation needs to target areas where the run-off-road crashes are likely, for example on the approach
to curves, the outside of curves, near lane merges, lane terminations, adjacent to exits from roundabouts and
intersections. Research (Zegeer & Cynecki 1984; Zegeer & Parker 1984) has confirmed the belief that the
number of crashes decreases as poles are moved further from the roadway.
7.3 Frangible Sign Posts
Signposts should be designed to be frangible in the event of an impact (i.e. posts that are designed to
fracture, breakaway, give way or bend) so that the damage to a colliding vehicle and risk of injury to vehicle
occupants upon impact is minimised. Small signs are usually supported by posts that deform in a way that
causes minimum damage to cars, whereas larger posts and supports (for larger signs) may be provided with
mechanisms that are designed to yield in a controlled manner upon impact.
AS/NZS 3845.2: 2017 describes the testing requirements for poles and posts. Posts that meet this standard
should be installed. The standard requires a test by an 1100 kg vehicle at 30 km/h along with tests at the
speed consistent with the test level. The low speed test is to ensure a safe impact at a range of speeds.
Burbridge et al (2018) used full-scale testing to establish the limit of frangibility of circular hollow sectioned
posts for small signs. They found that energy lost per post was a function of the moment of inertia of the post
cross-section. MASH (AASHTO, 2016) and AS/NZS 3845.1: 2017 specified the maximum occupant impact
velocity as 4.9 m/s. This represents a kinetic energy change of 6.38 kJ. Burbridge et al concluded that
76.1 mm OD x 3.2 mm Grade 350 CHS posts are the limit of frangibility to meet AS/NZS 3845.2; 2017

If the post fractures, the trajectory of the post and sign need to be evaluated to establish if it poses a risk to
the occupants of vehicles. Based on tests by Bullard et al (2001a, 2001b). Bligh et al (2001) and Bullard et al
(2003), the height of the centre of gravity should be further than 2.8 m from the lower end of a detached pole.
This will reduce the propensity for the pole and sign to fall on the roof of a vehicle during impacts at
100 km/h. As is the case for larger signs, signs and post with a larger combined mass moment of inertia
rotate more slowly. Both of these qualities reduce the propensity for the post and sign to impact the
windscreen or roof of the vehicle.
The frangibility of posts was established for the occupants of cars. These posts are likely to be hazardous to
motorcyclists.
7.4 Permanent Bollards
Permanent crashworthy bollards are energy absorbing and can be used:

• to restrict vehicles from entering a pedestrian area
• to shielding areas with high pedestrian activity such as shopping strips, roadside dining areas, tram stops,
bus stops
• to shield a hazard and to protect the occupants of a vehicle
in areas where the operating speed is 50 km/h or less.
Permanent roadside bollards do not have the same energy management or redirection capabilities as a road
safety barrier, and they should only be used in situations where a barrier is not feasible to install a safety
barrier and where the hazard cannot be removed, relocated or redesigned. Bollards are not a substitute for a
safety barrier and only bollards that have been approved by the jurisdiction can be installed.
Before installing a bollard, it is important to clearly define the key objective and demonstrate that the most
suitable product has been selected.
Bollards could be used to shield an isolated hazard on low speed urban roads by installing them either in
front of a hazard or in a line across the shoulder. Preferably, the line should be angled in the direction of
traffic to eliminate the possibility of a vehicle impacting two bollards at the same time. Several bollards may
be required to shield some wider hazards. A line of bollards between the road and the footpath could be
used to shield a roadside dining area.
The crashworthiness of bollards is tested using the protocol in AS/NZS 3845.2: 2017, and the standard
should be consulted for the test conditions and evaluation criteria. The testing protocol requires the test
vehicles to impact one bollard head-on if the bollard system designer envisages that the bollards are to be
installed so that only a single bollard will be impacted. This is the more usual arrangement. However, some
systems have been tested with the vehicle impacting two bollards simultaneously, are they can then be used
in this configuration. These tests enable the designer to evaluate the outcome if a vehicle impacts one
bollard head-on, one bollard at an angle, or an array of bollards.
The designer would need to establish the consequences of a vehicle impacting a bollard. To achieve
requirements in the Australian standard, the vehicle will be slowed and arrested over a short distance. The
installation designer should account for the presence of pedestrians and diners, given these trajectories. The
designer should also evaluate whether a vehicle is likely to impact more than one bollard and the
consequences if this was to occur.
Bollards should be a conspicuous colour to ensure they are highly visible to motorists and include a
delineator

7.5 Security Bollards
Various treatments can be used to improve the security of public spaces, reduce the threat of hostile vehicles
and control vehicle movements in public spaces. Security bollards are a part of a broader group of devices
called vehicle security barriers aimed to manage hostile vehicles. Security bollards are often installed to
complement or enhance the use of structural features such as steps, columns, sculptures, seats, raised
garden beds and other architectural features.
Security bollards are the final feature to stop hostile vehicles progressing into a controlled area and should
be used in conjunction with traffic calming measures to slow hostile vehicles. While permanent bollards are
energy absorbing and slow vehicles, security bollards are structurally designed to arrest vehicles and are not
evaluated by the procedures in AS/NZS 3845.2: 2017.
Designers of their installation should consider the arresting nature of the bollard so that it does not present
an undue risk to the occupants of errant non-hostile vehicles.
Security bollards can either be active (powered or manual) or passive (static). Active measures include
retractable bollards. Passive measures include structural or fixed bollards. Some examples of active and
static bollards are illustrated in Figure 7.4.
Figure 7.4: Examples of active and passive security bollard installations

Source: HDR

The design, selection and installation of security bollards should:

• comply with the international standards IWA14-1 and IWA14.2 and with the British standard PAS68
• be installed where there is an evidence-based threat of attack
• be installed to manufacturer’s guidelines including suitable foundations to achieve the crash test
requirements
• have a maximum clearance between two barrier systems no wider than 1200 mm
• have a minimum height of 500 mm but preferably 1000 mm high for visibility.
When security bollards are installed in a 50 km/h or lower speed environment, the energy of lower speed
impacts can be managed by the vehicle’s safety systems. Where this is not possible, permanent crashworthy
bollards or an accepted safety barrier installation should be used to shield the security bollards.
The following recommendations aim to further assist designers to plan the location and arrangement of
security bollards to meet security and operational objectives, while minimising any negative impact on route
capacity or road user comfort and convenience:
• The total width of an installation of bollards (measured from the outermost bollard structures) should be
greater than the entry or exit width being protected.
• Locate bollards away from a site’s natural pinch points, such as narrow passageways, to maintain
existing levels of service.
• Place bollards where they will maximise hostile vehicle stand-off but without forcing pedestrians to walk
close to road edges.
Security bollards should be installed away from pedestrian movements described by desire lines that
consider influential factors beyond the boundary of the site, such as public transport stations, large office
buildings or tourist destinations. Refer to Austroads (2020c). Other considerations are:
• Position bollards in lines that run perpendicular to pedestrian desire lines.
• Avoid placing bollards in areas where pedestrian conflicts are likely to occur, such as spaces where
pedestrian desire lines overlap or areas of limited visibility, especially along narrow passageways, or
where stationary activity such as queuing occurs.
• Consider the height and visibility of bollards, particularly in low light conditions or during rush hour peaks
where they can be obscured by a crowd.
Specialist site assessment may be needed in high or complex pedestrian flow conditions.
7.6 High Profile Kerbs and Low Profile Barriers
A low-profile barrier has been developed and tested in the US. It is a symmetrical barrier that has a 660 mm
wide base with the top of the barrier 50 mm wider. The height of the barrier is 500 mm. It was originally
designed for low speed work zones. Bligh et al (2020) successfully tested this low-profile barrier to MASH
TL-2. Figure 7.5 illustrates the MASH 2-11 test. This type of barrier should not be used unless it has been
assessed by ASBAP.
Crashlab (2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d, 2019e, 2019f) tested two kerb types for Transport for NSW. The
kerbs are illustrated in Figure 7.6. The results of the crash tests are listed in Table 7.1. While none of these
tests was a MASH test, they indicated that the Elsholz kerb cannot redirect a 2000 kg vehicle travelling at 62
km/h and impacting the kerb at 10°.

Figure 7.5: Crash test in a low-profile barrier
Source: Bligh et al (2020)
Figure 7.6: Elsholz and NSW high profile redirective kerbs

Source: Crashlab (2019a, 2019d)
Table 7.1: High profile kerb test results
Test Vehicle Impact Impact speed

Kerb type Comments Reference
Number mass (kg) angle (°) (km/h)
Elsholz B18050 1701 10° 81.8 Vehicle redirected Crashlab
(2019a)
B18054 2112 10° 70.18 Vehicle not redirected and Crashlab
passed over the kerb (2019b)
B18055 2112 10° 62.2 Vehicle not redirected and Crashlab
passed over the kerb (2019c)
NSW High B19014 2025 9° 71.0 Vehicle redirected Crashlab
Profile (2019d)
Redirective
B19015 2028 9.9° 81.5 Vehicle was initially Crashlab
Kerb
redirected then steered (2019e)
back to the kerb and
passed over the top
B19016 1082 10° 81.5 Vehicle redirected Crashlab
(2019f)
Tests on the higher NSW High Profile Redirective Kerb demonstrated a marginal performance at 80 km/h as
the 2000 kg 4WD 4-door utility (an NCHRP 350 2000P vehicle) was initially redirected then on the second
impact it over-rode the kerb. At 70 km/h and 10 °, the 2000P vehicle was redirected. While the damage to
the test vehicles was slight, as shown in Figure 7.7, other road users could inadvertently damage their
vehicles because of the kerb’s low height.

For test B19016, Crashlab (2019f) stated:

Damage was confined to the lower section of the vehicle:
• Front-right wheel heavily scratched and bent, tyre still inflated
• Front-right wheel pushed rearwards and suspension arms bent
• Rear-right wheel heavily scratched, tyre still inflated
• Witness marks, scratches and minor dents on front bumper, front-right guard, driver
door and right side sill
The occupant compartment and vehicle windscreen were undamaged. No airbags or
seatbelt pre-tensioners deployed upon impact.
Figure 7.7: Damage to the 1100 kg vehicle in test B19016

Source: Crashlab (2019f)
7.7 Traversable Culvert End Treatments
Cross-drainage of road reserves is achieved by the provision of culverts that may vary in size from a single
375 mm pipe to large multiple pipes or box culverts. The preferred open drain cross sections described in
AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2021d) apply to longitudinal open drains that may convey water to transverse
culverts. Transverse open drains are usually provided outside of the road formation to carry water into
culverts and, unless designed correctly (i.e. with flat front slopes and back slopes), they may also present a
hazard to vehicle occupants.
If a front slope (embankment or drain) is traversable the preferred option is always to extend (or shorten) the
culvert to intercept the roadway embankment and to match the inlet or outlet slope to the embankment slope.
For small culverts, no other treatment is required. A small culvert may be defined as a single pipe that has a
diameter of 900 mm or less, or multiple pipes each having a diameter of 750 mm or less.
Matching culvert ends to embankment slopes is also desirable because it:

• results in a smaller obstacle for an errant vehicle
• reduces erosion problems
• simplifies mowing operations.

If a front slope is not traversable it may not be appropriate to provide a traversable end treatment, and an
evaluation of alternative treatments must be undertaken (e.g. flatten the embankment slope to make it
traversable, shield the embankment with a road safety barrier).
As an errant vehicle may travel a substantial distance from the road, an obstacle at a large offset may still be
a hazard. Extending culverts without providing a traversable end is therefore not preferred, particularly on
high speed roads, as this option may create discontinuities in an otherwise traversable slope. A risk
assessment, described in Section 3, should be used to evaluate options.
Single culverts and end treatments wider than 1 m can be made traversable for passenger size vehicles by
using bar grates. Refer to AGRD Part 5B (Austroads 2018b, Section 3.14.3) with an example illustrated in
Figure 7.8. Full-scale crash tests have shown (AASHTO 2011a) that cars can cross grated culvert end
treatments on slopes as steep as 3:1, at speeds as low as 30 km/h or as high as 100 km/h, when steel pipes
spaced at 750 mm centres are used across the opening. Although this treatment does not significantly
change the hydraulic performance of the culvert, during the design process due consideration should be
given to the likely accumulation of debris and the level of maintenance required.
Figure 7.8: Example of a traversable culvert end treatment (under construction) for a culvert under the road
Source: Provided by VicRoads (n.d.).
Culverts equal to or less than 900 mm in diameter or box culverts with a span equal to or less than 900 mm
can be made safer by the use of a traversable headwall located as far as possible from the traffic lane. The
slopes around the culvert should be traversable. Based on Trauma Indices, culverts perpendicular or skewed
to the road alignment greater than 900 mm in diameter or box culverts with a span greater than 900 mm
pose a greater hazard to the road user than a safety barrier.
Where culverts are placed parallel to the road they can be made safe for road users by installing gratings
over the culverts. For this treatment to be effective, it must be used on slopes of 4:1 or flatter with a pipe
diameter or box width less than or equal to 900 mm.
The channel downstream preferably should not be deeper than the height of the culvert. Beaching will
usually be required to prevent erosion of the batter and the channel. Beaching within the area of interest or,
as a minimum, 12 m from the road must be traversable, relatively smooth and no steeper than 4:1.
Safety barrier protection may be provided as an alternative where the formation height is between 0.6 m and
2.0 m and shall be provided where the height exceeds 2.0 m.
Designers should refer to AS 5100.1-2017 or the Bridge Manual (NZ Transport Agency 2013) as appropriate
for guidance regarding road safety barriers on bridges and should note that culverts are also referred to in
that standard.

7.8 Audio Tactile Line Marking
The purpose of Audio Tactile Line Marking (ATLM) is to provide an audio-tactile stimulus to fatigued,
inattentive or errant drivers to warn them that they have left the roadway. ATLM can significantly reduce the
Risk Score calculated in Section 1.8. Austroads (2020d) reports on a review of various studies into the
effectiveness of ATLM in reducing crashes and found that the average reduction in casualty crashes as a
result of tactile edge lines was approximately 20% and centrelines was approximately 15%. Refer to
Austroads (2018a).
Refer to Austroads (2020d) and jurisdictional technical notes and directives for design and installation
guidance, for instance Victorian DoT (2019d)

8. Roadside Design for Steep Downgrades
8.1 Purpose and Need
Long, steep downgrades can result in the drivers of heavy vehicles losing control and it may therefore be
desirable to take measures to prevent the occurrence and limit the consequences of runaway heavy
vehicles. Out of control vehicles result from drivers losing control because of the loss of brakes through
overheating or mechanical failure or because the driver failed to change down gears at the appropriate time.
When considering the provision of runaway vehicle facilities, it is suggested that road agencies liaise with
stakeholders with respect to the location, spacing and design of the facilities. Measures aimed at managing
errant vehicles on steep descents include:
• alerting drivers of a steep descent on the approach to the downgrade
• regulating the use of a low enough gear to control the descent speed of heavy vehicles
• providing containment facilities for runaway vehicles.
Standard traffic signs exist to warn drivers of steep descents and to instruct drivers to use a low gear (refer to
AS 1742.2 2009 or NZ Transport Agency (2010a, 2010b)).
8.2 Containment Facilities

Runaway vehicle containment facilities include:

• a gravity safety ramp
• an arrester bed
• vehicle catch net systems.
A combination of these facilities may be needed to suit a particular site. In addition, in some cases, it may be
desirable to place an energy absorbing barrier at the end of a safety ramp or arrester bed to cover an event
where a vehicle is not arrested within the ramp or bed (e.g. natural compaction of bed material reduces its
effectiveness).
8.2.1 Gravity Safety Ramps
Gravity safety ramps use an ascending grade to reduce the speed of a runaway vehicle. Ramps are normally
hard surfaced and take advantage of naturally occurring grades on a mountain range.
8.2.2 Arrester Beds
Arrester beds are long trenches filled with small, round gravel particles that are designed to stop runaway
trucks. The truck is stopped by drag and friction as the vehicle sinks into the gravel in the bed.
Arrester beds are classified as a:

• direct entry arrester bed
• side entry arrester bed – full width
• side entry arrester bed – half width.

8.2.3 Vehicle Catch Net Systems
A vehicle-arresting barrier consisting of a linked net that is attached to system that attenuates energy as the
net is extended or moved. Several nets in series are needed to capture heavy vehicles. The design of these
systems needs to be in accordance with the manufacturers’ design parameters.
8.3 Warrants for Investigation
Downgrades have the potential to cause brake fade in heavy vehicles and can be considered for treatment
to reduce the risk of runaway vehicles. Grade and length combinations that warrant investigation are shown
in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1: Typical warrants for analysis for runaway vehicles
Grade Minimum continuous length (km)

–3% 8.0
–5% 3.1
–7% 1.9
–9% 1.4
–12% 1.0
Source: Roads and Traffic Authority (2008).

Where a warrant has been established for investigation for the treatment of a steep downgrade the design of
treatments should follow the process in Section 8.6
8.4 Location and Spacing
Runaway vehicle facilities should not be constructed where an out-of-control vehicle would need to cross
oncoming traffic. On undivided roads, safety ramps should ideally be located at the start of a right hand curve
as the runaway vehicle can readily negotiate a tangential path into the ramp. On divided roadways where,
adequate space is available in the median, safety ramps can be located on either side of the carriageway
provided that adequate advance warning signs are erected prior to the safety ramp exit.
For safety ramps to be effective their location is critical. They should be located prior to or at the start of the
smaller radius curves along the alignment. For example, an escape ramp after the tightest curve will be of
little benefit if trucks are unable to negotiate the curves leading up to it. Vehicle brake temperature is a
function of the length of the grade, therefore escape ramps are generally located within the bottom half of the
steeper section of the alignment.
The lack of suitable sites for the installation of ascending-type ramps may necessitate the installation of
horizontal or descending arrester beds. Suitable sites for horizontal or descending arrester beds can also be
limited, particularly if the downward direction is on the outside or fill side of the roadway formation.
For new projects, Table 8.2 may be used as a guide when considering the need for escape exits on grades
greater than 6% and with numbers of commercial vehicles exceeding 150 per day.
The distances in the table are not absolute and greater distances could be acceptable, as site location is
dependent on other factors. The need for a facility will be increased if the number of commercial vehicles is
more than 250 per day and the maximum decrease in operating speed between successive geometric
elements is approaching the limits set in Table 8.3.

Table 8.2: Approximate distance from the summit to safety ramp
Grade (%) Approximate distance from the summit to the ramp (km)
6–10 3.0
10–12 2.5
12–15 2.0
15–17 1.5
17 1.0
Note: Actual distances will depend on site topography, horizontal curvature and costs.
Table 8.3: Maximum decrease in speed between successive geometric elements
Grade (%) Maximum decrease in speed between successive geometric elements (km/h)
<6 10
6–10 8
> 10 6
8.5 Key Design Considerations
The design, construction and maintenance of runaway vehicle facilities should ensure that the:
• length of the escape ramp is sufficient to dissipate the kinetic energy of the vehicle
• alignment of the ramp is straight or of very gentle curvature to relieve the driver of undue vehicle control
problems
• width is wide enough to accommodate two vehicles if it is considered likely that a second vehicle will need
to use the ramp soon after the first one
• adequate work space is available for heavy vehicle removal (e.g. lifting cranes)
• arrester bed material is clean, not easily compacted or consolidated and has a high coefficient of rolling
resistance
• full depth of the arrester bed is achieved in the first 50 m of the entry to the bed using a tapering depth
from 50 mm at the start to the full depth at 50 m
• bed is properly drained
• entrance to the ramp is designed so that a vehicle travelling at high speed can enter it safely. A 5° angle
of departure or less is required, and as much sight distance as possible should be provided. The leading
edge of the arrester bed must be normal to the direction of entry to ensure that the two front wheels of the
vehicle enter the bed simultaneously
• signing is in accordance with the appropriate standard to alert the driver to the presence of the escape
ramp. The location of signs, street lighting poles and overhead power lines should not obstruct the
operation of the arrester bed or retrieval operations. Routine maintenance of any light poles should not
impose any entry restriction to the arrester bed at any time.
• facility, where necessary, has an emergency roadside phone with connection to an operations centre or
emergency service placed in a visible and easily accessible location.

In addition, the following operational factors should be considered:

• The alignment of all curves preceding the ramp should be checked to ensure that a runaway vehicle can
safely negotiate them at the speeds estimated to be likely.
• Vehicles that enter the ramp will have to be retrieved, as it is unlikely that they will be able to be driven
from the arrester bed. An appropriate service road adjacent to the ramp is required to enable retrieval. An
alternative and/or enhancement to the service road is the provision of anchorage points/blocks for
winching vehicles out.
• When the location of the ramp is such that the length is inadequate to fully stop an out of control vehicle,
a positive attenuation (or ‘last chance’) device may be required. Care is required to ensure that the device
does not cause more problems than it solves – sudden stopping of the truck can cause the load to shift
with potentially harmful consequences to the driver and the vehicle. Judgement will be required on
whether the consequences of failing to stop are worse than these effects. Crash cushions or piles of sand
or gravel have been used as last chance devices.
8.6 Design Process
8.6.1 Outline of Process
The steps in the design process for the treatment of steep downgrades are shown in Figure 8.1. Steps S1 to
S11 in the process are discussed in Sections 8.6.2 to 8.6.12 respectively.
Figure 8.1: Design process for steep downgrade

Step
S1 Determine the vehicle entry speed
S2 Evaluate truck stability on approach
S3 Design entry alignment
S4 Determine the types of facility
S5 Determine the pavement surface of the facility
S6 Design facility length
S7 Design the facility
S8 Design end treatment
S9 Design vehicle recovery facilities
S10 Design delineation
S11 Design truck parking areas

8.6.2 Step S1 – Determine Vehicle Entry Speed
The recommended design vehicle should be identified as part of the design process and should be used in
determining the vehicle entry speed to the facility. Heavy runaway vehicles attain high speeds but speeds in
excess of 130 to 140 km/h will rarely, if ever, be attained. An escape ramp should therefore be designed for a
minimum entering speed of 130 km/h; a 140 km/h design speed is preferred. Several formulae and software
programs have been developed to determine the runaway speed at any point on the grade. These methods
can be used to establish a design speed for specific grades and horizontal alignments (AASHTO 2011b).
8.6.3 Step S2 – Evaluate Truck Stability on Approach
The designer should check that the truck can reach the facility at the calculated speed and will not roll over
on curves uphill of the runaway containment facility. The maximum cornering speed is given by Equation 14
and can be expressed as:
v = �(agR) 14
where
v = speed of vehicle (m/s)
a = maximum lateral acceleration 0.3 g
g = gravitational constant 9.81 m/sec2

R = radius of curvature
If trucks are likely to roll over before reaching the containment facility, then relocation of the facility should be
considered, if the terrain allows.
8.6.4 Step S3 – Design Entry Alignment
The entry speed of a runaway vehicle is used for designing the approach and entry to safety ramps and
arrester beds. The alignment of the escape ramp should be at a tangent or very flat curvature to reduce the
likelihood that the driver will experience vehicle control problems. Designers should refer to AGRD Part 3
(Austroads 2021d) in designing the vertical and horizontal alignment of the treatment.
8.6.5 Step S4 – Determine Type of Facility
The constraints imposed by the terrain will largely determine the type of facility to be implemented. Several
iterations of design may be necessary if a combination of facility types proves to be necessary. Changes to
the type of facility and pavement type may be necessary to determine the best fit for the site constraints.
8.6.6 Step S5 – Determine Pavement Surface of Facility
The rolling resistance of the facility pavement will have a significant influence on the length required for the
containment facility. The values shown in Table 8.4 are used for length calculations.
From field tests and other research studies, rounded particles such as uncrushed river gravel with uniform
gradation produce higher deceleration than the more angular crushed aggregate. This is because the
vehicles sink deeper into the river gravel, transferring more energy to the stones over a shorter length. The
use of a material with low shear strength is desirable to permit tyre penetration.
Crushed stone has been used but is not considered effective as it will require longer beds and will need
regular ‘fluffing’ or de-compaction.

Sand also has problems of drainage, compaction and contamination – it consolidates with time and moisture
ingress – and should not be used unless alternative materials are unavailable. Beds using sand will require a
strict maintenance regime to ensure their continued effectiveness. However, all arrester beds and bedding
materials require regular maintenance.
Nominal 10 mm river gravel has been used satisfactorily in testing. The gravel should be predominantly
rounded, of uniform gradation, free from fine fractions and with a mean particle size ranging between 12 and 20
mm. In general, gravels with a smaller internal friction angle will perform better than those with larger angles.
An appropriate crush test such as the Los Angeles abrasion test (or equivalent) should be used to evaluate the
durability of the stone. Stones with a high crush test will not deteriorate and will therefore not produce fines.
Table 8.4 Rolling resistance
Rolling resistance
Equivalent grade
Material (kg/1000 kg gross vehicle mass)
(%)
(R)
Cement concrete pavement 10 1.0
Asphaltic concrete pavement 12 1.2
Compacted gravel 15 1.5
Earth, sandy, loose 37 3.7
Crushed aggregate, loose 50 5.0
Gravel loose 100 10.0
Sand 150 15.0

Pea gravel 250 25.0
Note: Pea gravel is rounded gravel having a uniform particle size of about 10 mm.
Source: AASHTO (2011a).
8.6.7 Step S6 – Design Facility Length
The length of a containment facility will vary depending on entry speed, grade, pavement surface and the
type of facility.
The vehicle entry speed described in Section 8.6.2 is used as the initial velocity for determining the length of
an arrester bed. The length of an arrester bed (Roads and Traffic Authority 2000) is given by Equation 15
and is expressed as:
V2i - V2f 15
L=
2.54(R+G)
where
L = length travelled (m)
Vi = initial velocity (km/h)
Vf = final velocity (km/h)
R = grade in per cent
G = rolling resistance expressed as a grade in per cent from Table 6.4

Where there is a grade change in the arrester bed, Equation 15 can be used to calculate the length required
on each grade. The final velocity of a section becomes the initial velocity of the next section.
The length of a half-width arrester bed is double the length of a full-width arrester bed.
8.6.8 Step S7 – Design the Facility
General
This step requires the preparation of the layout and design of the facility. Several iterations with different
combinations of facility types may be necessary.
Safety ramp design features

The grade of the safety ramp will be largely determined by the terrain. Safety ramps need steep sided cut
batters on both sides. When a runaway vehicle stops in a ramp it will begin to roll back because the brakes
are not functional. In this situation, drivers must jack-knife the vehicle against the sides of the ramp to
prevent it from rolling down the ramp.
Arrester bed design features

Arrester beds aim to provide deceleration similar to an emergency braking situation to avoid the risk of the
truck cabin being crushed by a shifting load. Arrester beds can be constructed on up, level or downgrades
depending on the topography at the site (refer to Commentary 4. Arrester beds on downgrades require
additional length to bring out-of-control vehicles to rest. An example of an arrester bed is shown in Figure 8.2
while Figure 8.3 shows an example of a layout.
Figure 8.2 shows that a working area for a retrieval vehicle or crane is provided only on one side of the bed
whereas the example layout in Figure 8.3 shows a service road on both sides. An access area on both sides
of the arrester bed will not be necessary in many cases but may be required where heavy vehicles on a route
carry very heavy or difficult loads that require retrieval vehicles or cranes to work from both sides.
Figure 8.2: An example of an arrester bed

Figure 8.3: An example of an arrester bed layout

Table 8.5 provides a summary of the features associated with arrester beds and the key considerations
required in the design. Table 8.6 lists the recommended arrester bed material specification.

Table 8.5: Design features of arrester beds
Feature Consideration
Horizontal Some steering is possible in a gravel arrester bed.
alignment Where a curve is necessary the radius should be generous, well in excess of the standard travel
speed to radius ratio.
Lateral The round gravel sprayed or dislodged from the arrester bed may be a hazard to passing vehicles as
location it is likely to cause crashes due to loss of steering and traction on adjoining traffic lanes.
An arrester bed should be located more than 4 m from traffic lanes. This offset provides an access
area for recovery vehicles and provides a space for the containment of sprayed gravel. An alternative
is to provide a kerb at an offset to the traffic lane to contain gravel that would be swept onto traffic
lanes.
Kerbs should not prevent a grader with blade extension being used to recover and grade gravel after a
vehicle has been removed from the arrester bed.
Width A width of 5 m gives some room for steerage yet should control a heavy vehicle if it starts to get out of
control within the bed.
Depth A gradual or staged increase in the depth of the bed should be provided on the entry ramp. There
should be a gradual increase in aggregate depth in the first 30 m although the initial depth of the
aggregate need not start at zero. This gradual increase also assists in vehicle extraction.
A maximum bed depth of 350 mm provides adequate deceleration without causing damage to the
vehicle.
Higher deceleration rates can be achieved by increasing the bed depth up to 450 mm; however, driver
safety may be jeopardised and damage may be caused to the vehicle.
An increase in depth to 450 mm at the end of the bed will provide for higher-speed vehicles to be
arrested at the point where vehicle speed has been reduced by the treatment.
Base The base of an arrester bed should be concrete with a crossfall of 2% falling towards the concrete
barrier and graded to a drainage system.
Steeper crossfalls should not be used as they cause trucks to veer off-line as they pass through the
arrester bed.
Barrier A vertical concrete barrier should be placed on the edge of the bed furthest from the traffic lane to
assist in keeping vehicles travelling along the bed.
Drainage Stormwater should be directed away from the bed. The base of the bed should be designed to
accommodate drainage to help protect the bed from freezing and avoid contamination of the arrester
bed material by the accumulation of fines that would compact the bed material.
Installation of perforated drains in the base of the bed and lining the bed base and sides with asphalt
or cemented material are required.
Fuel spill Truck fuel lines may be ruptured when impacting the gravel in an arrester bed. The drainage system
containment of the arrester bed should be fitted with a fuel spill containment facility.
Arrester bed Rounded pea gravel in loose condition is essential to make an arrester bed effective. The aggregate
material should be predominantly single sized and uniform. It should be clean, free of fines and have smooth
rounded surfaces. The recommended specification is shown in Table 8.6. Deceleration characteristics
of the bedding material may be affected by wet weather.
Source: Based on Roads and Traffic Authority (2008).

Table 8.6: Arrester bed material specification
Criteria Per cent passing AS sieve (%)

Per cent passing 19 mm AS sieve 100%
Per cent passing 9.5 mm AS sieve 0–5%
Per cent passing 0.075 mm AS sieve Maximum 2%
Fractured faces Maximum 10%
2/1 Misshapen particles Maximum 10%
Crushing Not greater than 5%
Cracking Not greater than 5%
Slump angle Not greater than 30°
Bulk density Not greater than 3.4 tonnes/cu m
Note: Washed and screened uncrushed river gravel could meet this specification.
8.6.9 Step S8 – Design End Treatment
The consequences of a vehicle passing through and out of the ramp or arrester bed should be considered.
Crash cushions are designed for cars and have limited effectiveness for trucks. They should only be
considered where they would act as a cushioning device before a rigid object such as a rock face.
A dragnet system may be needed if a ‘fail-safe’ end treatment is not available.
8.6.10 Step S9 – Design Vehicle Recovery Facilities
Access and anchors for cranes and/or tow trucks should be designed and provided to facilitate the removal
of the disabled vehicle from the containment facility. The design of removal facilities should ensure the
occupational health and safety of removal workers.
Safety ramp recovery facilities

If separate access is available to the top of the ramp a tow truck can be used for vehicle recovery. A large
anchor block should be buried below the surface at the top of the ramp as recovery will be assisted if the tow
truck can be chained to an anchor while winching the runaway vehicle up the steep slope.
If access is not available to the top of the ramp it will be necessary to use a bulldozer to engage the rear of
the runaway vehicle and lower it backwards down the slope and hence the treatment should be designed for
this loading.
Arrester bed recovery facilities

To facilitate the recovery of vehicles from an arrester bed a service road adjacent to the bed must be
provided with a minimum width of 3.5 m. Access to the service road should be available for either two heavy
duty tow trucks or two 50 tonne capacity cranes and therefore the pavement of the service road should be
capable of supporting these cranes. The service road should also be designed so a grader with blade
extension can grade the gravel after a vehicle has been removed.
Anchor blocks are required to secure tow trucks while winching vehicles out of the arrester bed. Anchor
blocks are to be located at 35 m intervals along the service road and 10 m from the entry and end of the
arrester bed. Anchors should be designed to a 35 tonne winching force through an attachment shackle rated
to withstand the design load. Attachment shackles should be recessed flush with pavement levels.

It is preferable that recovery is made from the exit end of the arrester bed, as articulated vehicles will jack
knife if dragged backwards through the bed.
To enable drivers to get assistance, CB radio frequency or telephone numbers for emergency service may
be advised on signposting adjacent to the bed or service road.
8.6.11 Step S10 – Design Delineation
The existence and location of a containment facility must be made obvious by signing to give the operator of
an out of control vehicle time to react and decide to enter the facility. Standard signs should be provided and
located in accordance with AS 1742.2-2009 or NZ Transport Agency (2010a, 2010b). Signs that are likely to
be required are those that:
• warn or advise of a steep descent
• provide advance notification of the facility
• indicate direction at the facility entrance
• advise truck and bus drivers to use a low gear.
Adequate delineation should also be provided so that the entrance to a containment facility is not mistaken
for the through carriageway and the entry path to the facility is clear by day and night.
8.6.12 Step S11 – Design Truck Parking Areas

Truck parking areas before steep grades provide an area for truck drivers to stop and check the brakes of
the vehicle. This area is also called a brake check area. A brake rest area, however, is an area set aside part
way down or at the bottom of the descent.
These areas enable truck drivers to stop and allow brakes to cool before the descent is negotiated. Brake
check areas would naturally be on the top of a hill and should be easily accessible to heavy vehicles. Good
sight distance should be available at both entry and exit.
The area available will vary with the number of trucks using the route. Long stays in these areas should be
discouraged. Other truck rest stops should be available within a reasonable distance of the brake check
parking area.
These facilities should be provided on routes that have long, steep downgrades and commercial vehicle
numbers that exceed about 100 per day, especially on National Highways and principal traffic routes. These
areas:
• ensure that drivers begin the descent at zero velocity and in a low gear that may make the difference
between controlled and out-of-control operation on the downgrade
• provide an opportunity to display information about the grade ahead, escape ramp locations and
maximum safe descent speeds
• may need to be large enough to store several prime mover and semi-trailer combinations, the numbers
depending on volume and predicted arrival rate
• should desirably have a sealed surface, or at least a well-compacted gravel surface.
Good visibility to the areas and adequate acceleration and deceleration tapers should be provided.
Adequate signing should be provided to advise drivers in advance of the facilities. Special signs, specific to
the site, may need to be designed.

9. Work Zone Safety Barrier Systems
NOTE: This section has been adopted from MRWA Guide to the Design of Workzone Barriers
(2020) and may be updated in the next edition of Part 6.
Occupational health and safety is an important aspect in the management of road systems and it is
necessary to protect the workplace, and the road users travelling through the work site or adjacent to it, as
far as is practicable.
Contributing to hazards at work sites are increasing traffic volumes, larger vehicles and in some cases higher
speeds through and adjacent to work sites. Inappropriate speed limits or operating speeds can also increase
the risk for road users, both during and after work-site operating hours. Where long term construction sites
are created, enforcement of speed can be a problem even with active police participation. While publicity
campaigns and enforcement (often utilising radar devices and speed cameras) may assist, generally these
measures are outside the control of the personnel on a construction site.
Separating the traffic from the workplace is one way of reducing the hazards. This separation can be
achieved by the consistent and appropriate usage of safety barriers on work sites. Appropriate standards
and education and training of the people that are responsible for the erection and maintenance of the
barriers are necessary to ensure their proper usage.
The design requirements for temporary roads and appropriate geometric design to control speeds through
work sites must be implemented to ensure that the temporary barriers used will be appropriate. Barrier
installations must meet the requirements for permanent installations where high speeds are allowed through
the work site (≥ 80 km/h).
Construction and maintenance managers, engineers, supervisors and workers must take an active role in
ensuring that work sites are safe for workers and road users. It is particularly important that, where safety
barriers are necessary, they are used consistently and appropriately. This can only be achieved if personnel
are educated and trained and have knowledge of guides and standards, and experience in their application.
It is equally important that designers focus on guiding traffic safely through work sites by:
• the development of effective temporary traffic management plans including standards for sidetracks and deviations for
traffic within sites
• provision of effective and well-maintained signs and markings (including regulatory, warning and guide signs and
delineation) that meet the requirements of AS 1742.3-2019
It is very important that work zone barriers are located so that they do not place road users at risk by
restricting sight distance for traffic entering, crossing or moving through the work site. Care must also be
taken to ensure that drainage is adequate so that stormwater does not form ponds adjacent to the barrier or
flow across the road at a depth that could cause vehicles to aquaplane.
Work-site barriers are therefore used to contain and redirect errant vehicles to prevent them from leaving the
roadway and/or entering the work site. Like permanent barriers, they should only be used if they reduce the
severity and adverse consequences of potential crashes, as they are a hazard in themselves. As well as
enhancing site safety, they may improve job productivity and reduce road user delays.
Guidance on the use of barriers at work zones is provided in AS 1742.3-2019.

References
AASHTO 1989, Roadside design guide, 1st edn, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC, USA.
AASHTO 2011a, Roadside design guide, 4th edn, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC, USA.
AASHTO 2011b, A policy on geometric design of highways and streets, 6th edn, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA.
AASHTO 2014, Highway safety manual first edition with 2014 supplement, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA.
AASHTO 2016, Manual for assessing safety hardware, 2nd edn, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA.
AASHTO 2018, A policy on geometric design of highways and streets, 7th edn, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA.
Abu-Odeh, AY, McCaskey, K, Bligh, RP, Menges, WL & Kuhn, DL 2015, Crash Test and MASH TL-3
Evaluation of the TxDOT Radius Guardrail treatment. Texas A&M Transportation Institute Report number
0-6881-1, Texas A&M Transportation Institute College Station, Texas.
Abu-Odeh, AY, de la Fuente, N, Menges, WL & Kuhn, DL 2019, Crash Test and Evaluation of TL-2 Short
Radius Guardrail treatment, Texas A&M Transportation Institute Report number FHWA/TX-18/0-6913-R1.
Texas A&M Transportation Institute College Station, Texas.

Alberson, DC, Bligh, RP, Buth, CE, & Bullard, DL 2003, ‘Cable and wire rope barrier design considerations
review’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1851, pp. 95-104.
Albuquerque, FDB, Sicking, DL & Stolle, CS 2010, ‘Roadway departure impact conditions’, Transportation
Research Record, no. 2195, pp. 106-14.
ASBAP 2017a, Proximity of barrier to batter hinge points. Barrier Assessment Panel - Technical Advice
SBTA 17-002, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
ASBAP 2017b, Lapping of Guardrail terminals, Austroads Safety Barrier Assessment Panel - Technical
Advice SBTA 17-001, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
ASBAP 2020a, Working width for temporary safety barriers, Austroads Safety Barrier Assessment Panel,
Technical Advice 20-002, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
ASBAP 2020b, Transition in barrier heights, Austroads Safety Barrier Assessment Panel Technical Advice
ASBAP 2021a, Run out areas for barrier terminals, Austroads Safety Barrier Assessment Panel, Technical
Advice 21-003, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
ASBAP 2021b, Minimum length of barriers, Austroads Safety Barrier Assessment Panel Technical Advice
ASBAP 2021c, Placement of crash cushions, Austroads Safety Barrier Assessment Panel Technical Advice
ASBAP 2021d, Public domain transition from strong post W-beam to rigid concrete barrier, Austroads Safety
Barrier Assessment Panel Technical Advice SBTA 21-005, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines (ATAP) 2018, T2 cost benefit analysis,
Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Canberra, ACT.
Australian Transport Council 2011, National road safety strategy 2011 – 2020, ATC, Canberra, ACT.
Austroads 2006, Automatic vehicle classification by vehicle length, AP-T60/06, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011, Improving roadside safety: stage 2: interim report, AP-R387-11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2014a, Improving roadside safety: summary report, AP-R437-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014b, Australian National Risk Assessment Model, AP-R451-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015a, Austroads glossary of terms, edn 6.0, AP-C87-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015b, Motorcycle In-depth Crash Study Austroads Research Report AP-R489-15, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015c, Guide to road design part 4C: interchanges, edn 2.0, AGRD04C-15, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2016a, Safe System assessment framework, AP-R509-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2016b, Guidance on median and centreline treatments to reduce head-on casualties, AP-R519-
16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2018a, Towards safe system infrastructure: a compendium of current knowledge, AP-R560-18,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2018b, Guide to road design part 5B: drainage: open channels, culverts and floodways, edn 1.1,
AGRD05B-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2018c, Guide to asset management technical information part 15: technical supplements,
AGAM15-18, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2019, Guide to road design part 2: design considerations, edn 2.1, AGRD02-19, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2020a, Guide to traffic management part 4: network management strategies, AGTM04-20,

Austroads 2020b, Transitions Between Steel Barriers and Concrete Barriers, Austroads Internal report IR-
308-20, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2020c, Guide to traffic management part 6: Intersections, interchanges and crossings
management, edn 4.0, AGTM06-20, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2020d Guide to traffic management part 10: Transport control - types of devices, edn 3.0,
AGTM10-20, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2020e, Background to the development of the 2020 Edition of Guide to Road Design Part 6, AP-
R628-20, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2020f, Road cross-section design for road stereotypes (including network safety plans) and a Safe
System, AP-R618-20, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2020g, Road cross-section design for road stereotypes (including network safety plans): user
guide, AP-R619-20, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2021a, Guide to road design part 1: Objectives of road design, edn 5.1, AGRD01-15, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2021b, Guide to road design part 6A: paths for walking and cycling, edn 2.1, AGRD06A-17,
Austroads 2021c, Guide to road design part 6B: roadside environment, edn 2.1, AGRD06B-15, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2021d, Guide to road design part 3: geometric design, edn 3.4, AGRD03-16, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2021e, Guide to road safety part 2: safe roads, edn 1.0, AGRS02-21, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2021f, Guide to road safety part 7: road safety strategy and management, edn 1.0, AGRS07-21,
Austroads 2021g, Guide to road design part 4A: unsignalised and signalised intersections, edn 3.1,
AGRD04A-17, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2021h Guide to road design part 4B: roundabouts, edn 3.1, AGRD04B-15, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2021i, Guide to road tunnels part 6: planning design and commissioning, AGRT02-21, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2021j, Guide to road design part 5: drainage, general and hydrology considerations, edn 3.2,
AGRD05-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2022, Background to the development of the 2022 Edition of Guide to Road Design Part 6,
AP-R670-22, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Baker, J, Eveleigh, M & Burrows, A 2017, ‘A Crash Testing Evaluation of Motorcyclist Protection Systems for
use on Steel W-Beam Safety Barriers’, Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, Volume 28
no. 4, pp. 12-22.
Bambach, MR, Grzebieta, RH & McIntosh, AS 2010, ‘Crash characteristics of motorcyclists impacting road
side barriers’ 2010 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference 31 August - 3
September 2010, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.
Bambach, MR, Grzebieta, RH & McIntosh AS 2013, ‘The Crash Mechanics of Fatal Motorcycle–Barrier
Collisions in Australasia’, Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, 5:1, pp. 66-77.
Berg, FA, Rucker P, Gartner, M, Konig, J, Grzebieta, R & Zou R 2005, ‘Motorcycle Impacts into Roadside
Barriers - Real-world Accident Studies, Crash Tests and Simulations Carried Out in Germany and
Australia’, In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on the ESV, Washington, USA, Paper
number 05-0095.
Bergh, T & Carlsson, A 1999, ‘2+1-Roads with and without cable barriers: speed performance’,
Transportation Research Board annual meeting, 78th, Washington, DC, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Bergh, T & Petersson, M 2010, ‘Roadside area design: Swedish and Scandinavian experience’, Fourth
International Symposium on Highway Geometric Design, Valencia, Spain.
Bielenberg, RW, Faller, RK, Ammon, TJ, Holloway, JC & Lechtenberg, KA 2020a, MASH Testing of Bullnose
with Break Away Steel Posts (Test Nos. MSPBN-1-3), Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Report Number
TRP- 03-389-20, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Bielenberg, RW, Ahlers, TJ, Faller, RK, & Holloway, JC 2020b, MASH Testing of Bullnose with Breakaway
Steel Posts (Test Nos. MSPBN-4 through MSPBN-8), Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Report Number
TRP-03-418-20, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Bligh, RP, Ross Jr, HE & Bullard Jr, DL 1994, Test and evaluation of Arizona slip-away base luminaire
supports, Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System Research Report 7236-1F.
Bligh, RP, Bullard, DL, Menges, WL and Schoeneman, SK 2001, Testing and evaluation of a pedestal base
sign support, Texas Transportation Institute research report FHWA/TX-01/1792-5, The Texas A&M
University System, College Station Texas.
Bligh, RP, Menges, WL, Griffin, BL, Schroeder, GE & Kuhn, DL 2020, MASH evaluation of TxDoT Roadside
safety features Phase III, Texas Transportation Institute research report FHWA/TX-20/0-6946-R3, The
Texas A&M University System, College Station Texas.
Bullard, DL, Bligh, RP, Menges, WL and Schoeneman, SK 2001a, Testing and evaluation of a pedestal base
sign support, Texas Transportation Institute research report FHWA/TX-01/1792-3, The Texas A&M
University System, College Station Texas.
Bullard DL, Bligh, RP, Menges, WL and Schoeneman, SK 2001b, Testing and evaluation of a solar panel
sign support system, Texas Transportation Institute research report FHWA/TX-01/1792-4, The Texas
A&M University System, College Station Texas.
Bullard, DL, Menges, WL and Haug, RR 2003, Crash test and evaluation of the ITS call box, Texas
Transportation Institute research report 47420/08-6&7, The Texas A&M University System, College
Station Texas.

Bullard Jr, LD, Sheikh, NM, Bligh, RP, Haug, RR & Schutt, JR 2006, Aesthetic Concrete Barrier Design,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report number 554, Transportation Research Board,
Washington DC.
Burbridge, AZ & Troutbeck, RJ 2017a, ‘Decompartmentalising road safety barrier stiffness in the context of
vehicle occupant risk’, Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 28(1), pp. 11-19.
Burbridge, AZ & Troutbeck, RJ 2017b, ‘A desktop model for computing Acceleration Severity Index (ASI) for
rigid barrier impacts as a function of impact configuration’, Paper presented at Australasian Road Safety
Conference, Perth, WA, Australia.
Burbridge, AZ & Troutbeck, RJ 2017c, ‘Feasibility of predicting light vehicle occupant injury disutility from
impacts with road safety barriers’, Paper presented at 1st International Roadside Safety Conference, San
Francisco, CA, USA.
Burbridge, A, Spathonis, J, Kung, L, Douglas, J & Moir, L 2018, ‘Exploring the frangibility of steel circular
hollow section small sign support posts’, Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety – Volume 29
No. 1 2018.
Burbridge, AZ & Troutbeck, RJ, 2018, ‘A model for predicting Acceleration Severity Index in impacts with
road safety barriers’, International Journal of Crashworthiness, 24(4), pp. 442-452.
Burbridge, AZ 2019, ‘The road safety barrier dilemma revisited: balancing capacity against flexibility’, IPWEA
SWQ branch conference, 2019, Gatton, Qld, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, Albion,
Qld.
Burbridge, AZ 2020, An Explanatory Model for quantification of road safety barrier impact risk, PhD Thesis,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Carrigan, CE & Ray, MH 2017, ‘A new approach to run-off road crash prediction’, Transportation Research
Board annual meeting, 96th, Washington, DC, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Carrigan, CE, Ray, MH & Johnson, TO 2014, ‘Understanding of heavy vehicle encroachment frequency’,
Transportation Research Record, no. 2437, pp. 20-6.
Chimba D, Lan, C-J & Li, J 2006, ‘Statistical evaluation of motorcycle crash injury severities by using
multinomial models’, Transportation Research Board annual meeting, 85th, Washington, DC, TRB,
Washington, DC, USA.
Commonwealth of Australia 2018, National Road Safety Action Plan 2018-2020, INFRA3507, Transport and
Infrastructure Council, Canberra, ACT.
Crashlab 2005, Test report: BR2005/005 Wire rope safety barrier installed on 200 m radius Crash Test
Report for Transport for NSW, March 2019.
Crashlab 2019a, Test report: BR2018/050 Elsholz Redirective Kerb, 80 km/h 10° angled impact 1600C test
vehicle Report for Transport for NSW, March 2019.
Crashlab 2019b, Test report: BR2018/054 Elsholz Redirective Kerb, 70 km/h 10° angled impact 1600C test
vehicle Report for Transport for NSW, March 2019.
Crashlab 2019c, Test report: BR2018/055 Elsholz Redirective Kerb, 60 km/h 10° angled impact 2000P test
vehicle Report for Transport for NSW, April 2019.
Crashlab 2019d, Test report: BR2019/014 NSW High Profile Redirective Kerb, 70 km/h 10° angled impact
2000P test vehicle, Report for Transport for NSW, August 2019.
Crashlab 2019e, Test report: BR2019/015 NSW High Profile Redirective Kerb, 8 0km/h 10° angled impact
2000P test vehicle Report for Transport for NSW, August 2019.
Crashlab 2019f, Test report: BR2019/050 NSW High Profile Redirective Kerb, 70 km/h 10° angled impact
2000P test vehicle Report for Transport for NSW, August 2019.
Daniello, A & Gabler, HC 2011, ‘The effect of barrier type on injury severity in motorcycle to barrier collisions
in North Carolina, Texas and New Jersey’, Transportation Research Board annual meeting, 90th,
Washington, DC, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.

Dixon, KK, Liebler, M, Zhu, H, Hunter, MP & Mattox, B 2008, Safe and aesthetic design of urban treatments,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report number NCHRP 612, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Doecke, S & Woolley, JE 2010, ‘Effective use of clear zones and barriers in a safe system's context’,
Australasian road safety research, policing and education conference, 2010, Canberra, ACT, Conference
Logistics, Kingston, ACT, 10 pp.
Duncan, C, Corben, B, Truedsson, N & Tingvall, C 2000, Motorcycle and safety barrier crash testing:
feasibility study, report CR 201, Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra, ACT.
European Committee for Standardization 2012, EN 1317-8:2012 Road restraint systems - Part 8: Motorcycle
road restraint systems which reduce the impact severity of motorcyclist collisions with safety barriers,
Belgium: CEN.
EuroRAP 2008, Barriers to change: designing safe roads for motorcyclists - Position paper on motorcycles
and crash barriers, European Road Assessment Programme www.eurorap.org.
Faller, RK, Sicking, DL, Larsen, J, Rohde, JR, Bielenberg, RW & Polivka, KA 2004, TL-5 development of 42-
and 51 in, single -faced, F-shape concrete barriers, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) University
of Nebraska-Lincoln, Report number TRP-03-149-04.
Federal Highway Administration 2002, ‘Approval letter HSA-10/B110’, 20 December 2002, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Federal Highway Administration 2014, ‘Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on
Federal Highway Projects: FP-14’, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Giavotto V & Pernetti M 2001, ‘Comparison of collisions of rigid trucks and articulated trucks against road
safety barriers’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1799, pp. 141- 149.
Giummarra, G 2001, Road classifications, geometric designs and maintenance standards for low volume
roads, ARR 354, ARRB Transport Research Ltd, Vermont South, Vic.
Grzebieta, R, Jama, H, McIntosh, A, Friswell, R, Facard, J, Attard, M & Smith, R 2009, ‘Overview of
motorcycle crash fatalities involving road safety barriers’, Journal of the Australasian College of Road
Safety, pp. 42- 52.
Grzebieta, RH, Bambach, MR & McIntosh, AS 2012, Best Practices and Strategies to Reduce Fatal or
Serious Injury Crashes into Guardrail Posts by Motorcyclists: Australian Experience. Roadside Safety
Design and Devices: International Workshop, July 17, 2012, Milan, Italy, Transportation Research
Circular E-C172 pp 93-105. Ed R Troutbeck. Transportation Research Board.
Grzebieta, RH, Bambach, MR & McIntosh, AS 2013, ‘Motorcyclist Impacts into Roadside Barriers: Is the
European Crash Test Standard Comprehensive Enough?’ Transportation Research Record, no. 2377,
pp. 84-91.
Hutchinson, JW & Kennedy, TW 1966, Medians of divided highways: frequency and nature of vehicle
encroachments, bulletin 487, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, IL, USA.
Keller, EA, Sicking, DL, Faller, RK, Polivka, KA & Rohde, JR 2003, Guidelines for Attachments to Bridge
Rails and Median Barriers, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Research report TRP-03-98-03.
Kleinberger, M, Sun, E, Eppinger, R, Kuppa, S & Saul, R 1998, Development of Improved Injury Criteria for
the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Report September 1998.
Kim, K, Boski, J & Tamashita, E 2002 ‘A typology of motorcycle crashes: Rider characteristics,
environmental factors, and special patterns’, Transportation Research Board annual meeting, 81st,
Washington, DC, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Kloeden, C & McLean, J 1999, ‘Roadside hazard involvement in severe and fatal car crashes’, Road safety
research, policing, education conference, 2nd, 1999, Canberra, ACT, Australian Road Safety Bureau,
Canberra, ACT, pp. 957-64.

Knuiman, MW, Council, FM & Reinfurt, DW 1993, The association of median width and highway accident
rate, HSIS summary report, FHWA-RD-93-046, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, USA.
Mak, KK & Bligh, RP 2002, ‘Assessment of NCHRP 350 Test vehicles’ Transportation Research Record, no.
1797, pp. 33- 37.
Mak, K, Sicking, DL & Coon, BA 2010, Identification of vehicular impact conditions associated with serious
ran-off-road crashes, report 665, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Main Roads Western Australia 2020, Guide to the design of workzone barriers, D11#38509, MRWA, Perth,
WA.
Marzougui, D & Opiela, KS 2011. Slope Rounding Influences on the Trajectories of Vehicles, The National
Crash Analysis Center, NCAC working Paper Number 2011-W-004 The George Washington University.
Marzougui, DP, Mahadevaiah, U, Tahan, F, Kan, C D, McGinnis, R & Powers, R 2012, Guidance for the
Selection, Use, and Maintenance of Cable Barrier Systems, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Report 711, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC 2012.
Mehta, Y, Gabler, HC, Daniello, A & Swanseen, K 2009, New Jersey Motorcycle Fatality Rates-Final Report
Federal Highways Administration Report No. FHWA-NJ-2010-003, December 2009.
NZ Ministry of Transport 2010, Safer journeys: New Zealand’s road safety strategy 2010-2020, Ministry of
Transport, Wellington, NZ.
NZ Transport Agency 2010a, Manual of traffic signs and markings (MOTSAM): part 1: traffic signs, NZTA,
Wellington, NZ.
NZ Transport Agency 2010b, Manual of traffic signs and markings (MOTSAM): part 2: markings, NZTA,
Wellington, NZ.
NZ Transport Agency 2011, High risk rural roads guide, NZTA, Wellington, NZ.
NZ Transport Agency 2013, Bridge manual, 3rd edn, SP/M/022, NZTA, Wellington, NZ.
NZ Transport Agency 2014, Road safety barrier - ground beam, New Zealand Transport Agency Technical
Memorandum TM-2012.
Opus 2016a, Short Report on research evidence for shy line distances, for NZ Transport Agency, Prepared
by Bill Frith for the New Zealand Transport Agency.
Opus 2016b, The impact of flared guardrail terminals on “shying” behaviour, Prepared by Bill Frith for the
New Zealand Transport Agency.
Perandones, J M, Molinero, A, Martín, C, Mansilla, A & Pedrero, D 2008, ‘Recommendations for the location
of motorcyclist protection devices in the Spanish Regional Road Network of Castilla y León’,
Transportation Research Board annual meeting, 87th, Washington, DC, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Polivka, KA, Faller, RK, Holloway, JC, Rohde, JR, & Sicking, DL 2005, Development, Testing, and
Evaluation of NDOR’s TL-5 Aesthetic Open Concrete Bridge Rail, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility
(MwRSF) University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Research report TRP-03-148-05.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2016, RISC version 6 user manual, TMR, Brisbane
Qld.
Ray, MH, Carrigan, CE, Plaxico, CA, Miaou, SP & Johnson, TO 2012a, Roadside Safety Analysis Program
(RSAP) update: version 3, produced for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 22-
27, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Ray, MH, Carrigan, CE, Plaxico, CA, Miaou, SP & Johnson, TO 2012b, Roadside Safety Analysis Program
(RSAP) update: version 3: appendix B: engineer’s manual, produced for the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Project 22-27, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Riexinger, LE, Johnson, NS & Gabler, HC 2021, ‘A Corridor-Based Procedure for Determining Longitudinal
Barrier Length of Need’, Transportation Research Board annual meeting, 100th, Washington, DC, TRB,

Rifaat, SM & Choe, CH 2005, ‘Analysis of severity of single-vehicle crashes in Singapore’, Transportation
Research Board annual meeting, 84th, Washington, DC, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Roads and Maritime Services 2016, Roads and Maritime supplement to Austroads Guide to Road Design
Part 6: Roadside Design, Safety and Barriers (2009), RMS, Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Traffic Authority 2000, ‘Current practice for design and maintenance of truck arrestor beds’,
report no. 002209/1, Pavement Projects Branch, RTA, Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Traffic Authority 2008, ‘Road design guide: section 6: design for errant vehicles: hazard mitigation
and safety barrier design’, unpublished draft, RTA, Sydney, NSW.
Rosenbaugh, SK, Sicking, DL & Faller, RK 2007, Development of a TL-5 Vertical Faced Concrete Median
Barrier Incorporating Head Ejection Criteria, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) University of
Nebraska-Lincoln Report Number TRP-03-194-07.
Ross, HE, Sicking, DL, Zimmer, RA & Michie, JD 1993, Recommended procedures for the safety
performance evaluation of highway features, report 350, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Saez, DO, Bligh, RP, Abu-Odeh, A, Kim, KM & Briaud, JL 2012, Heavy-Vehicle Impact Loads for Design of
Traffic Barriers, Transportation Research Board annual meeting, 91st, Washington, DC, TRB,
Schmidt, JD, Asselin, N, Faller, RK, Fallet, WG, Holloway, JC & Lechtenberg, KA 2019, Evaluation of the
Minnesota Noise Wall and Rubrail System Evaluation of the Minnesota Noise Wall and Rubrail System
Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) University of Nebraska-Lincoln Report Number TRP-03-396-
19.
Schneider, WH, Savolainen, PT & Moore DN 2010, ‘Examining the Effects of Horizontal Curvature on Single-
Vehicle Motorcycle Crashes along Rural Two-Lane Highways’, Transportation Research Board annual
meeting, 89th, Washington, DC, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Sheikh, NM, Bligh, RP & Holt, JM 2012, ‘Minimum Rail Height for Longitudinal Barriers that meet Test Level
4 of “Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware” Longitudinal Barriers’, Transportation Research Record, no.
2039, pp. 135-143.
Sheikh, NM, Kovar, JC, Cakalli, S, Menges, WL, Schroeder, GE & and Kuhn, DL 2019, Analysis of 54-inch
tall single slope concrete barrier on a structurally independent foundation, Texas A&M Transportation
Institute College Station Report Number 0-6948-R1.
Stonex, KA 1960, ‘Road design for safety’, Proceedings of the Highway Research Board, vol. 39, pp. 120-57.
Tay, R & Churchill, A 2007, ‘Effect of different median barriers on traffic speed’, Canadian Journal of
Transportation, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 56-66.
Thomson, R & Valtonen, J 2002, ‘Vehicle impacts on v-shaped ditches’, Transportation Research Record,
no. 1797, pp. 82-8.
Transport and Main Roads 2017, Roadside Design Training Guide, Queensland Government.
Victorian Department of Transport 2016, The use of wire rope safety barrier (WRSB), Road Design Note
RND06-02.
Victorian Department of Transport 2018, Central Barrier in Narrow medians, Road Design Note RND03-08.
Victorian Department of Transport 2019a, VicRoads Supplement to Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6:
Roadside design, safety & barriers, February 2019.
Victorian Department of Transport 2019b, Guidelines for the protection of gantry and cantilever sign
supports, Road Design Note RND06-13.
Victorian Department of Transport 2019c, Continuous Safety Barrier for High Speed Roads. Road Design
Note RND06-15.
Victorian Department of Transport 2019d, Audio tactile line Marking (ALTM). Road Design Note RND03-10.

Wenall, J 2015, Less sharp guardrails can save motorcyclists Nordic Road and Transport Research
https://nordicroads.com/less-sharp-guardrails-can-save-motorcyclists/ Accessed February 2021.
Wiebelhaus, MJ, Polivka, KA, Faller, RK, Rohde, JR, Sicking, DL, Holloway, JC, Reid, JD & Bielenberg, RW
2008, Evaluation of Rigid Hazards Placed in the Zone of Intrusion, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility
(MwRSF) University of Nebraska-Lincoln Report Number TRP-03-151-08.
Williams, WF, Bligh, RP & Menges, WL 2011, MASH test 3-11 on the TxDoT single slope bridge rail (Type
SSTT) on pan-formed bridge deck, Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System,
Report number FHWA/TX-11/9-1002-3.
Williams, W, Shiekh, NM, Menges, WL Kuhn, DL & Bligh, RP 2018, Crash test and evaluation of restrained
safety shape concrete barriers on concrete bridge deck, Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M
University System, Report number FHWA/TX-15/9-1002-15-3.
Zegeer CV & Cynecki, MJ 1984, Selection of cost-effective countermeasures for utility pole accidents: user
manual, FHWA-IP-84-13, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Zegeer CV & Parker MR 1984, ‘Effect of traffic and roadway features on utility pole accidents’,
Transportation Research Record, no. 970, pp. 65-76.
Australian and New Zealand Standards
AS 1742.2-2009, Manual of uniform traffic control devices: traffic control devices for general use.
AS 1742.3-2019, Manual of uniform traffic control devices: traffic control for works on roads.
AS 5100.1-2017, Bridge design: scope and general principles.
AS/NZS 1158.1.2-2010, Lighting for roads and public spaces: vehicular traffic (category V) lighting: guide to
design, installation, operation and maintenance.
AS/NZS 3845:1999, Road safety barrier systems (superseded).
AS/NZS 3845.1:2015, Road safety barrier systems and devices: part 1: road safety barrier systems.
AS/NZS 3845.2:2017, Road safety barrier systems and devices: part 2: road safety devices.
IWA14-1 2013, Vehicle security barriers — Part 1: Performance requirement, vehicle impact test method and
performance rating, International Standards Organisation, Genève, Switzerland.
IWA14-2:2013, Vehicle security barriers — Part 2: Application, International Standards Organisation,
Genève, Switzerland.
PAS68 2013, Impact Test Specifications for Vehicle Security Barrier Systems, British Standards Institution,
London, United Kingdom

Appendix A Terminology
A.1 Vehicle Movement Terminology
The vehicle movement terminology is described in Table A.1 and illustrated in Figure A.1.
Table A.1: Vehicle movement terminology
Term Meaning
Pitch The rotation of a vehicle around its transverse axis.
Roll The rotation of a vehicle around its longitudinal axis.
Yaw The rotation of a vehicle around its vertical axis.
Spin Uncontrolled yaw.
Lurch The acceleration of a vehicle along its transverse axis.
Surge The acceleration of a vehicle along its longitudinal axis.
Bounce The acceleration of a vehicle along its vertical axis.
Figure A.1: Vehicle movement terminology
Yaw
Roll
Offside
Pitch
F
Lurch
Surge
of
-
on
Directi l
Nearside
Trave Bounce
Source: Roads and Maritime Services (2016).
A.2 Road Safety Barrier Terminology
Table A.2 summarises road safety barrier terminology.
Table A.1: Road safety barrier terminology
Term Explanation
Acceleration ASI is a function of the test vehicle’s acceleration in the longitudinal, lateral and vertical
Severity Index directions., averaged over 50 ms. It provides a measure of the vehicle occupant injury risk
(ASI)
Anchorage Posts, pins or footings used to laterally restrain a barrier in or on a pavement or ground.
Approach point of The approach point of redirection is the first point where the barrier system is able to redirect
redirection vehicles. Vehicles that impact upstream of the approach point of redirection are not redirected.
The approach point of redirection is close to the leading terminal.

Term Explanation
Back-up structure A backup structure resists the longitudinal loads in a crash cushion which has sections that
compress or break in an end-on impact
Concave Barrier curvature away from the adjacent traffic lane, i.e. inside the curve (Figure A.2)
Containment level The characteristics of impacts in which the vehicle is able to be contained. That is, the vehicle is
redirected or captured by the barrier system. It is the property of the road network or a particular
roadside.
Continuous A continuous safety barrier extends along as much of the road length as possible after allowing
barriers for property accesses and intersections. It aims to shield the entire roadside as effectively as
possible.
Concrete barriers A barrier constructed with concrete and having no flexibility. The deformation is contained within
the impacting vehicle.
Convex Barrier curvature towards the adjacent traffic lane, i.e. outside the curve. Figure A.2.
Crash attenuator Devices that prevent an errant vehicle from impacting hazardous objects by gradually
decelerating the vehicle to a safe stop or by directing the vehicle away from the hazard. They
can be used as the end treatment on the leading end of a barrier system.
Crash cushion An energy absorption device installed in front of a rigid object to reduce the severity of impact.
Departure angle The angle at which the vehicle leaves the traffic lane (Figure A.3).
Departure point of The departure point of redirection is the last point where the barrier system is able to redirect
redirection vehicles. Vehicles that impact downstream of the departure point of redirection are not
redirected. The departure point of redirection is close to the trailing terminal.
Development A length of unanchored barrier, in advance of the approach point of redirection, that is
length necessary to provide sufficient mass for the barrier within the length of need to perform in
accordance with its design parameters.
Double-sided A barrier designed for impact on both sides.
barrier
Dynamic deflection The largest transverse deflection of a barrier system during a crash or during a full-scale impact
test (i.e. the amount the barrier deflects from its initial position during impact; refer to Figure
A.3.).
Flare The change in the offset of a barrier to move it further from the travelled way or closer to the
travelled way.
Flare rate The rate a barrier is flared. It is expressed as the ratio of the longitudinal distance to the
transverse offset, by which a barrier flares away from, or towards, the edge of the travelled way.
Flexible barrier A barrier system where the barrier elements under an impact respond and absorb kinetic
energy, by substantial movement, deformation and deflection.
Flexible W-beam Flexible W-beam barriers use the standard W-beam, but use light steel posts with a mechanism
barriers for the posts to disengage from the beam when impacted.
Flexibility of a The flexibility of a barrier Is the inverse of its stiffness and is the dynamic deflection recorded in
barrier a test divided by the test impact severity.
Gating terminal A barrier terminal designed to allow an impacting vehicle to pass through the device. Terminals
that are designed to breakaway, pivot or hinge, and allow a vehicle to pass through when
impacted at an angle to the end, or at a point upstream of the beginning of the length of the
associated barrier system.
Impact angle The angle at which a vehicle impacts a barrier or a hazard (Figure A.3).
Impact speed The speed of the vehicle at impact (Figure A.3).
Leading point of In relation to a roadside hazard, the first point at which the barrier is required to prevent an
need errant vehicle from striking the hazard (Figure A.4 and Figure A.5).
Leading terminal The terminal treatment at the end of a barrier that faces vehicles approaching in the adjacent
traffic lane (Figure A.4 and Figure A.5).
Length of need The length of a barrier system, required to prevent errant vehicles from impacting a hazard, It is
the distance between the leading and trailing points of need (Figure A.4 and Figure A.5).

Term Explanation
Legacy barrier A legacy barrier should not be installed except to repair shorter sections of an existing barrier.
Typically, legacy barriers are those that do not meet the MASH testing standards, or are found
to be unsuitable as determined by ASBAP
Median barrier A barrier system when it is installed in a median location. Can be impacted from both sides.
Motorcyclist MPDs are devices, fittings or attachments to road safety barrier systems to reduce the risk of
Protection devices injury to motorcyclists.
(MPD)
Nearside The side of a vehicle closest to the kerb on the left-hand side of the road when the vehicle is
travelling in the normal direction of travel.
Non-gating A barrier terminal that is designed to redirect or contain an impacting vehicle and absorb part of
terminal the energy of the impacting vehicle at any point along the terminal without allowing it to pass
through the device.
Non-redirective A crash cushion designed to contain and capture an impacting vehicle.
crash cushion
Offside The side of a vehicle furthest away from the kerb on the left side of the road when the vehicle is
travelling in the normal direction of travel (i.e. it corresponds to the driver side of the vehicle).
Overlaps An overlap is used when a wire rope barrier and a stiffer steel or concrete barrier interface on
the same verge or median. The barriers are not physically connected, but the trailing end of one
barrier protects the leading end of the second barrier.
Performance level The performance level describes the containment level for a bridge parapet based on risk-
assessments. The impact loads are detailed for each performance level. Refer to AS
5100.1-2017 or the Bridge Manual (NZ Transport Agency 2013) as appropriate.
Permanent The permanent deformation of the barrier that remains after impact (Figure A.3).
deformation
Permanent barrier A barrier that is installed permanently at the roadside.
Point of impact The point where the vehicle first impacts a barrier (Figure A.3).
Proprietary system A barrier system that is the subject of patent or other intellectual property rights within Australia
and New Zealand.
Public domain A barrier system that is not the subject of patent or other intellectual property rights within
system Australia and New Zealand. These barriers are now considered to be ‘legacy’ barriers and not
normally installed.
Road safety A roadside device that provides a physical restriction to penetration of a vehicle in a way that
barrier system reduces the risk to vehicle occupants and other traffic. Its purpose is to redirect or contain an
errant vehicle. It is used to shield roadside obstacles or non-traversable terrain features.
Occasionally, it may be used to protect people from vehicular traffic.
Run out area A run out area is provided behind terminals and crash cushions so that errant vehicles that
impact these devices can stop without having a second impact. The run out area should be
traversable and free of hazards.
Single-sided A barrier designed for impact on one side only.
barrier
System width The front-to-back dimension of the barrier including its supporting posts, etc. (Figure A.3).
Temporary barrier A barrier that is readily removable and used at roadworks, emergencies or similar situations.
Terminal A device designed to treat the end of a barrier. The terminal may function by decelerating a
vehicle to a safe stop within a relatively short distance, or permit controlled penetration of the
vehicle behind the device, or contain and redirect the vehicle, or a combination of these
performance characteristics.
Test level The test level describes the most severe successful impact tests on the barrier system. For a
barrier to achieve a MASH test level requires a number of tests using different vehicle types.
The test level is a barrier system property.
Test impact The impact severity is a measure of the energy required to redirect a vehicle. It is a measure
severity used to quantify the flexibility of a barrier.
Thrie-beam A triple-corrugated steel-rail barrier supported on steel posts.

Term Explanation
Trailing point of In relation to a roadside hazard, the last point at which a barrier is required to prevent an errant
need vehicle from striking the hazard (Figure A.4 and Figure A.5).
Trailing terminal The terminal treatment at the departure end of a barrier in the direction of travel in the adjacent
traffic lane (Figure A.4 and Figure A.5).
Transition The length of barrier system used to connect systems with different operating characteristics,
commonly used to connect a flexible barrier system to a less flexible barrier system, such as a
bridge safety barrier.
Two-stage A two-stage protection system provides a barrier system to redirect passenger vehicles and a
shielding high containment barrier for the mitigation of additional risks from heavier vehicles
Vehicle roll The lateral distance between the deflected face of a barrier and the maximum extent of vehicle
allowance body roll during impact.
W-beam A double-corrugated steel rail barrier supported on steel posts.
Wire rope barrier A barrier system consisting of wire rope cables under a high tension that are supported on posts
and anchored at the ends.
Working width The minimum width that is required to prevent an impacting design vehicle from colliding with an
object behind a barrier system. The working width is measured from the outermost extremity on
the traffic side, regardless of shape, to the furthest extremity of any part of the system or vehicle
during and after the impact. This includes both the dynamic deflection of the barrier (if any) and
the extra width to allow for the roll (vertical rotation) of an impacting vehicle. This ensures that
the system width can be accommodated between the deformed barrier and the hazard during
impact (Figure A.3) and that the top of a high heavy vehicle will not impact a high hazard during
impact. Note that this definition is different to the one in MASH
The terminology associated with barrier curvature is shown in Figure A.2.
Figure A.2: Road safety barrier terminology – curvature
The terminology associated with barrier impact is shown in Figure A.3 and Figure A.4.
Figure A.3 Road safety barrier terminology – impact

Figure A.4: Working width measurements showing dynamic deflection, system width (SW) and vehicle roll
allowance
Legend: DD = Dynamic Deflection, SW = System width

The terminology associated with barrier placement is shown in Figure A.5 and Figure A.6.
Figure A.5: Road safety barrier terminology – placement on two-lane/two-way road

Figure A.6: Road safety barrier terminology – placement on multilane/one-way road
The terminology associated with the location of the barrier points of redirection are shown in Figure A.7 and
Figure A.8.
Figure A.7: Design minimum length of barrier system for an installation for a road with two-way traffic
Figure A.8: Design minimum length of barrier system for an installation on a carriageway with traffic in one
direction

Appendix B Detailed Risk Evaluation Procedure
This Appendix describes a process to analyse the level of risk associated with roadside hazards along a road
segment with a defined road and roadside cross-section and traffic volume. The process in Section 1.9 is
based on the procedure described in this Appendix.
The design procedure uses the principles developed in Austroads (2016a) to evaluate a roadside based on
the geometry of the road and the roadside, the traffic characteristics and the presence of hazards. The
process involves an evaluation of:
• Exposure: The frequency of vehicles leaving the traffic lanes.
• Likelihood: The proportion of drivers that have left the traffic lanes and then collide with a roadside
hazard.
• Severity: The expected severity of a collision and reported as the function of fatal and serious injury
crashes (FSI crashes). The severity is defined by Trauma Indices.
The process is used to evaluate the risk of roadsides and medians of rural roads and highways with divided
carriageways, the left-hand roadsides on single carriageway rural highways, and the potential for a barrier in
the centre of a two-lane road to reduce head-on crashes. The process is used both to quantify the Network
Roadside Risk Intervention Threshold (NRRIT) (see Section 2) and to evaluate the risk of short lengths of
roadside (see Section 3).
The process is based on the US procedure Roadside Safety Analysis Program version 3 (RSAPv3) and
published in Ray et al. (2012a). RSAPv3 is a computer routine and the background to the algorithms is
documented in an engineering manual (Ray et al. 2012b). More information about the background to the
process presented in this Appendix is given in Austroads (2020e).
The process can also be applied to urban roads. However, the ability to treat hazards on urban roads is often
restricted by the width of the road reserve.
This Appendix describes the principles used to evaluate the risk of a roadside.
B.1 Exposure
Exposure is an indication of the number of vehicles that would be expected to leave the traffic lanes and
move onto the shoulder. In past procedures, the exposure has been called the encroachment frequency. The
units used are encroachments/km/year. Exposure uses attributes and dimensions that are common to longer
lengths of a road link.
Exposure is a function of geometry of the road, the terrain, the AADT and the operating speed of the road as
defined by the design speed. The evaluation of the exposure is based on the concepts in RSAPv3 and
documented in Ray et al. (2012b). RSAPv3, as did previous models of the encroachment rate, predicted a
reduction in the rate for increasing traffic volumes in the mid-range of AADTs. This aspect has been eliminated
from the process presented here and constant exposure is predicted for mid-range AADTs. Figure B.1 and
Figure B.2 are plots of the base exposure rate, measured in encroachments per kilometre per year against
AADT. For higher AADTs, there is no data to predict the exposure and Ray et al. (2012b) recommend a linear
exposure against AADT as illustrated by the dotted line in Figure B.1 and Figure B.2. The data for
encroachment rates were recorded in the USA and Canada, but re-analysed by Ray et al. (2012b).
Note that the base exposure rate for divided roads gives the number of encroachments per km per year on
the verge and the median for each carriageway based on the carriageway AADT, and not the total AADT.
Both verge and median exposures are the same and are presented in Figure B.2.

Figure B.1: Base exposure (enc/km/year) for each side of an undivided road
1.5
1.2
Exposure (enc/km/year)
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 20,000
AADT (veh/day)
Source: Adapted by Austroads (2020e) from processes in Ray et al. (2012b).
Figure B.2: Base exposure (enc/km/year) for each side of each carriageway of a divided road
2.1
1.8
Exposure (enc/km/yr)
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Carriageway AADT (veh/day)
Source: Adapted by Austroads (2020e) from processes in Ray et al. (2012b).
B.1.1 Determine the Future Traffic Flow
The current traffic volume of the road can be determined from traffic survey counts. The traffic volume used
in the analysis is the carriageway volume. For example, for a two-lane two-way road, the traffic volume on
the road is the carriageway volume. For a divided facility, the volume is proportioned by the directional split;
usually a 50/50 split is used.

To allow for growth in traffic flow, the future traffic flow is calculated using Equation B1.
g n
Qn =AADT �1+ � B1
100
where
Qn = traffic flow on roadway in ‘n’ number of years
AADT = annual average daily traffic on the road (both directions) in current year
g = annual percentage growth in traffic
n = number of years to project into the future.
The base exposure rate is adjusted using factors from RSAPv3 for the number of lanes, the average lane
width, the terrain, the grade and curve radius and whether the road is divided, undivided or in urban areas.
These factors are listed in Table B.1, Table B.2, and Table B.3 and in Figure B.3 and Figure B.4.
The factors for the average lane width are from the US Highway Safety Manual (AASHTO 2014). The user
should use the value for the width that is slightly lower than the field measurement if necessary. For instance,
if the average lane width is 3.4 m use the value for 3.3 m.
The procedure predicts slightly lower exposure rates for roads in mountainous than in rolling areas. This is
expected to be a result of greater driver awareness of the risk. The grade and the curve correction factors
are the same as those used in the previous version of AGRD Part 6 and are also included in the RSAPv3
procedure.
Table B.3 refers to undivided urban roads with an operating speed of 90 km/h. For urban roads with a higher
operating speed or with divided carriageways, Table B.2 should be used.
Table B.1: Exposure adjustment factors for undivided roads
Attribute Condition Factor

Number of lanes in the direction of travel 1 lane 1.00
More than 1 lane 0.76
Lane width 2.7 m and narrower 1.50
3.0 m 1.30
3.3 m 1.05
3.5 m and wider 1.00
Terrain Flat 1.00
Rolling 2.58
Mountainous 2.27
Source: Adapted by Austroads (2020e) from data in Ray et al. (2012b).

Table B.2: Exposure adjustment factors for divided and one-way roads

Number of lanes in the direction of travel 2 lanes 1.00
More than 2 lanes 0.91
3.0 m 1.15
3.3 m 1.03
Terrain Flat 1.00
Rolling 1.66
Mountainous 1.51
Table B.3: Exposure adjustment factors for urban undivided roads with operating speeds less than or equal
to 90 km/h

3.0 m 1.85
3.3 m 1.49
Terrain Flat 1.00
Rolling 2.58
Figure B.3: Gradient correction factor
Source: Ray et al. (2012b) and QDTMR (2016).

Figure B.4: Curve correction factor
Source: Ray et al. (2012b) and QDTMR (2016)
The overall exposure is then the base encroachment rate (from Figure B.1 for example), multiplied by factors
for the number of lanes, the lane width and the terrain, road gradient and curve radii.
B.2 Likelihood
The likelihood of colliding with a hazard in the verge after the vehicle has left the road depends on the
roadside cross section and the speed of vehicles on the road. The likelihood of a collision with a hazard is
the probability of a vehicle travelling beyond the lateral distance from the road to the hazard. RSAPv3 does
not explicitly use a function to describe the likelihood of travelling beyond a lateral distance but rather uses
890 trajectories established in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project 17-22
Crash Reconstruction Database (Albuquerque, Sicking & Stolle 2010) to predict impacts. The procedure,
presented here, uses a function that describes a likelihood of travel beyond a lateral distance from the edge
of the travel lanes (Figure B.5). This lateral distance to a hazard includes the road shoulder, whether paved
or not.
Figure B.5: Lateral distance measures
The likelihood model is based on the lateral extent model documented in the AASHTO Roadside Design
Guide Edition 4 (AASHTO 2011a), which includes a relationship for multi-lane divided roads and for two lane
undivided roads. A re-evaluation of data from Austroads (2011) together with encroachment data from
RSAPv3 led to the conclusion that the multi-lane curve can be used for all road types. (This curve is also
more conservative for two-lane roads in that it predicts that drivers travel further from the road.)

The likelihood of a vehicle colliding with a hazard uses the model documented in the AASHTO Roadside
Design Guide Edition 4 for roads with an operating speed of 110 km/h. For roads with a lower operating
speed (and typically a lower design speed) the expected distance travelled by drivers is related to the square
of the operating speed.
On shorter radii corners, the lateral distance travelled by a vehicle increases. AASHTO (2011a) allowed for
this effect by increasing the clear zone requirement by a factor based on the operating speed and the radius
of the curve. This effect has been included in the likelihood function shown in Figure B.6, Figure B.7 and
Figure B.8 for roads with different operating speeds.
Likelihood curves are given for only three operating speeds because the level of science and data supporting
these relationships is limited. As more comprehensive research data becomes available, there will be more
confidence in extending the data. The designer would use the more conservative graph. For instance, if the
operating speed is 100 km/h, then use the 110 km/h operating speed instead of interpolating between
graphs. On the other hand, if the radii are between the values in a single figure, then the user should
interpolate. The process is based on the best available information and a high level of accuracy is not
implied.
Figure B.6: Likelihood of reaching a lateral distance for a road with an operating speed of 110 km/h and with
curves of different radii
100
Likelihood of reaching lateral distance
90
80 Curve radius
70 Straight
60 1200 m
700 m
(%)
50
≤450 m
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Lateral distance (m)
Source: Adapted from Austroads (2020e).

Figure B.7: Likelihood of reaching a lateral distance for road with a 90 km/h operating speed and with curves
of different radii
100
90
80
70
Curve radius
60
Straight
(%)
50 1200 m
40 450 m
30 ≤300 m
20
10
0
0 4 8 12 16 20

Figure B.8: Likelihood of reaching a lateral distance for road with a 70 km/h operating speed and with curves
of different radii
100
90
80
70 Curve radius
60 Straight
50
(%)
900 m
40 300 m
30 ≤150 m
20
10
0
0 4 8 12 16
For rural roads, the likelihood of colliding with an oncoming vehicle once the errant vehicle has crossed the
lane line is a function of the opposing traffic flow which has been assumed to be half the total traffic flow
(AADT). Refer to Figure B.9. At this stage, a similar graph for urban roads is not available.

Figure B.9: Likelihood of a vehicle crossing a lane line and colliding with an oncoming vehicle on an undivided
rural road with a speed limit of 100 km/h
10
9
8
7
Likelihood (%)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Bi-directional AADT

As described in Section 1.9.4, the assessment process involves measuring the effective lateral distance from
the road to a hazard. If there is an embankment slope 6:1 or flatter, then the width of the embankment is
included in the measure. If the embankment slope is steeper than 6:1, but not steeper than 4:1, the lateral
distance is the distance to the hazard excluding the width of the embankment. Embankment slopes of 3:1
and steeper are considered to be a hazard in their own right and the area beyond the embankment is not
included in the lateral distance measure. See Figure B.10 which is the same as Figure 1.3. Drivers of both
cars and trucks are able to regain control on embankments that are 6:1 or flatter.
In practice, a number of hazards are often in close proximity to each other and the designer should assess
whether they can be considered collectively as one large (or longer) hazard, given that they have similar
Trauma Indices. Otherwise, treat the hazards as being independent with each having a different Trauma
Index.
The ground surface to the hazard should be traversable by vehicles. Ground surfaces in the verge with
ditches, rock spalls, obstacles or steep slopes should be considered a hazard in themselves. They may
cause a vehicle’s undercarriage to become snagged with the result that drivers lose control. The propensity
for vehicles to roll over increases with the roughness of the ground and with the slope of the embankment.
Refer to Appendix B.4.1 for additional guidance.
Where there is an auxiliary lane adjacent to the through lane it is appropriate to consider the auxiliary lane
width as part of the lateral distance to the hazard for vehicles in the through lane. However, the available
lateral distance for drivers using the auxiliary lane should also be considered. The lateral distance to a
hazard for turning lanes should be determined by allowing for appropriate deceleration and a reduced speed,
or in the case of an acceleration lane by determining the likely speed adjacent to the hazard being
considered. A separate analysis should be done for through lanes and auxiliary lanes.

Figure B.10: Lateral distance to a hazard

Vehicles are considered errant when they leave the travelled path onto either the median or the verge. For
this reason, the lateral distance to hazards apply to both sides of the travelled path and each direction must
be independently derived according to the road conditions. The implications for multilane divided roads and
two lane, two way roads are illustrated in Figure B.5.
The product of the exposure and the likelihood of a vehicle travelling beyond the lateral distance to a hazard
gives the expected frequency of impacts per year per kilometre.
B.3 Likelihood of Colliding with a Point Hazard and a Length of Road Safety
Barrier
Mak et al. (2010) reported on the impact conditions associated with serious run-off-road crashes. They
reported the mean departure angles of between 17° and 18° for speeds between 70 and 115 km/h.
Burbridge (2019) has reviewed the characteristics of vehicle departure from the roadway. He found that
approximately one third of the crashes observed by Doecke and Woolley (2010) were drift off the road
crashes. The mean departure angle for these vehicles was 7°. In the remaining two-thirds of the crashes,
vehicles driven off the road following a loss of control had a mean departure angle of 17°.

AASHTO (1989) describes a process for estimating collision frequency. This was incorporated into the 2010
edition of Part 6 of the Austroads Guide to Road Design 3 . As the vehicle is not tracking, the swath width of
the vehicle is assumed to be greater than the width of the vehicle and AASHTO (1989) assumed a swath
width of 3.6 m. Using a departure angle of 17° and a swath width of 3.6 m for the drive off the road crashes,
the distance from A to D is 17 m. See Figure B.11. Vehicles driven off the road departing the road between A
and D are assumed to collide with the hazard.
For vehicles that drift off the road, the swath width is assumed to be the width of a vehicle or 1.9 m. the
length between A and D is 25 m. Using the approximate ratio between crashes involving vehicles driving off
the road and yawing or off-tracking and vehicles drifting off the road, the average distance over which
vehicles leave the road and collide with a hazard is 19 m.
Consequently, the likelihood of an impact with a single tree is 0.019 times the likelihood for a continuous
hazard measured over 1 km.
If the hazard was larger with a length of L (measured parallel to the road) and with the same width, then the
length of road over which an errant vehicle is assumed to collide with the hazard is 18 + L. These lengths
should be used in the analysis of the risk due to a point hazard. The likelihood of an impact with a longer
hazard is (18 + L)/1000 times the likelihood for a continuous hazard measured over 1 km.
The same process is used to establish the number of drivers who are expected to impact a barrier where X is
the length of the barrier installation, including terminals. The likelihood of an impact with a safety barrier is
(18 + X)/1000 times the likelihood for a continuous safety barrier measured over 1 km. Note that a barrier
extends beyond the hazard.
Figure B.11: Impact envelopes for a hazard 1 m by 1 m (not to scale)
The ’drive-off-the-road’ condition is on the left and the ‘drift off’ condition is on the right.
3 This process is also incorporated in the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Roadside Impact Severity Calculator
(RISC) program (QDTMR, 2016)

B.4 Severity
The likely severity of impacts with a hazard uses similar concepts to other approaches. In the previous
version of AGRD Part 6, the impact severity was related to the average crash costs for impacts with a hazard
type. Unfortunately, the basis for these severity indices has not been well documented and would appear to
have developed over time by ‘experience and judgement’. Ray et al. (2012b) re-evaluated the severity
indices based on reported analyses in the literature and used the Equivalent Fatal Crash Cost Ratio
(EFCCR) to define the severity of impacts with a hazard. The EFCCR is the average crash cost associated
with the impacts divided by the average cost of a fatal crash 4.
In the procedure described here, the EFCCR values used in RSAPv3 and their associated severity indices
were used to construct a Trauma Index that is linearly related to the expected number of fatal and serious
injures (FSIs) (Austroads 2020e).
The Trauma Index for a hazard provides a useful estimate of the likely number of FSI crashes. If one hazard
has twice the Trauma Index of another hazard, it is expected to have twice the number of FSI crashes from
impacts on average. The following tables and figures list the Trauma Indices for an operating speed of 110
km/h and are listed for isolated and continuous hazards along the length of the road. The Trauma Indices for
a lower operating speed are a function of these values.
Trauma Indices (and severity indices used in the past) are difficult to measure, as the data need to include all
crashes with an object and not just those that had a fatal or serious injury outcome. The Trauma Index is not
to be confused with the Severity Index in older publications or the expected FSI from the stereotype tables
(Austroads 2020e).
B.4.1 Consistent Background Hazards
The Trauma Indices for continuous hazards are listed in Table B.4 to Table B.7. These generally apply to the
background hazards (refer to Section 1.9.2).
Frequently there will be trees on embankments or at the bottom of the embankments. The trees will be then
the defining hazard. Kerbs with a vertical face over 100 mm high on roads with operating speeds of 80 km/h
or greater and a minor hazard should be given a Trauma Index of the ‘Generic rigid wall’ (0.77).
Other hazards, which do not have a Trauma Index, will need to be assigned one based on judgement. A rock
cutting can be used for significant continuous hazards in most situations.
Table B.5 and Table B.7 refer to relatively smooth batter slopes. Rocks and erosion gullies are hazards in
their own right and can be treated as a generic fixed object or a rock cutting. These tables account for
rollover on embankments. Refer to Appendix B.5 for a discussion of rollovers on flat terrain or on slopes
flatter than 6:1.
Some steep embankment slopes may not constitute a direct hazard but prevent errant vehicles from
recovering when they leave the road and run onto the embankment. A 6:1 embankment will allow a majority
of both car and truck drivers to regain control. The condition of the ground surface may increase the
hazardousness of an embankment. If the embankment surface has ruts deeper than 0.2 m or has large
stones protruding more than 0.2 m above the surface, the Trauma Index for these slopes should be doubled.
The propensity for vehicles to rollover is increased on steeper embankments.
4 Note this is based on the number of fatal crashes and not the number of fatalities

Table B.4: Trauma Indices for continuous features – operating speed = 110 km/h
Hazard Trauma Index – 110 km/h

Generic rigid wall 0.77
Rock cutting 6.0
Tree lined edge 6.0
Rocks protruding between 200 mm and 300 mm above the ground surface 6.0
Ruts in the ground surface more than 300 mm deep 6.0*
Rocks protruding between 100 mm and 150 mm above the ground surface 3.0*
Ruts in the ground surface between 200 and 300 mm deep 3.0*
* Assumed values
Source: Austroads (2020e).
Fast-moving bodies of water are considered to be more hazardous than still water. In general, designers
should carefully consider the risk associated with bodies of water over 0.6 m deep, or watercourses with a
normal base flow depth greater than 0.6 m, as these could cause a stunned, trapped, or injured occupant to
drown. Refer to the Guide to Road Design Part 5B: Drainage: Open Channels, Culverts and Floodways
(Austroads 2018b) for more details.
The entries in Table B.5 to Table B.7 should not be interpolated but rather the larger Trauma Index should
be used. For instance, if the water depth is 3 m and the height is 1 m, use the values for a 4 m water depth
and a height of 2 m, giving a Trauma Index of 30.
Table B.5: Trauma Indices for embankment slopes on fills and in cuts – operating speed = 110 km/h
Cuts Fills
All Slope Height

heights
0 to 2 m 2 to 5 m 5 to 10 m 10 to 20 m More than 20 m
0.35 6:1 * 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63
0.35 4:1 0.69 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
0.35 3:1 0.83 1.4 1.5 1.5 2.1
0.61 2:1 1.3 3.5 4.5 6.7 9.9
0.74 1.5:1 1.7 7.0 14 27 39
0.90 1:1
0.80 Vertical
Note: * For embankments flatter than 6:1, the rollover risk should be evaluated using Appendix B.5.

Table B.6: Trauma Indices for vertical drops and water depths – operating speed = 110 km/h
Water depth
Height
1 m and lower 2.0 m 4.0 m 6 m and higher
0.0 m 1.2 7.2 17 35
0.3 m 2.0 9.9 22 38
2.0 m 5.2 20 30 40
4.0 m 12 28 35 43
6.0 m 19 33 39 45
8.0 m 28 36 42 46
10 m and higher 45 48 51 52
Table B.7: Trauma Indices for parallel V drains with a height less than 1.2 m – operating speed = 110 km/h
Back slope
Front slope
6:1 4:1 3:1 2:1
6:1 0.55 0.59 0.61 0.68
4:1 0.68 0.69 0.80
3:1 0.73 0.81 0.90
2:1 0.90 1.0
Notes:
1 It is recognised that V drains are not a preferred cross-section. This table is included because these drains exist on
the network.
2 Some values in this table are lower than similar values in Table B.5.
B.4.2 Isolated Hazards
The Trauma Indices for isolated (point) hazards are contained in Table B.8 and Table B.9.
Culverts can be considered to be a point hazard and the Trauma Index depends on their design. If the
headwall is proud of the embankment slope, then the culvert end treatment should be treated as a generic
fixed object unless there is a grate over the entry that allows vehicles to drive across it. Otherwise, values for
embankment slopes, from Table B.5, can be used.
Generic fixed object includes large planter boxes, protruding footings, non-traversable driveway headwalls
and non-traversable culvert headwalls.
It should be noted that while trees less than 75 mm in diameter are not considered to be hazards, they can
grow to become hazards in the future. Designers should consider the final trunk diameter.

Table B.8: Trauma Indices for point hazards – operating speed = 110 km/h
Hazard Trauma Index – 110 km/h

Tree with a trunk of 75 to 100 mm in diameter 0.53
Signs breakaway 0.75
Small wooden sign 0.75
Slip base or energy absorbing poles 1.9
Tree with a trunk of 150 to 200 mm in diameter 3.1
Generic fixed object 6.0
Utility pole 6.4
Tree with a trunk 250 mm and larger in diameter 6.7
Traffic signal pole 8.6
Bridge pier column 44
Other hazards, which do not have a Trauma Index, will need to be assigned a Trauma Index based on
judgement. As a guide, mailboxes, signs on inappropriate slip-bases, hydrant bases more than 100 mm high,
could be conservatively assumed to have a Trauma Index equivalent to a tree with a trunk diameter of 150 to
250 mm.
Table B.9: Trauma Indices for slopes parallel to the road – operating speed = 110 km/h
Upslope Downslope height

All heights Slope
0 to 2 m 2 to 5 m 5 to 10 m More than 10 m
0.73 6:1 and flatter 1.0 1.9 2.7
1.09 4:1 1.2 3.7 11 14
1.6 3:1 1.2 4.4 17 25
3.3 2:1 1.2 4.5 21 38
5.0 1.5:1 1.2 4.5 21 42
6.5 1:1
B.4.3 Roadside Barriers
The Trauma Index for safety barriers is 0.43 to 0.84 for operating speeds of 110 km/h. A range is given here
as the guidance for the final selection of a barrier is in Section 6. For the risk evaluation, a Trauma Index of
0.84 should be used.

B.4.4 Oncoming Vehicles
The Trauma Index for oncoming vehicles is 87 for rural roads with an operating speed of 110 km/h. This
ensures that the number of fatal and serious injuries from head-on crashes under a generalised cross section
and the number of fatal and serious injuries from vehicles running off the road are approximately the same at
an AADT of 5700 veh/day as demonstrated in NZ Transport Agency (2011). (Refer to Austroads 2020e).
B.4.5 Trauma Indices for Roadside Features on Roads with Other Operating Speeds
Trauma Indices for roadside features on roads with different operating speeds are evaluated by multiplying
the Trauma Index for roads with an operating speed of 110 km/h by a factor. The factor for roads with an
operating speed of 90 km/h is 0.548, for roads with an operating speed of 80 km/h it is 0.385 for roads and
with an operating speed of 70 km/h or less it is 0.258. These factors are based on the third power law.
For example, if the Trauma Index is 5.0 for an operating speed of 110 km/h, then the Trauma Index would be
5*0.548 or 2.7 on roadsides where the operating speed is 90 km/h.
B.5 Evaluation of Risk Associated with Vehicle Rollovers
Rollovers on relatively flat terrain had previously been considered to be not hazardous. Austroads (2011)
have identified that a considerable number of serious and fatal crashes involved the vehicle rolling over.
Austroads (2020e) developed a method for predicting the likelihood and severity of rollover events. This later
work considered the Trauma Index of a rollover to be equal to the Trauma Index of vehicles traversing a 6:1
embankment slope, which is 0.63. The severity of a rollover is not changed with operating speed.
The likelihood is proportional to the width of the area alongside the road that has a slope flatter than 6:1. The
average probability of a rollover was reported in Ray et al. (2012b) and was applied at the average distance
a vehicle would travel from the traffic lane in flat terrain. This is explained by the curves in Figure B.6 to
Figure B.8. The likelihood is also affected by the square of the operating speed of the rural road. Likelihood
is given by Equation B2.
Likelihood = 0.592 fS X B2
where
Likelihood = Likelihood of a rollover on relatively flat terrain (per cent)
The lateral width of the flat area beside the traffic lane. This width includes the
X =
shoulder and an embankment or area flatter than 6:1 (m)
fS = Operating speed factor listed in Table B.10
Table B.10: Speed factors for the likelihood of a rollover
Operating speed Factor
70 km/h 0.40
90 km/h 0.67
110 km/h 1.00

While the ground condition has been included as a factor in Table B.4, as it is a safety issue if a vehicle
impacts large rocks, a rutted ground also poses an additional risk of rolling over. This has not been
accounted for in this evaluation process as there is no data available to quantify it.
The likelihood function is only applied to rural roads and highways.
B.6 Risk Score
Risk is a function of the frequency of an event occurring and the expected outcomes. In this analysis, the
Risk Score is the product of the exposure, the likelihood and the severity (described by the Trauma Index).
Exposure, likelihood and severity are evaluated using the processes described in Appendix B.1, B.2 and B.3.
The exposure is the number of encroachments per kilometre per year; the likelihood is a probability of a
collision with a hazard given an encroachment. Exposure times likelihood indicates of the expected number
of collisions with a hazard per year. The Trauma Index is linearly related to the number of fatal and serious
injury crashes resulting from impacts with a hazard. The Risk Score is then linearly related to the number of
FSI crashes per kilometre per year. This is consistent with other methods used to review the safety of
roadsides.
If a constant FSI crash rate per million vehicle kilometres of travel (FSI/MVKT) is required, the Risk Score
should be modified by the AADT.
B.6.1 Collective Risk

The Risk Score is the collective risk and represents the total risk of run-off-the-road crashes to the broader
community. It represents the community risk for the roadside configuration over one kilometre. The
procedure to estimate the risk for an isolated tree or short length of road safety barrier is described in
Appendix B.6.3.
The Risk Score for rollover events uses the exposure (from Appendix B.1) and the severity and exposure
from Appendix B.5 The Risk Score for rollovers is added to the Risk Score for background hazards, isolated
hazards and rollovers to give a combined Risk Score.
The risk evaluation process has been based on the US procedure ‘Roadside Safety Analysis Program’
Version 3 (RSAPv3) (Ray et al. 2012a, 2012b). This process is based on the best information available, yet
there are many aspects that are not well defined. Accordingly, the reader should always treat the Risk
Scores as useful estimates and not differentiate between roadsides with similar scores.
The stereotype tables in Austroads (2020f; 2020g) also provide an estimate of the expected number of fatal
and serious injuries based on the Australian National Risk Assessment Model (ANRAM) model (Austroads
2014b). ANRAM provides a broad evaluation of the level of safety for a network within a similar framework
and algorithms to those used in the US Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (AASHTO 2014). The stereotype
tables provide a means to establish broad design parameters for budgeting and planning. These are
appropriate tools to establish a corridor safety vision as part of a Network Safety Plan but are insufficient to
provide a detailed roadside design.
B.6.2 Individual Risk
The individual risk is the relative risk to a road user who runs off the road. It is independent of the traffic on
the road and can be evaluated assuming that the base exposure rate is 1.00 and then applying the relevant
factors from Table B.1 to Table B.3 and Figure B.3 and Figure B.4.

B.6.3 Risk of Short Lengths of Roadside
At times the risk of a short length of roadside will need to be estimated. Examples are:
• a short length of safety barrier
• an isolated hazard when the background hazards alone have a Risk Score lower than the NRRIT, but the
isolated hazards warrant shielding.
The risk is the collective risk calculated using the procedure outlined above multiplied by the length of
roadside edge which errant vehicles cross. For single longer isolated hazards or short lengths of barrier that
extend along the roadside for a distance L, this distance is L + 18 where L is in metres. This concept is
illustrated in Figure B.11 and Appendix B.3. The Risk Score for this short length is then the Risk Score over a
kilometre multiplied by the factor (L + 18)/1000.
The appropriate length of barrier required to shield a hazard is given in Section 6.9.
B.7 Limitations of the Risk Assessment Process
The evaluation of a roadside for many years has revolved around a risk assessment approach essentially
trying to predict the number of collisions and the likely outcomes. Previous editions of this Part have used
these techniques, which have been based on the various editions of the US Roadside Safety Analysis
Program. These models have all considered three aspects of a collision; namely vehicle leaves the roadway,
impacts a hazard, with various outcomes. The data, on which these models are based, are limited. However,
the models do provide estimates of the consequences of engineering design changes on the likely crash
rates and the models have been subjected to limited validation (Ray et al. 2012b).
With the development of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (AASHTO 2014), there is now considerable
research effort to develop greater alignment between the risk assessment models and the HSM crash
modification factors and functions. This research will improve the risk prediction models. Refer to Carrigan &
Ray (2017).
Although this process is based principally on US research, the process does not consider that providing a
clear zone is the first choice treatment; it is one of many treatments that may be considered.
B.8 Worksheets
Worksheets are provided in Table B.11, Table B.12 and Table B.13.
These worksheets are provided on separate pages so that they may be copied and used in the field or
drawing office.

Table B.11: Risk Score calculation worksheet for verges on divided and undivided roads
Group Measure Item Reference Result

General road Terrain (flat, rolling, mountainous) A Plans
characteristics
Environment (urban, rural) B Plans
Operating speed (70 km/h, 80 km/h, 90 km/h, 110 C Plans

km/h)
Divided road? (yes/no) D Plans
Number of lanes in the direction of travel E Plans
Lane width (m) F Plans
Design AADT (veh/day) G Plans
Length of road segment (m) H Plans
Particular road Chainage where roadside is assessed I Plans

characteristics
Side of travelled way (verge/left or median/right) J Plans Verge
Grade (%) (upgrade positive) K Plans
Curve radius (m) (Use 2000 m if straight) L Plans
Curve direction (left/right in the direction of travel) M Plans
Background Description N Plans

hazard
characteristics Lateral distance to the background hazards from the O Plans
edge of lane (m) (Refer to Figure B.10)
Isolated hazard Description P Plans
characteristics
Length of the hazard (m) Q Plans
Average distance between isolated hazards (m) R Plans
Lateral distance to the isolated hazards from the edge S Plans

of lane (m) (Refer to Figure B.10)
Exposure Base exposure (encr/km/yr) T Figure B.1 or
Figure B.2
Number of lanes factor U Table B.1 or
Table B.2
Lane width factor V Table B.1,
Table B.2 or
Table B.3
Terrain factor W Table B.1,
Table B.2 or
Table B.3
Grade factor X Figure B.3
Curve correction factor Y Figure B.4
Exposure (encr/km/yr) Z Product T to Y


Likelihood Likelihood for background hazards (considering curve AA Figure B.6,
radius) Figure B.7 or
Figure B.8
Modification factor for likelihood if the isolated AB 1-(Q+18)/MIN(R,H)
hazards shield the background hazards (Use 1.00 if
shielding does not exist.)
Modified likelihood for background hazards AC AA*AB
Likelihood of impacts with isolated (point) hazards AD Figure B.6,

(based on being continuous) Figure B.7 or
Figure B.8
Likelihood of impacts with isolated hazards AE AD*(Q+18)/MIN(R,H)
Likelihood of a rollover AF Equation A2
Severity Trauma Index for background hazards (operating AH Table B.4 to

(Trauma Index) speed of 110 km/h) Table B.7
Trauma Index for background hazards at the AJ Appendix B.4.5
appropriate operating speed
Trauma Index for isolated hazards (operating speed AK Table B.8 and
of 110 km/h) Table B.9
Trauma Index for isolated hazards at the appropriate AL Appendix B.4.5
operating speed
Trauma Index for a rollover AM 0.63
Risk Score Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AP Z*AC*AJ

likelihood and Trauma Index) for background hazards
Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AQ Z*AE*AL
likelihood and Trauma Index) for isolated hazards
Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AR Z*AF*AM
likelihood and Trauma Index) for rollover events
Combined Risk Score AS AP+AQ+AR

Table B.12: Risk Score calculation worksheet for medians on divided roads

characteristics
Environment (urban, rural) B Plans

km/h)
Divided road? (yes/no) D Plans Yes
Length of road segment (m) H Plans

characteristics
Side of travelled way (verge/left or median/right) J Plans Median
Background Description N Plans

hazard
characteristics Width of median (m) (Refer to Figure B.10) O Plans
Isolated hazard Description P Plans

characteristics
Length of the hazard (m) Q Plans
Average distance between isolated hazards (m) R Plans
Lateral distance to the isolated hazards from the S Plans

Exposure Base exposure (encr/km/yr) T Figure B.1 or
Figure B.2
Number of lanes factor U Table B.1 or
Table B.2
Lane width factor V Table B.1,
Table B.2 or
Table B.3
Terrain factor W Table B.1,
Table B.2 or
Table B.3


Likelihood Likelihood for background hazards (considering AA Figure B.6,
curve radius) Figure B.7 or
Figure B.8
Modification factor for likelihood if the isolated AB 1-(Q+18)/MIN(R,H)
Modified likelihood for background hazards AC AA*AB
Likelihood of impacts with isolated (point) hazards AD Figure B.6,

(based on being continuous) Figure B.7 or
Figure B.8
Likelihood of impacts with isolated hazards AE AD*(Q+18)/MIN(R,H)
Likelihood of a rollover AF Equation A2
Trauma Index Trauma Index for background hazards (operating AH Table B.4 to
speed of 110 km/h) Table B.7
Trauma Index for background hazards at the AJ Appendix B.4.5
Trauma Index for isolated hazards (operating speed AK Table B.8 and
Trauma Index for isolated hazards at the AL Appendix B.4.5
Trauma Index for a rollover AM 0.63
Risk Score Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AP Z*AC*AJ

likelihood and Trauma Index) for background
hazards
Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AQ Z*AE*AL
Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AR Z*AF*AM
Combined Risk Score AS AP+AQ+AR

Table B.13: Risk Score calculation worksheet for oncoming vehicles on undivided rural roads

characteristics
Environment (urban, rural) B Plans Rural
km/h)
Divided road? (yes/no) D Plans No
Length of road segment (m) H Plans 1000

characteristics
Side of travelled way (verge/left or median/right) J Plans Median
Background Description: Oncoming vehicles N Plans
hazard
Distance between oncoming vehicle lanes (m) O Plans
characteristics
Exposure Base exposure (encr/km/yr) T Figure B.1

Number of lanes factor U Table B.1
Lane width factor V Table B.1
Terrain factor W Table B.1
Likelihood Likelihood of impacts with oncoming vehicles AG Figure B.9
Trauma Index Trauma Index for an operating speed of 110 km/h AN Appendix B.4.4 87
Trauma Index at the appropriate operating speed AO Appendix B.4.5
Risk Score Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AT Z*AG*AO
likelihood and Trauma Index)

B.9 Example 1 – Culvert Headwall
A two-lane rural road in rolling terrain has two 3.5 m lanes, an operating speed of 110 km/h and a design
AADT of 4000 veh/day. The cross-section of the roadside is shown in Figure B.12. There is a culvert
headwall 3 m long (in the direction of traffic) 6.4 m from the traffic lanes. There is a 4:1 embankment slope
that is 6.6 m wide. In the vicinity of the culvert, there is a 700 m radius horizontal curve to the right and a
downgrade of 6%. This puts the culvert on the outside of the curve.
There is a line of trees at the toe of the embankment and these can be considered to be a background
continuous hazard with the culvert headwall as an isolated hazard. The embankment could be considered to
be a hazard and the additional Risk Score for the culvert head wall added to the Risk Score for the
embankment. In addition, because the 4:1 embankment slope is reasonably steep and it is considered that
many drivers would not ‘recover’ on this embankment. Consequently, it is assumed that drivers who travel
over the embankment will collide with the trees beyond.
This is a similar example to the one discussed in Section 3.4.2. Here the terrain is rolling and the operating
speed is 110 km/h. In this example, the water course is shallow and not considered to be a hazard.
Figure B.12: Example 1 – culvert headwall on outside of horizontal curve

The calculations are presented in Table B.14 for the case where the trees are the background hazard and
the culvert is the isolated hazard. In this case, the isolated hazard shields the background hazard.
Table B.14: Risk Score calculation for the background hazards being the trees at the toe of the embankment

General road Terrain (flat, rolling, mountainous) A Plans Rolling
characteristics
Operating speed (70 km/h, 80 km/h, 90 km/h, 110 C Plans 110 km/h
km/h)
Number of lanes in the direction of travel E Plans 1
Lane width (m) F Plans 3.5
Design AADT (veh/day) G Plans 4000
Length of road segment (m) H Plans 1000
Particular road Chainage where roadside is assessed I Plans –
characteristics
Side of travelled way (verge/left or median/right) J Plans Verge
Grade (%) (upgrade positive) K Plans –6%
Curve radius (m) (Use 2000 m if straight) L Plans 700


Curve direction (left/right in the direction of travel) M Plans Right
Background Description: Trees at the toe of the embankment N Plans
hazard
Lateral distance to the background hazards from the O Plans 2.4
characteristics
Isolated hazard Description: Drainage culvert headwall P Plans
characteristics
Length of the hazard (m) Q Plans 3
Average distance between isolated hazards (m) R Plans 1000
Lateral distance to the isolated hazards from the S Plans 2.4
Exposure Base exposure (encr/km/yr) T Figure B.1 0.82
Number of lanes factor U Table B.1 1.0
Lane width factor V Table B.1 1.0

Terrain factor W Table B.1 2.58
Grade factor X Figure B.3 2.0
Curve correction factor Y Figure B.4 1.0
Exposure (encr/km/yr) Z Product T to Y 4.22
Likelihood Likelihood for background hazards (considering AA Figure B.6 0.74

curve radius)
Modification factor for likelihood if the isolated AB 1-(Q+18)/MIN(R,H) 0.98

Modified likelihood for background hazards AC AA*AB 0.72
Likelihood of impacts with isolated (point) hazards AD Figure B.6 0.74

(based on being continuous)
Likelihood of impacts with isolated hazards AE AD*(Q+18)/MIN(R,H) 0.02
Likelihood of a rollover AF Equation A2 0.014
Severity Trauma Index for background hazards (operating AH Table B.4 6.0
(Trauma Index) speed of 110 km/h)
Trauma Index for background hazards at the AJ Appendix B.4.5 6.0
Trauma Index for isolated hazards (operating speed AK Table B.8 and 6.0
Trauma Index for isolated hazards at the AL Appendix B.4.5 6.0
Trauma Index for a rollover AM 0.63 0.63
Risk Score Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AP Z*AC*AJ 18.3
hazards
Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AQ Z*AE*AL 0.4
Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AR Z*AF*AM 0.04
Combined Risk Score AS AP+AQ+AR 18.7

An alternative way to look at this issue is to consider the embankment as a background hazard and the
culvert as an isolated hazard. In this case, the culvert does not shield the background (or continuous)
hazard. The calculations for this case are presented in Table B.15. Essentially this assumes that there are no
trees at the toes of the embankment.
Table B.15: Risk Score calculation for the background hazard being the embankment

General road See Table B.14
characteristics
Particular road See Table B.14
characteristics
Background Description: 4:1 embankment N Plans
hazard
characteristics Lateral distance to the background hazards from O Plans 2.4
the edge of lane (m) (Refer to Figure B.10)
Isolated hazard Description: culvert wall P Plans
characteristics

Exposure Exposure (encr/km/yr) (From Table B.14) Z Product T to Y 4.22

curve radius)
hazards shield the background hazards (Use
1.00 if shielding does not exist.)
Likelihood of impacts with isolated (point) AD Figure B.6 0.74

hazards (based on being continuous)
Severity Trauma Index for background hazards AH Table B.4 0.89

(Trauma Index) (operating speed of 110 km/h)
Severity Trauma Index for isolated hazards (operating AK Table B.8 6.0
Trauma Index for isolated hazards at the AL Appendix B.4.5 6.0
hazards
likelihood and Trauma Index) for isolated
hazards

The governing Risk Score is from Table B.14 as this produces the higher combined Risk Score. In both
cases the risk of the background hazard dominates and it may be sufficient to demonstrate that the risk is
above the NRRIT.
Suppose a barrier is used to shield the culvert and the trees at the toe of the embankment (Figure B.12). The
barrier is assumed to be 130 m long including terminals for this example. The details of the barrier would
need to be developed through the discussion in Section 6. Table B.16 describes the Risk Score evaluation.
Here the barrier is the isolated hazard, with a Trauma index of 0.84 (see Appendix B.4.3).
Table B.16: Risk Score calculation for the background hazards being the trees at the toe of the embankment
and shielded with a barrier

General road See Table B.14
characteristics
Particular road See Table B.14
characteristics
Background Description: Trees at the toe of the embankment N Plans
hazard
Lateral distance to the background hazards from the O Plans 2.4
characteristics
Isolated hazard Description: safety barrier P Plans
characteristics

Exposure Exposure (encr/km/yr) (From Table B.14) Z Product T to Y 4.22
Likelihood Likelihood for background hazards (considering curve AA Figure B.6 0.74
radius)
Likelihood Likelihood of impacts with isolated (point) hazards AD Figure B.6 0.83
(based on being continuous)
Severity Trauma Index for background hazards (operating AH Table B.4 6.0
Trauma Index for isolated hazards (operating speed AK Appendix B.4.3 0.84
of 110 km/h)
Trauma Index for isolated hazards at the appropriate AL Appendix B.4.5 0.84
operating speed
likelihood and Trauma Index) for background hazards

The risk has been reduced from 18.7 to 16.4 (for 1 km of road). The road still has a high risk as the majority
of the road has not been treated. The barrier is only 130 m long. There may be other areas that can be
treated with short lengths of barrier, but it is unlikely that they will be effective in reducing the Risk Score to a
low level.
The analysis in Table B.14 and Table B.16 was for a 1 km segment of road. If an analysis was to be
undertaken on a 200 m length of road, then the additional risk of the culvert end wall is more significant.
Table B.17 lists the results for an unshielded culvert and a shielded culvert based on a 200 m length of road.
A 200 m length was chosen as it is longer than the length of the barrier.
Table B.17: Risk Score calculation for a 200 m length of road containing the culvert end wall
Unshielded Shielded
Group Measure Item
roadside roadside
General road Terrain (flat, rolling, mountainous) A Rolling
characteristics
Environment (urban, rural) B Rural
Operating speed (70 km/h, 80 km/h, 90 km/h, C 110 km/h

110 km/h)
Divided road? (yes/no) D No
Number of lanes in the direction of travel E 1
Lane width (m) F 3.5
Design AADT (veh/day) G 4000

Length of road segment (m) H 200
Particular road Chainage where roadside is assessed I –

characteristics
Side of travelled way (verge/left or median/right) J Verge
Grade (%) (upgrade positive) K –6%
Curve radius (m) (Use 2000 m if straight) L 700
Curve direction (left/right in the direction of M Right

travel)
Background Description: N Trees at the toe of the embankment
hazard
characteristics Lateral distance to the background hazards from O 2.4
Isolated hazard Description P Drainage culvert Safety barrier
characteristics headwall
Length of the hazard (m) Q 3 130
Average distance between isolated hazards (m) R 200 200
Lateral distance to the isolated hazards from the S 2.4 1.5

Exposure Base exposure (encr/km/yr) T 0.82
Number of lanes factor U 1.0
Lane width factor V 1.0

Terrain factor W 2.58
Grade factor X 2.0
Curve correction factor Y 1.0
Exposure (encr/km/yr) Z 4.22

Unshielded Shielded
Group Measure Item
roadside roadside
Likelihood Likelihood for background hazards (considering AA 0.74 0.74
curve radius)
Modification factor for likelihood if the isolated AB 0.90 0.26
Modified likelihood for background hazards AC 0.66 0.19
Likelihood of impacts with isolated (point) AD 0.74 0.83

hazards (based on being continuous)
Likelihood of impacts with isolated hazards AE 0.08 0.61
Likelihood of a rollover AF 0.014 0.014
Severity Trauma Index for background hazards AH 6.0 6.0

(Trauma Index) (operating speed of 110 km/h)
Trauma Index for background hazards at the AJ 6.0 6.0
Trauma Index for isolated hazards (operating AK 6.0 0.84
speed of 110 km/h)
Trauma Index for isolated hazards at the AL 6.0 0.84
Risk Score Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AP 16.7 4.9
hazards
Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AQ 2.0 2.2
likelihood and Trauma Index) for isolated
hazards
Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AR 0.04 0.04
Combined Risk Score AS 18.7 7.1
The results in Table B.17 show a much greater improvement, simply because of the shorter road segment.
Note that the results have been normalised as if to apply over 1 km length of road. This can be visualised as
5 identical 200 m road segments used to produce a 1 km segment. The risk when the culvert is shielded is
still high as there is still 70 m of unshielded trees. Table B.17 does indicate the value in shielding the end
wall, but it has not reduced the risk to be below the NRRIT.
If a continuous barrier is installed 1.5 m from the traffic lane and the operating speed is reduced to 90 km/h
then the risk is as calculated in Table B.18. Note that in this case there are no isolated hazards and the
background hazard is the safety barrier. This has greatly reduced the risk to errant vehicles at this roadside.

Table B.18: Risk Score calculation for reduced speeds and a continuous barrier

General road Terrain (flat, rolling, mountainous) A Plans Rolling
characteristics
Operating speed (70 km/h, 80 km/h, 90 km/h, C Plans 90 km/h

110 km/h)
Number of lanes in the direction of travel E Plans 1
Lane width (m) F Plans 3.5 m
Design AADT (veh/day) G Plans 4000
Particular road As in Table B.14

characteristics
Background Description: safety barrier N Plans
hazard
characteristics Lateral distance to the background hazards from O Plans 1.5 m
Isolated hazard No isolated hazards
characteristics
Exposure Exposure (encr/km/yr) (see Table B.14) Z 4.22

curve radius)
Modification factor for likelihood if the isolated AB 1-(O+18)/P 1.00
Modified likelihood for background hazards AC Y*Z 0.74
Trauma Index Trauma Index for background hazards AH Table B.4 0.84
(operating speed of 110 km/h)
hazards
Combined Risk Score AS AP+ AR 1.44
Note: Rows have been omitted when they were not relevant or were previously calculated.
Note that the analysis does not consider only the isolated hazards, but a combination of background and
isolated hazards. Also note that the risk relates to a longer road segment not just to a short length around a
hazard. This enables the risk to be standardised (over 1 km) and for a more global view of risk to be obtained.
This example assumed rolling terrain. Table B.1 indicated that in rolling terrain, there are 2.58 more
encroachments over the number on level terrain. For most well-designed roads this would seem to be an
excessive factor and, in most cases, rolling and mountainous should be used for poorer design standard
roads in hilly and mountainous regions. It is important to note that roads in rolling terrain have more
encroachments than roads in mountainous terrain, other things being equal.

B.10 Example 2 – Centreline Treatments on a Rural Two-lane Road
In this example, a two-lane rural road has 3.5 m lanes, 3 m shoulders and a line of trees 5 m from the road.
The current AADT is 3000 vehicles per day. The road is flat and the operating speed is 110 km/h. In 10
years, development will see the traffic increase. It is questioned whether the road should have a barrier in the
centre of the road or not, both now and when the AADT is 5000 veh/day.
The process, outlined above, gives a Risk Score of 2.0 for an AADT of 3000 veh/day. The risk associated
with oncoming vehicles is evaluated using Table B.13. For this example, the result, shown in Table B.19, is a
Risk Score of 1.6.
When the Traffic has increased to 5000 veh/day, the Risk Score for the roadside increases to 2.20 and the
cross median Risk Score has increased to 2.78. This is also shown in Table B.19.
If the NRRIT is 2.0, then the verges should be treated when the AADT is 3000 veh/day. The median needs to
be treated when the traffic is 5000 veh/day and perhaps before. To establish when the median needs to be
treated requires the process, described here, to be used iteratively. This has not been done for this example.
Table B.19: Risk Score for a median treatment of a two-lane two-way rural road
Item Result for AADT = Result for AADT =

Group Measure
3000 veh/day 5000 veh/day
General road Terrain (flat, rolling, mountainous) A Flat
characteristics
Environment (urban, rural) B Rural
Operating speed (70 km/h, 80 km/h, 90 km/h, C 110 km/h

110 km/h)
Divided road? (yes/no) D No
Number of lanes in the direction of travel E 1
Lane width (m) F 3.5
Design AADT (veh/day) G 3000 5000
Length of road segment (m) H 1000
Particular road Chainage where roadside is assessed I –

characteristics
Side of travelled way (verge/left or median/right) J Median
Grade (%) (upgrade positive) K 0
Curve radius (m) (Use 2000 m if straight) L Straight
Curve direction (left/right in the direction of M –

travel)
Background Description: Oncoming vehicles N
hazard
characteristics Distance between oncoming vehicle lanes (m) O 0
Exposure Base exposure (encr/km/yr) T 0.76 0.83
Number of lanes factor U 1.0
Lane width factor V 1.0

Terrain factor W 1.0
Grade factor X 1.0
Curve correction factor Y 1.0
Exposure (encr/km/yr) Z 0.74 0.83

Item Result for AADT = Result for AADT =

Group Measure
3000 veh/day 5000 veh/day
Likelihood Likelihood of impacts with oncoming vehicles AG 0.025 0.039
Trauma Index Trauma Index for an operating speed of 110 AN 87 87

km/h
Trauma Index at the appropriate operating AO 87 87
speed
Risk Score Calculate Risk Score (product of the exposure, AT 1.6 2.8
likelihood and Trauma Index)
B.11 Number of Fatal and Serious injuries
The procedure here is based on the expected notional number of FSI crashes. The Risk Score has been
developed to be proportional to the number of FSI crashes. Double the Risk Score and the number of FSI
crashes are expected to double.
The NZ Transport Agency (2011) indicated that there were 1.6 times as many fatal and serious injuries as
there were FSI crashes for head-on crashes. For run-off-the-road crashes, there were 1.2 times as many
fatal and serious injuries as there were FSI crashes. These ratios were used in developing the likelihood
function for the risk of collisions with oncoming vehicles on two-lane rural roads.

Appendix C Treatment of Roads Based on Jurisdictional

Policies
A road agency may establish policies for the installation of safety treatments on roads in a uniform fashion. A
jurisdiction might have policies that included:
• the installation of barriers on selected road segments regardless of roadside and median dimensions
(Appendix C.1)
• the installation of barriers to shield and to protect critical infrastructure or land (Appendix C.2
• the installation of barriers between adjacent carriageways (Appendix C.3)
• the installation of barriers or barrier types or other treatments for other defined road types and locations. This
includes a Safe System policy of installing continuous barriers along defined rural roads (Appendix C.4).
While the locations described in these dot points are considered appropriate for all jurisdictions, it is up to
each jurisdiction to establish its own policies. The following sections discuss these locations in more detail.
The requirements for bridge parapets and hence associated bridge approaches are described in the Bridge
Design Code (AS 5100.1-2017) or the Bridge Manual (NZ Transport Agency 2013) as appropriate.
Roadsides that are subject to a particular jurisdictional policy are not evaluated by the risk assessment
method described in Section 3.
C.1 Installation of Barriers on Particular Road Segments
The requirements for installing barriers on freeways and high speed divided carriageway roads in greenfield
areas are documented in Section 2.3. The NDD requirements for barriers on freeways and rural highways in
brownfield sites should follow the requirements for greenfield sites.
The AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO 2011a) indicates that a barrier is optional in medians 15 m
and wider or with an AADT less than 20 000 veh/day. Consideration could be given to establishing a
jurisdictional EDD policy to allow for barriers to be not installed in a median of a rural highway, with an
operating speed of 110 km/h, if the median is wider than 15 m or the AADT is less than 20 000 veh/day. (A
barrier is required if the median is narrower than 15 m and the AADT is more than 20 000 veh/day.)
Roadside safety for many roads, with divided carriageways and operating speeds less than 100 km/h, would
benefit from the installation of barriers. This can be addressed through a jurisdictional policy or a corridor
safety vision.
C.2 Installation of Barriers at Sites with High Consequence Infrastructure and

Land
High consequence infrastructure is an artificial object for a public utility that cannot feasibly be removed or
relocated and if impacted by an errant vehicle the consequences could include:
• significant personal injury (including fatalities) to the occupants of the errant vehicle and other road users
• significant personal injury (including fatal injury) to others in or around the incident site
• events that indirectly cause significant disruption to a sector of the community.
Examples include bridges, bridge piers, gantries, rail infrastructure, mass transport system components,
airport infrastructure and electricity transmission towers.

High consequence land has a primary use that is not for a public utility and is located outside of the road
corridor. If encroached into by an errant vehicle, the consequences could include:
• significant personal injury (including fatalities) to the occupants of the errant vehicle and other road users
• significant personal injury (including fatalities) to a predictably high concentration of people in or around
the incident site.
Examples may include some schools, child care centres and fuel storage facilities, but generally do not
include residential or commercial land uses.
High consequence infrastructure and land may warrant protection regardless of the number of road users.
This is often termed third party protection. These sites may be shielded without further evaluation if the need
for protection can be justified on the criticality of the infrastructure or land to the community.
C.3 Installation of Barriers Between Adjacent Carriageways
At times, adjacent carriageways present a hazard to occupants of errant vehicles on one carriageway and
road users on the other carriageway. Section 2.3.1 covers the medians on roads with divided carriageways.
There are some additional road configurations where barriers between traffic streams should be considered.
These include:
• between a high-occupancy vehicle lane and normal traffic lanes
• on freeway/motorway carriageways that require separation for same direction traffic to manage access
to/from multiple destinations
• on carriageways where there is traffic adjacent to the through traffic where there is a speed differential
equal to or greater than 20 km/h.
C.4 Installation of Barriers or Other Safety Measures on Other Defined Road

Types and Locations
A jurisdictional policy may be developed to include:

• the installation of continuous barriers
• the installation of wide centreline treatments with or without a barrier
• the installation of barriers or barrier types for other defined road types and locations for instance the
treatment on high fill embankments or culverts where the risk to an individual is high and the jurisdiction is
responding to a perceived risk
• the installation of audio-tactile line-marking on rural roads
• the sealing of shoulders
• a mass action plan to remove a particular hazard. For instance, the plan might be to replace old style
breakaway cable terminals (BCTs) with compliant terminals.
Policies may be written as a generic jurisdiction-wide policy or they may be written as a corridor specific
policy and included in the corridor safety vision. For instance, Safe System solutions (Austroads 2018a)
could be applied to a corridor in this manner. Refer to Section 2.3.
If such a policy exists then the barrier can be installed without further analysis, although the policy needs to
be justified through the application of the guidelines in this Part.

Appendix D Risk Score Charts
These Risk Score charts are provided on consecutive pages so that a user is able to quickly gain an
assessment of the risk of run-off-the-road crashes on the roadside. These charts were developed using the
procedure in Appendix B. Assumed values for the roadside geometry and characteristics are used for each
chart and these are listed in tables below each chart. Table D.1 is a summary of the charts presented in this
Appendix.
Table D.1: Risk evaluated in the figures in this appendix
Reference road
Figure Risk evaluated Charts
characteristics
D.1 Undivided rural roads with background hazards 1 to 5 Table D.2
D.2 Undivided rural roads with isolated and background hazards 6 to 10 Table D.3
D.3 Undivided rural roads with isolated and no background hazards 11 and 12 Text
D.4 Vehicle rollover on roadsides on undivided rural roads 13 Text
D.5 Divided urban roads with significant background hazards 14 to 16 Table D.4
D.6 Divided urban roads with isolated and background hazards 17 to 19 Table D.4
D.7 Undivided lower speed urban roads with background hazards 20 to 22 Table D.5
D.8 Roadside barriers on undivided rural roads 23 to 25 Table D.6
D.9 Roadside barriers on divided carriageway urban roads 26 to 28 Table D.6

D.10 Roadside barriers on divided roads with an operating speed of 110 km/h 29 Text
D.11 Culvert headwalls 30 to 34 Table D.7
Figure D 1 establishes the Risk Score for undivided rural roads with significant background hazards at
different offsets and for different operating speeds and road types. Table D.2 lists the road characteristics
assumed in each chart. In rural areas, the operating speed is taken as the design speed, while in urban
areas the operating speed is taken as the speed limit. (These are copied from Figure 1.6 and Table 1.1).
Figure D.2 establishes the Risk Score for undivided rural roads with significant isolated hazards at different
average spacings along a roadside and for different operating speeds and is evaluated over 1 km. Table D.3
lists the road characteristics assumed in each chart. (These are copied from Figure 1.7 and Table 1.2).
Figure D.3 establishes the Risk Score for isolated significant hazards on undivided rural roads without
background hazards and is a copy of Figure 1.8.
Figure D.4 establishes the Rollover Risk Score for undivided rural roads without background hazards and an
operating speed of 110 km/h and is a copy of Figure 1.9.
Figure D.5 illustrates the Risk Score for divided urban roads with significant hazards at different offsets and
for different operating speeds and Figure D.6 illustrates the Risk Score for divided urban roads with
significant hazards at different average spacings along a roadside and for different operating speeds. (These
figures are copies of Figure 1.10 and Figure 1.11). Table D.4 lists the road characteristics for Figure D.5 and
Figure D.6.
Figure D.7 illustrates the Risk Score for single carriageway urban roads with significant continuous hazards
at different offsets from the road and for different operating speeds (refer to Table D.5 for road details). This
figure is provided to illustrate the expected risk although designers should use this figure in the knowledge
that this is an extrapolation of the data and the Ray et al. (2012b) procedure.

Figure D.8 illustrates the Risk Score for roadside barriers on undivided rural roads with different operating
speeds and terrain and Figure D.9 illustrates the Risk Score for roadside barriers on divided carriageway
urban roads with different operating speeds and barrier offsets. Table D.6 lists the road details for these
charts. (These are copied from Figure 1.12 and Figure 1.13 and Table 1.5 and Table 1.6).
Figure D.10 illustrates the Risk Score for roadside barriers on divided carriageway urban and rural roads with
an operating speed of 110 km/h and is a copy of Figure 1.14.
Figure D.11 illustrates the Risk Score for culvert headwalls which are classified as being significant hazards.
The road section length is 100 m, rather than the 1 km length used in other charts in this Appendix. Table
D.7 lists the road details for these charts.
Table D.8 lists the significant hazards (from Section 1.9.2) and less significant hazards from Section 1.9.3. If
the road has background hazards in the less significant list, then the Risk Score should be reduced by using
the factors shown in Table D.8. (Also see Section 1.9.3).
Table D.9 lists the Risk Score adjustment factors for curve radii on two-lane rural roads. This is a copy of
Table 1.3. Table D.10 lists the Risk Score adjustment factors for the gradient of two-lane rural roads. This is
a copy of Table 1.4.

Figure D 1: Risk Score for undivided rural roads with significant background hazards
Table D.2: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure D 1
Chart
number
1 Rural mountainous Mountainous 70 km/h 3.0 m
70 km/h
Note: There are no isolated hazards.

Figure D.2: Risk Score for undivided rural roads with significant isolated and background hazards
Note: Refer to Table D.3 for road and hazard characteristics and dimensions. The road segments are straight or winding
without sharp curves and with a nominal length of 1 km.
Table D.3: Rural road characteristics for the Risk Score charts in Figure D.2
Chart Background Isolated

number hazards at hazards at
Rural mountainous
6 Mountainous 70 km/h 3.0 m 3m 1m
70 km/h

Figure D.3: Risk Score for undivided rural roads with isolated and no background hazards
Note: Lanes are 3.5 m wide. The terrain is flat. The operating speed is 110 km/h.
Figure D.4: Risk Score for vehicle rollover on roadsides on undivided rural roads
Note: Lanes are 3.5 m wide. The terrain is flat. The operating speed is 110 km/h. The Risk Score axis has a different
scale from other charts.

Figure D.5: Risk Score for divided urban roads with significant background hazards
Note: Refer to Table D.4 for road characteristics.
Figure D.6: Risk Score for divided urban roads with significant isolated and background hazards
Table D.4: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure D.5 and Figure D.6
Offset of
Chart Operating
Chart description Terrain Lane width background Isolated hazards
number speed
hazards
14 Urban 70 km/h Flat 70 km/h 3.5 m
15 Urban 80 km/h Flat 80 km/h 3.5 m Various nil
Various average
18 Urban 80 km/h Flat 80 km/h 3.5 m 4.0 m* spacings at 1 m
offsets
* The background hazard is a generic wall 4.0 m from the edge of the traffic lane.

Figure D.7: Risk Score for undivided lower speed urban roads with background hazards
Table D.5: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure D.7
Offset of Offset in
Operating Lane
Chart number Rural or urban Terrain background isolated

speed width
hazards hazards
20 Urban undivided Flat 50 km/h 3.5 m Various Nil
Notes:
1. These charts are provided for comparison purposes and are an extrapolation of the method.
2. The Risk Score between 5000 and 10000 AADTs is constant.

Figure D.8: Risk Score for roadside barriers on undivided rural roads (refer to Table D.6 for road details)
Figure D.9: Risk Score for roadside barriers on divided carriageway urban roads (refer to Table D.6 for road
details)
Table D.6: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure D.8 and Figure D.9
Chart number Rural or urban Terrain Operating speed Lane width Offset of the barrier
* The barrier offsets used produce conservative (higher) Risk Scores. If the barrier was located further from the road the
Risk Score would be smaller.

Figure D.10: Risk Score for roadside barriers on divided roads with an operating speed of 110 km/h
Note: The barrier offset of 2.0 m is used. This produces conservative (higher) Risk Scores. If the barrier was located
further from the road the Risk Score would be smaller.
Figure D.11: Risk Score for culvert headwalls classified as a significant hazard, measured over a 100 m road
section
Note: 100 m measurement distance used. Refer to Table D.7 for road characteristics.

Table D.7: Road characteristics for the charts in Figure D.11
Chart
number
30 Rural mountainous Mountainous 70 km/h 3.0 m
70 km/h
Table D.8: Significant and less significant and minor hazards
Significant hazards Less Significant hazards Minor hazards
Factor =1 Factor =1/2 Factor =1/6

Generic fixed object
Rock cuttings
Rocks protruding more than 300 mm Rocks protruding between 200 mm
above the ground surface and 300 mm above the ground surface
Ruts in the ground surface more than Ruts in the ground surface between
300 mm deep 200 and 300 mm deep
Tree lined edge
Water
Utility pole Slip base or energy absorbing poles
Tree with a trunk diameter of 250 mm Tree with a trunk diameter of 150 to Tree with a trunk diameter of 75
and larger 200 mm to 100 mm
Traffic signal pole
Bridge pier ,
2:1 fill batters more than 5 m high 3:1 fill batters more than 2 m high 4:1 fill batters more than 2 m high
2:1 fill batters between 2 and 5 m high 3:1 fill batters between 2 m and
1.5:1 fill batters more than 2 m high
5 m high
Vertical drops more than 2 m 1.5:1 fill batters less than 2 m high 2:1 fill batters less than 2 m high
Watercourses less than 1 m deep and Watercourses less than 1 m deep
Watercourses more than 2 m deep.
with a drop of between 0.3 and 2.0 m and with a drop less than 0.3 m
Down slopes, parallel to the road, Down slopes, parallel to the road, Down slopes, parallel to the road,
higher than 5 m and with a slope of 4:1 between 2 and 5 m with a slope flatter less than 2 m high
or steeper than 2:1
Down slopes, parallel to the road, Down slopes, parallel to the road,
between 2 and 5 m high and with a higher than 2 m and with a slope of 6:1
slope of 2:1 or steeper or flatter
Up slopes, parallel to the road, 1.5:1 or Up slopes, parallel to the road, steeper Up slopes, parallel to the road,
steeper than 4:1 but flatter than 1.5:1 with slopes of 4:1 or flatter
Significant drainage structures,
exposed culvert headwalls and wing
walls, with vertical height drops of
more than 2 m or watercourse more
than 2 m deep

Table D.9: Risk Score correction factors for curve radii on two-lane rural roads
Curve radius Location 70 km/h 90 km/h 110 km/h

300 m Inside corner 2.6 to 3.5 2.6 to 3.3 2.3 to 2.8
Outside corner 5.3 to 7.0 5.1 to 6.5 4.7 to 5.6
Table D.10: Risk Score correction factors for the gradient of two-lane rural roads
Gradient Upgrade 2% downgrade 4% downgrade 6% downgrade

Factor 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0

Appendix E Cost of Impacts
E.1 Determine Crash Costs
The risk analysis procedure described in Section 1.9 does not include costs as it is considered that road
safety should concentrate on trauma and not costs. However, some jurisdictions may prefer a monetary
approach in a benefit-cost analysis and this Appendix will assist them.
The risk analysis procedure presented in this Part is based on the research by Ray et al. (2012b). Their
procedure tabulated a severity for impacts into different hazards. The severity index is a function of the
Equivalent Fatal Cash Cost Ratio (EFCCR), which is the average cost of a crash with a particular hazard
divided by the average cost of a fatality. For instance, the costings used in the Queensland Department of
Transport and Main Roads program RISC are $9 775 for property damage only, $40 930 for crashes
involving possible minor injuries, $125 395 for crashes in which occupants require medical treatment, $633
244 for crashes in which occupants are hospitalised and $9 077 270 for fatal crashes. These costs are in
2016 dollars. Changing the crash costs for the different injury classifications will affect the outcome.
Table E.1 lists the Trauma Index for the different severity indices in the RSAPv3 procedure. For RSAPv3
severity indices of 1 and 2, Ray et al. (2012b) listed no fatalities and serious injuries. It was considered in
developing this process that there is always a small probability of a serious injury and so Trauma Index
values of 0.1 and 0.5 have been included in Table E.1. The proportion of different injuries for a particular
hazard impact severity (and Trauma Index) were established in AASHTO (1989) and the background to
these ratios is unknown.
Table E.1: Trauma Indices and predicted crash outcomes
Property
Moderate Serious
Trauma Index Severity damage only Minor injury Fatal crashes
injury injury
(%) index (PDO) crashes (%) (%)
crashes (%) crashes (%)
crashes (%)
0 0 100
0.28 1 90.4 7.3 2.2 0.1
0.55 2 71 22 6.5 0.4 0.1
2 3 43 34 21 1 1
8 4 30 30 32 5 3
18 5 15 22 45 10 8
38 6 7 16. 39 20. 18
60 7 2. 10 28 30 30
77 8 4. 19 27 50
93 9 7 18. 75
100 10 100
Source: Ray et al. (2012b) and Austroads (2020e).

Appendix F Likely Impact Conditions and Consequences
F.1 Errant Vehicle Trajectories
The trajectories of vehicles that run off the road are not simple. Mak et al (2010) investigated the trajectories
of 877 errant vehicles and produced relationships for the distribution of departure speeds and angles and the
impact speeds and angles. The departure point is where the vehicle leaves the lane line and the impact point
is where the vehicle makes contact with a hazard. See Figure A.3. Their results are recorded in Table F.1 for
their combined data set. Mak et al stated.
There was very little change in angle between roadway departure and the first impact as
shown in Table 61 [shown as Table F.1 below]. This finding is not surprising and may
be an indication that drivers are more likely to be effective applying the brakes than
steering the vehicle back to the roadway.
Table F.1 Departure and impact characteristics
Variable Mean Std. Deviation Median 90th Percentile
Departure 79 km/h 25.6 km/h 79 km/h 112 km/h

Speed (km/h)
Impact 63 km/h 26.5 km/h 62 km/h 95 km/h
Departure 16.9° 10.5° 15° 30°

Angle (degree)
Impact 17.0° 11.7° 15° 32°
Source: Mak et al (2010)
The similarity between the departure and the impact angles is contrary to the approach of using a simple
body negotiating a curved path to define the likely vehicle’s trajectory. Essentially this approach has been
used to define the maximum impact angles with barriers to identify higher-risk sites, particularly where
concrete barriers are used. This approach has been omitted from this edition of this Part.
All barriers, tested to MASH (AASHTO, 2016) provide a reasonably safe outcome with impacts up to 25°. If
the impact angle is greater than 25°, then the outcome is more uncertain. However, there is little that can be
done to decrease the likely impact angle.
F.2 The Relationship Between Impact Conditions and Vehicle Occupant Safety
As discussed in Section 5.3, Burbridge has developed an equation to estimate the ASI of impacts with
barriers with different stiffnesses (Refer to Burbridge & Troutbeck 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2018; and
Burbridge, 2020). Figure 5.2 illustrates the flexibility of different systems. This figure is repeated here in
Figure F.1.
The Burbridge equations are represented by the relationships shown in Figure F.2. Austroads (2022)
discusses these equations in more detail.
F.2.1 Application to the Design of Barrier Installations
The ASI values indicate the likely occupant ride down accelerations. While ASI values are not used in
evaluating barriers or in road design, they do indicate the suitability of different barrier types in different
situations.

Figure F.1 Flexibility of different systems
This is a copy of Figure 5.2.

Source: Burbridge, 2020
Figure F.2 indicates that the calculated ASI decreases with flexibility. The more flexible barriers are less
sensitive to changes in the impact conditions. Burbridge (2020) states:
Further, it can be seen that ASI is more sensitive to changes in barrier system flexibility
at higher impact speeds and angles than at lower impact angles and speeds, and that
the model is more sensitive to increasing impact angle than it is to increasing impact
speed as flexibility tends towards zero.
The lower panel of Figure F.2 indicates that impacts at small angles are less sensitive to changes in
flexibility. The opposite is true at higher impact angles.
The European Normative EN1317-2 defines three impact severity levels based on the recorded ASI in a full-
scale crash test. The table illustrates that ASI values less than 1.9 are acceptable impact severity level C.
For impact severity level B the ASI values should be less than or equal to 1.4, and for impact severity level B
the ASI values should be less than or equal to 1.4. The values in Figure F.2 are all less than 1.9 except for
the 30° impacts. In some circumstances, a concrete barrier is the only option, this research demonstrates
that its use is still acceptable.
F.3 Trajectories Over Kerbs and Embankments
Previous editions of this part have included design trajectories for vehicles travelling over kerbs and
embankments. These trajectories were based on vehicles of the 1970 and 1980s. The use of a single
trajectory is questionable as it has been shown that the speed, impact angle and vehicle type significantly
affect these trajectories. Information about these trajectories has been omitted from this edition.

Figure F.2 Variation in ASI as a function of barrier flexibility for a selection of different impact conditions.
2.25
Impact: mass_speed_angle
2.00
1000_100_20
1.75
1500_100_20
1.50
2000_100_20
1.25
ASI
3000_100_20
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
Effect of vehicle mass 0.00
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Flexibility
2.25
2.00
1500_60_20
1.75
1500_90_20
1.50
1500_100_20
1.25
1500_120_20
ASI
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
Effect of vehicle speed 0.00

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Flexibility
2.25
2.00
1500_100_5
1.75
1500_100_10
1.50
1500_100_15
1.25
ASI
1500_100_20
1.00
1500_100_25
0.75
1500_100_30
0.50
0.25
Effect of impact angle 0.00
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Flexibility
Source: Burbridge & Troutbeck, 2018

Appendix G Length of Need
G.1 Length of Need for a Straight Installation
G.1.1 Leading Point of Need
Section 6.9.1 describes the process to determine the length of need for a straight installation; that is one
without a flare. The equations and figures are presented here for convenience.
Figure G.1 shows the construct to obtain the leading point of need for a straight installation on either a road
with bidirectional traffic or with one-way traffic. The run-out lengths are given in Table G.1
Figure G.1: Run-out length method to determine the leading point of need on two-way roads
Note that this is the same as Figure 6.12

X1 is given by Equation 4 which is presented here as Equation G1.
𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
𝑋𝑋1 = max �� (𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 ), 8(𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 )� G1
𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴
where
LR = run-out length (Table G.1)

Table G.1: Run-out lengths for barrier design
Run-out length LR (m) for AADT range

Operating speed
(km/h)
> 10 000 5 000–10 000 1 000–5 000 < 1 000
110 110 101 88 76
100 91 76 64 61
90 80 67 56 54
80 70 58 49 46
70 60 49 42 38
60 49 40 34 30
50 34 27 24 21
Note: This is a copy of Table 6.8.

G.1.2 Trailing Point of Need for Roads with Two-way Traffic
The trailing point of need for traffic in two directions is given by the construct in Figure G.2 with Equation G2,
which is the same as Equation 5 in Section 6.9.1 documenting the dimension X2.
Figure G.2: Run-out length method to determine the trailing point of need on two-way roads
Note that this is the same as Figure 6.13.


𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
𝑋𝑋2 = max �� (𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 ), 8(𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 )� G2
𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴
where
the location of the trailing point of need in advance of the hazards based on traffic in
X2 =
direction 2
G.1.3 Length of Need for Hazards that Extend Long Distances Perpendicular to the Road
Hazards like rivers, streams and other road or rail infrastructure that are aligned perpendicular to the road
have a high LA value. It is recommended that the length of need, X values, be calculated using Equations G1
and G2 can be large when the LA value exceeds 10 m. For hazards extending perpendicular to the roads and
for some distance the values for X1 and X2 should be constrained using Equations G3 and G4. See Figure
G.3
𝑋𝑋1 = 2 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 G3
𝑋𝑋2 = 2 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 G4
where
the location of the leading point of need in advance of the hazards based on traffic in
X1 =
direction 1
the location of the trailing point of need in advance of the hazards based on traffic in
X2 =
direction 2
G.1.4 Length of Need for Roads with Two-way Traffic
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿= 𝑋𝑋1 + 𝑊𝑊 + 𝑋𝑋2 G5
where
X1 and X2 are calculated using Equations G1 and G2, or Equations G3 and G4 and

Figure G.3: Run-out length method to determine the trailing point of need on two-way roads

G.1.5 Trailing Point of Need for Roads with One-way Traffic
For one-way carriageways, the construct for the trailing point of need is illustrated in Figure G.4 and the Z
dimension given by Equation G6. The assumed trailing angle of departure is the 85th percentile angle (22°),
but for convenience, the reciprocal of the angle is taken to be 4.0 rad-1.
Figure G.4: Trailing point of need on a one-way carriageway


𝑍𝑍 = 4.0 [L3 - L2 ] G6
where
Y = the revised required length of need in advance of the hazards
L3 = distance from the edge of the traffic lane to the edge of the hazards closet to the road
L3 - L2 = distance between the barrier and the hazards
G.1.6 Length of Need for Roads with One-Way Traffic
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿= 𝑋𝑋1 + 𝑊𝑊 − 𝑍𝑍 G7
where
X1 and Z are calculated using Equations G1 and G6 and

G.2 Length of Need for a Flared Installation
Section G.1 describes the process to determine the length of need. Equation G1 gives the X1 values which
are the distances between the hazards and the leading point of need for a straight (un-flared) installation for
a road with bidirectional traffic and for the leading point of need on a divided carriageway. This is shown in
Figure G.1. If this installation is to be flared, then the X1 distances are replaced by F1 distances calculated
using Equation G8. These dimensions are shown in Figure G.5.
𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿
�𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 + 1 � �𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 + 1 �
𝐹𝐹1 = max � 𝑑𝑑 , 𝑑𝑑 � G8
1 𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 1 1
� + 𝐿𝐿 � � + 8�
𝑑𝑑 𝑅𝑅 𝑑𝑑
where
F1 = the location of the leading point of need in advance of the hazards
L1 = distance the start of the flare is beyond the hazards
d:1 = flare rate. Maximum flare rates are shown in Table 6.10

Figure G.5: The leading point of need for a flared installation

Based on the dimensions, shown in Figure G.6, Equation G9 is provided for the trailing point of need when
the installation is flared.
Figure G.6: The trailing point of need for a flared installation on a road with bidirectional traffic

𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿
�𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 + 1 � �𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 + 1 �
𝐹𝐹2 = max � 𝑑𝑑 , 𝑑𝑑 � G9
� + 𝐿𝐿 � � + 8�
𝑑𝑑 𝑅𝑅 𝑑𝑑
where
F2 = the location of the leading point of need in advance of the hazards
L1 = distance the start of the flare is beyond the hazards
d:1 = flare rate

For a carriageway with traffic in one direction, the trailing point of redirection should be calculated using the
procedure in G.1.2. There is no need to flare this barrier in this situation.
G.2.4 Length of Need
For by directional traffic, the length of need (LoN) is then:
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿= 𝐹𝐹1 + 𝑊𝑊 + 𝐹𝐹2 G10
where
F1 and F2 are calculated using Equations G8 and G9 and
For a road with one-way traffic, the length of need (LoN) is then:
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿= 𝐹𝐹1 + 𝑊𝑊 − 𝑍𝑍 G11
where
X1 and Z are calculated using Equations G8 and G6 and

G.3 Location of the Points of Need with Hazards on the Outside of a Horizontal
Curve
The leading and trailing points of need on a curve are evaluated using graphical techniques. The location of
the points of need on many curves with large radii can be calculated as if they were straight.
G.3.1 Leading Points of Need
The location of the leading point of need is found using the following process and the constructions shown in
Figure G.7. This process applies to carriageways with traffic in one direction and carriageways with traffic in
both directions.
Figure G.7: Leading point of need for hazards on the outside of the curve
The steps are:

1. From the first point of contact for traffic in direction 1, draw a line that is perpendicular to the
carriageway edge line. Where it crosses the carriageway, label this point ‘O’.
2. Scribe an arc with a radius equal to LR and find where the arc intersects the carriageway edge line. This
is the assumed errant vehicle departure point. The vehicle is assumed to follow the red line towards the
hazards.
3. Draw the line of the safety barrier and where it crosses the vehicle departure path is point B, the leading
point of need.
4. Calculate the leading angle of departure for traffic from direction 1. If this angle is greater than 7°, the
errant vehicle departure point should be moved upstream and step 3 redone.
5. Note the position of a line that is tangential to the edge of the carriageway at the departure point. This
line should cross the line A-O as it does in this diagram. If it does not, then the process in Section G.3.4
should be used instead.

G.3.2 Trailing Points of Need for Roads with Two-way Traffic
The location of the trailing point of need for roads with bidirectional traffic is found using the following process
and the constructions shown in Figure G.8. This process is similar to the case for the leading point of need.
Figure G.8: Trailing point of need for hazards on the outside of the curve based on traffic in direction 2
The steps are:

carriageway edge line. Where it crosses the carriageway, label this point ‘O’.
2. Scribe an arc with a radius equal to LR and find where the arc intersects the lane edge line for direction
2. This is the assumed errant vehicle departure point. The vehicle is assumed to follow the red line
towards the hazards.
3. Draw the line of the safety barrier and where it crosses the vehicle departure path is point D, the trailing
point of need.
4. Calculate the leading angle of departure for traffic from direction 2. If this angle is greater than 7°, the
errant vehicle departure point should be removed upstream, further away from the hazards. Step 3 then
needs to be redone.
5. Note the position of a line that is tangential to the edge of the lane at the departure point. This line
should cross the line C-O as it does in this diagram. If it does not, then the process in Section G.3.4.
should be used instead.
G.3.3 Trailing Points of Need for Roads with One-way Traffic
The trailing point for a road with one-way traffic should use the procedure described in Section G.1 and
Figure G.4.

G.3.4 Leading and Trailing Points of Need on Small Radii Curves
The procedure is used here if:

• step 5 in the process in G.3.1 has the tangent lane to the edge of the carriageway at the departure point
outside line A-O.
• step 5 in the process in G.3.2 has the tangent lane to the edge of the lane at the departure point outside
line C-O.
The locations of the leading and trailing points of need for roads with small radii curves are found using the
following process and the constructions shown in Figure G.9.
Figure G.9: leading and trailing points of need for hazards on the outside of the curve with a small radius
The steps for the leading point of need are:

1. Draw a line that is tangential to the carriageway edge line and passing through the first point of contact
for traffic in direction 1, point A. This is the assumed errant vehicle departure line for direction 1
vehicles.
point of need.
The steps for the trailing point of need are:

1. Draw a line that is tangential to the edge of the lane line and passing through the first point of contact for
traffic in direction 2, point C. This is the assumed errant vehicle departure line for direction 2 vehicles.
point of need.

Note that if the processes in G.2.2 and G.2.3 are used, then the tangents to the edge of the road or the lane
at the run out lengths are outside the A-O1 and the C-O2 lines.
The length of need is defined by the leading point of direction and the trailing point of redirection and
established by the graphical techniques.
G.4 Location of the Points of Need with the Hazards on the Inside of a Horizontal
Curve
The location of the leading point of need is found using the following process and the constructions shown in
Figure G.10. This process applies to carriageways with traffic in one direction and carriageways with traffic in
both directions.
The process is dependent on the distance D which is given by Equation G12.
𝐷𝐷 = �𝑅𝑅 2 − (𝑅𝑅 − 0.5 𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 ) G12
where
LA = lateral extent of hazards
R = the radius of the edge of the carriageway
If D is greater than LR, then the construct is shown in Figure G.10.
Figure G.10: Leading point of need for hazards on the inside of the curve for D > LR

Figure G.10: Leading point of need for hazards on the inside of the curve for D > LR
The steps are:

carriageway edge line. Where it crosses the edge of the carriageway, label this point ‘O’.
2. Scribe an arc with a radius equal to LR and find where the arc intersects the carriageway edge line. This
is the assumed errant vehicle departure point. The vehicle is assumed to follow the red line towards the
hazards.
point of need.
If D is less or equal to LR, then the construct is shown in Figure G.11 using the following steps:
1. From the first point of contact for traffic in direction 1, scribe an arc with a radius equal to LR and find
where the arc intersects the carriageway edge line. This is the assumed errant vehicle departure point.
The vehicle is assumed to follow the red line towards the hazards.
point of need.
For hazards on the inside of the curve, it is not necessary to check the angle of departure as this requirement
was for drivers drifting off the road at small angles. In this case, it could generally result in the errant driver
colliding with hazards on the outside of the curves.

Figure G.11: Leading point of need for hazards on the inside of the curve for D ≤ LR
Using Equation G12 for D, the construct in Figure G.12 is used to locate the trailing point of need if D is
greater than LR.
Figure G.12: Trailing point of need for hazards on the inside of the curve for D > LR

The steps are:

1. From the first point of contact for traffic in direction 2, draw a line that is perpendicular to the edge of the
lane line. Where it crosses the lane edge line, label this point ‘O’.
2. Scribe an arc with a radius equal to LR and find where the arc intersects the lane edge line. This is the
assumed errant vehicle departure point. The vehicle is assumed to follow the red line towards the hazards.
point of need.
If D is less than or equal to LR, then the construct in Figure G.13 is used to locate the trailing point of need.
Figure G.13: Trailing point of need for hazards on the inside of the curve for D ≤ LR
The steps are:

1. From the first point of contact for traffic in direction 2, scribe an arc with a radius equal to LR and find
where the arc intersects the edge of the lane. This is the assumed errant vehicle departure point. The
vehicle is assumed to follow the red line towards the hazards.
point of need.
For hazards on the inside of the curve, it is not necessary to check the angle of departure as this requirement
was for drivers drifting off the road at small angles. In this case, this would generally result in the errant driver
colliding with hazards on the outside of the curves.

The locations of the trailing points of need for roads with one-way traffic are found using the process and the
constructions shown in Appendix G.1.4 and Figure G.3.

The length of need is defined by the leading point of direction and the trailing point of redirection and
established by the graphical techniques.

G.5 Worked Examples to Determine Road Safety Barrier Length of Need
G.5.1 Example 1: Straight Installations
A two-lane, two-way road is being designed. It will have a design speed of 100 km/h. The predicted two-way
traffic volume (i.e. AADT) in 20 years’ time is 6500 vehicles per day. The predicted traffic volume includes
only 3% heavy vehicles.
A straight segment of the road crosses a significant waterway, which will require a culvert consisting of 4 m x
1.2 m diameter reinforced concrete pipes.
The typical road cross-section is shown in Figure G.14.
Figure G.14 Road cross-section

A plan of the culvert headwall is shown in Figure G.15:
Figure G.15: Culvert headwall (plan view)
The culvert headwall is a significant roadside hazard and is to be shielded by a barrier. The barrier is to be
unflared and located 3 m offset from the edge of the lane.
Determine:
1. the leading point of need when shielding the culvert headwall only
2. the trailing point of need when shielding the culvert headwall only
3. the length of need for a safety barrier.

Solution for the leading point of need

Refer to Appendix G.1.1 and in particular Figure G.1. The location of the leading point of need is specified by
X1 is given by Equation G1. The equation uses the dimensions in Figure G.14 and Figure G.15 and the
appropriate run-out length listed in Table G.1. For this example, the operating speed is 100 km/h and the
AADT is the 5000 to 10 000 veh/day range; the run-out length is 76 m. This and other terms calculated from
the dimensions in the Figures are as follows.
LR = Run-out length from Table G.1 = 76 m
The lateral extent of the hazard; From the edge of the traffic lane to the
LA = = 6.5 m
rear of hazard, marked by Point A in Figure G.15.
L2 = the lateral offset of the barrier from the edge of the traffic lane = 3.0 m
𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
𝑋𝑋1 = max �� (𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 ), 8(𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 )�
𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴
76
𝑋𝑋1 = max �� (6.5 − 3.0), 8(6.5 − 3.0)�
6.5
𝑋𝑋1 = max{11.7𝑥𝑥3.5, 8𝑥𝑥3.5}
𝑋𝑋1 = max{40.9, 28.0}
𝑋𝑋1 = 41 m
Solution for the trailing point of need

Refer to Appendix G.1.2 and in particular Figure G.2. The location of the leading point of need is specified by
X2 is given by Equation G2. The equation uses the dimensions in Figure G.14 and Figure G.5 and the
appropriate run-out length from Table G.1. The terms used in the calculations are as follows.
LR = Run-out length from Table G.1 = 76 m
The lateral extent of the hazard; From the edge of the traffic lane for the
LA = = 10.0 m
opposing direction to the rear of the hazard, marked by Point C in Figure G.15.
𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
𝑋𝑋2 = max �� (𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 ), 8(𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 )�
𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴
76
𝑋𝑋2 = max �� (10 − 6.5), 8(10 − 6.5)�
10
𝑋𝑋2 = max{7.6𝑥𝑥3.5, 8𝑥𝑥3.5}
𝑋𝑋2 = max{26.6, 28.0}
𝑋𝑋2 = 28 m
The reader will note that in this case the barrier has been extended by 1.4 m over what would have been
calculated with the traditional run-out length method. This is to account for drivers being able to drift off the
road at a shallow angle.

Solution for the length of need

Refer to G.1.3 and the calculations above for X1 and X2. The equation also includes the width of the hazard,
W, which is 6.0 m in this case. The length of need (LoN) is:
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿= 𝑋𝑋1 + 𝑊𝑊 + 𝑋𝑋2
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿= 40.9 + 6.0 + 28.0
The length of need (LoN) is 74.9 m:
This represents the length of redirective barrier that is required to shield the culvert headwall hazard. The designer
should ensure that the footings of the barrier system do not clash with the reinforced concrete pipe culvert.
G.5.2 Example 2
For the situation described in Example 1 (Section G.5.1), if the barrier was installed on a flare rate of 30:1,
with the tangent part extending 2 m past the points of concern (A and C), what would be the length of need?
Determine:
1. the leading point of need when shielding the culvert headwall only
2. the trailing point of need when shielding the culvert headwall only
3. the length of need for a safety barrier.
Solution for the leading point of need

The location of the leading point of need is calculated using the approach in Appendix G.2.1 and using
Equation G8 for F1. With the same traffic volume and operating speed, the run-out length is again 76 m.
Parameters values are as follows:
LR = run-out length from Table G.1 = 76 m
X1 = the location of the leading point of need in advance of the hazards = 40.9 m
The lateral extent of the hazards; From the edge of the traffic lane to the
LA = = 6.5 m
rear of the hazards, marked by Point A in Figure G.15.
L1 = the distance the start of the flare is beyond the hazards = 2.0 m
d:1 = the flare rate = 30:1
𝐿𝐿1 𝐿𝐿
�𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 + � �𝐿𝐿 − 𝐿𝐿2 + 1 �
𝐹𝐹1 = max � 𝑑𝑑 , 𝐴𝐴 𝑑𝑑 �
� + � � + �
𝑑𝑑 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 𝑑𝑑 8
2 2
�6.5 − 3.0 + � �6.5 − 3.0 + �
𝐹𝐹1 = max � 30 , 30 �
1 6.5 1 1
� + � � + �
30 76 30 8
3.56 3.56
𝐹𝐹1 = max � , �
0.119 0.158
𝐹𝐹1 = max{30.0, 22.5}

𝐹𝐹1 = 30 m
The relationship between X1 and F1 is shown in Figure G.16. This Figure has been drawn to scale and
indicates that a flared installation is shorter to provide the same shielding of a hazard. The flared length is
28 m and the leading point of need for the flared installation is 3.93 m from the edge of the road; a further
0.93 m from the road than the corresponding point of need for a straight installation.
Figure G.16: Leading point of redirection for flared and straight installations
Solution for the trailing point of need
The location of the trailing point of need is calculated using the approach in Appendix G.2.2 and using
Equation G9 for F2. With the same traffic volume and operating speed, the run-out length is again 76 m.
Parameters values are as follows:
LR = run-out length from Table G.1 = 76 m
the location of the trailing point of need in advance of the hazards.

X2 = = 28.0 m
This is based on the opposing direction of traffic; direction 2.
The lateral extent of the hazards; From the edge of the opposing = 5.5+3.5
LA =
lane to the rear of the hazards, marked by Point C in Figure G.15. = 10.0 m
L1 = the distance from the hazards to the start of the flare = 2.0 m
L2 = the lateral offset of the barrier from the edge of the traffic lane = 3.0+3.5 = 6.5 m
d:1 = the flare rate = 30:1
𝐿𝐿1 𝐿𝐿
�𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 − 𝐿𝐿2 + � �𝐿𝐿 − 𝐿𝐿2 + 1 �
𝐹𝐹2 = max � 𝑑𝑑 , 𝐴𝐴 𝑑𝑑 �
� + � � + �
𝑑𝑑 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 𝑑𝑑 8
2 2
�10 − 6.5 + � �10 − 6.5 + �
𝐹𝐹2 = max � 30 , 30 �
1 10 1 1
� + � � + �
30 76 30 8
3.56 3.56
𝐹𝐹2 = max � , �
0.165 0.158
𝐹𝐹2 = max{21.6, 22.5}

𝐹𝐹2 = 23 𝑚𝑚
The relationship between X2 and F2 is shown in Figure G.17. Both of these distances have been slightly
increased to accommodate a 15th percentile errant vehicle departure angle. This Figure has been drawn to
scale and indicates that a flared installation is shorter to provide the same shielding of a hazard. The flared
length is 23 m and the trailing point of need for the flared installation is 3.70 m from the edge of the road;
0.7 m further from the road than the trailing point of need for a straight installation.
Solution for the length of need
Refer to G.2.4 and the calculations above for F1 and F2. The equation for the length of need also includes the
width of the hazard, W, which is 6.0 m in this case. The length of need (LoN) is:
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿= 𝐹𝐹1 + 𝑊𝑊 + 𝐹𝐹2
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿= 30 + 6 + 23
The length of need (LoN) is 59 m:
This represents the length of redirective barrier that is required to shield the culvert headwall hazard. The
designer should ensure that the footings of the barrier system do not clash with the reinforced concrete pipe
culvert.
It should also be noted that while flaring of barriers may reduce the length of barrier required to shield a
hazard, it may also require widening of the embankment to provide sufficient support for the flared barrier
system. In some situations, the cost of the additional earthworks associated with widening the embankment
may exceed the cost saving due to the reduction in the length of barrier created by flaring.
Figure G.17: Trailing point of redirection for flared and straight installations.
Note: * These measurements have been slightly increased

Commentary 1 Design Parameters and Environment
C1.1 Combinations of Design Parameters
The adoption of lower-order values for several design parameters in combination may create an unsafe
design even though the individual design parameters comply with guidelines. For example, combining a
minimum radius horizontal curve with a minimum length vertical curve and narrow lanes may produce a
design combination that has a low factor of safety, even though the individual elements comply with
guidelines.
Designers should ensure that the combination of design elements makes it easy for drivers to keep their
vehicles on the road, especially at night and in inclement weather. Particular attention needs to be paid to
combinations of:
• vertical alignment
• horizontal curvature
• lane widths
• shoulder width
• sight distance
• medians
• road surface
• road surface drainage
• delineation
• verges.

Table C1.1: Considerations in relation to designing roads for safety
Element Considerations
Vertical alignment Flat grades:
• Allow all vehicles sharing a road to travel at the same speed.
• Vertical grades of zero to 3% have little effect on the operation of all vehicles.
Uphill grades:
• Steep grades become prohibitive for heavy vehicles.
• Where steep grades are required, the design should minimise their length.
• Grades in excess of 6% have a significant effect on heavy vehicles for travel uphill.
• Vehicle speed differences also contribute to queuing, which is frustrating to drivers in the
queue.
• Where vertical curves occur in conjunction with horizontal curves extra care in design needs
to be taken. Vertical curves or changes in grade may impede sight distance.
Downhill grades:
• Grades in excess of 6% have a significant effect on heavy vehicles for travel downhill.
• Long downhill grades increase the risk of a crash due to brake failure.
• Very long downgrades, particularly those containing horizontal curves and reverse curves,
cause vehicles (especially heavy vehicles) to suffer brake fade, and reach critical roadside
features at such high speeds and impact angles that roadside protection is very difficult or
impossible, even with the best road safety barriers.
General:
Steep grades cause different vehicles to travel at different speeds, introducing a higher risk of
rear-end crashes.
Where it is necessary to provide long, steep grades, consider providing:
• passing bays and descending lanes to allow light vehicles to overtake slower-moving vehicles
safely
• safety ramps and arrester beds to bring a runaway vehicle to rest.
These facilities are important where there is a high proportion of heavy vehicles.
Adequate drainage must be provided to prevent water pooling on the road surface during
normal levels of rain. Longitudinal drains need to have adequate fall, generally not less than
0.5%.
Horizontal Design for a radius as large as the landscape allows is a first step in providing a driveable path.
alignment Provide a consistent alignment standard over the relevant section of road with well-designed
transitions where reductions from generous to tighter alignments are necessary.
For a vehicle to travel around a bend at a certain speed, the horizontal friction between the
vehicle and the road pavement must be sufficient to counteract the inertial force that tends to
maintain the vehicle’s initial direction.
Provide localised curve widening where required (refer to AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2021d)).
Extra lane width at curves maintains an acceptable clearance between vehicles. Road
pavement widening may be required at curves depending on curve radius, lane width and
vehicle sizes for the following reasons:
• A vehicle (particularly a heavy vehicle) traversing a curve occupies more lane width than
when travelling straight.
• When a driver steers through a curve, the vehicle does not maintain the same lateral road
position that it did on the straight. Some deviation from the ideal path must be expected.
Both of these factors reduce the clearance between opposing vehicles and increase the risk of
collision. Recommended curve widening for various categories of roads is given in AGRD Part 3
(Austroads 2021d).

Lane width Traffic lane width influences the ease with which vehicles can operate in that lane.
Higher traffic volumes and higher speeds require wider lanes to allow more space between
passing vehicles, and between vehicles and any roadside objects.
If lane width is insufficient, vehicles may be forced into the roadside because of:
• the blast of air pressure created by large vehicles passing in the opposing traffic lane
• vehicles (particularly articulated vehicles) in the adjoining or opposing traffic lane swaying into
the incorrect traffic lane.
In some instances, lightweight vehicles have been sucked into the slipstream of passing
vehicles, and the evasive action by drivers of the lightweight vehicles has caused the lightweight
vehicles to encroach into the roadside. Recommended lane widths for various categories of
roads are given in AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2021d).
Shoulder width Shoulders not only provide a lateral support for the road pavement but also provide additional
separation between traffic and roadside objects.
Shoulders are not intended for regular travel but allow drivers more room to bring their vehicles
back under control after inadvertently leaving the traffic lane.
Sealed shoulders are desirable to assist errant vehicles to recover should they leave the
travelled path and also reduce the incidence and severity of run-off-road crashes.
The width of shoulder sealing depends on traffic speed, volume and composition, environmental
conditions and the nature of the roadside area. Sealing part of the shoulder to reduce pavement
drop-off may reduce errant vehicle incidents. Recommended shoulder widths for various
categories of roads are given in AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2021d).
Sight distance Adequate sight distance should be provided to allow road users to safely negotiate the road.
Sight distance can be affected by road geometry (horizontal and vertical alignment), terrain
(particularly inside of horizontal curves) and roadside objects (such as trees and signs).
At a horizontal curve, drivers need to be aware of the road curvature ahead and be able to react
and slow down (if necessary) to safely navigate the curve.
Drivers should be able to see a sufficient length of horizontal curve in order to judge its
curvature and safely navigate the curve.
A curve should not commence just over the crest of a hill. However, where this situation is
unavoidable, measures should be taken to ensure that drivers are made aware of the alignment
ahead (e.g. sight distance, warning signs, delineation).
Roadside features such as cutting slopes and vegetation may limit sight distance and should be
modified or removed to ensure sufficient stopping sight distance on curves. If this is not
practical, the speed limit may have to be reduced to compensate.
It is important that roadsides be maintained to ensure that sight distance requirements are
sustained, for example by regularly pruning trees and cutting grass.
Where substandard curves are unavoidable, consider cutting benches in high batters to improve
sight distance. Recommended sight distance requirements are given in AGRD Part 3
(Austroads 2021d).
Medians Median width influences the crossover crash rate on medians without road safety barriers.
Cross-median crashes are often high severity, head-on crashes (Knuiman, Council &
Reinfurt 1993). Jurisdictional policy should be consulted regarding the current approach for
median design and protection by barriers.
Road surface A road surface should be constructed and maintained to a sufficient standard that ensures
adequate skid resistance. The skid resistance of a particular surface results from the surface
texture and the presence of moisture (e.g. a pavement surface that holds water instead of
draining properly can contribute to vehicles aquaplaning).
The condition of an existing pavement can be determined by conducting skid resistance
measurements as well as assessing the level of rutting and occurrence of potholes.
Measurement of skid resistance and rutting can be undertaken using a number of methods,
some of which are highly automated and efficient. The decision to act on the results of such
measurements is left to the experienced practitioner; however, a guide to the use of skid
resistance values can be found in the Guide to Asset Management Technical Information Part
15: Technical Supplements (Austroads 2018c).
Roads with a comparatively high volume of heavy vehicle traffic (usually major link routes) may
require a higher standard of construction and maintenance than roads that predominantly carry
light vehicles such as cars and vans.
Unevenness and rutting of road surfaces can cause motorcyclists to abruptly change from their
intended cornering line which may result in crashes.

Road surface A number of different aspects need to be considered with regard to drainage. These include:
drainage • drainage of the road pavement by providing adequate grade and crossfall so that the
pavement is able to drain and pooling of water is avoided, which allows maintenance of skid
resistance
• appropriate infrastructure to collect and transfer the water from the pavement, which may
include kerb and channel or table drains
• a road reservation that can accommodate water run-off from adjacent land uses.
Drainage design at the road design stage requires consideration of flood estimation. If
constructed along a flow path, a road may need to be designed to accommodate the run-off
from adjacent land for a flood event (refer to the Guide to Road Design Part 5: Drainage:
General and Hydrology Considerations (Austroads 2021j)).
Where concrete barriers are installed, it is essential that adequate provision is made for water to
drain from the road (i.e. under or through the barrier) so that ponding of water does not occur
adjacent to the barrier.
Delineation and The more unexpected aspects of a road’s geometry will require additional signing and
signposting delineation to convey information to drivers in accordance with AS 1742.2-2009 or NZ Transport
Agency (2010c) and jurisdictional guides.
Guide posts show the edge of the road and enhance delineation of the path to be travelled by
drivers. They should be installed at a uniform distance from the edge of the road and should be
fitted with delineators. On narrower or lower-volume roads where there is insufficient road width
to mark a centreline, guide posts may be the only delineation provided.
In areas above the snow line, there is a risk that raised pavement markers could be damaged by
snowploughs or obscured by snow. For this reason, it is recommended that orange snow poles
are used for delineation. Snow poles are designed to protrude above snow drifts and their
orange colour aids visibility in snow.
Verges It is preferable that verges and roadside areas be free of hazards and are traversable. Where
this is not possible a risk assessment should be undertaken to determine the most appropriate
treatment (e.g. removal, modification or shielding of the hazard).
C1.2 Consistent Design Environment
Safety on roads is closely related to the driver’s ability to anticipate events and react to them. Where drivers
are uncertain of what lies ahead their perception and reaction times will be longer than in situations where a
consistent design environment gives them confidence in what to expect.
A road has features, both on-road and on roadsides that clearly show drivers the path that a road takes and
helps them keep their vehicles in the running lane. Road design should therefore be based on appropriate
driver characteristics to make it as easy as possible for the driver to keep their vehicle on the path. This may
be straightforward if the landscape is always suited to the desired path of the road and there is no space or
financial constraints, but this is rarely the case.
Roads must be contained within the topography in a cost-effective way and this may lead to situations that
require departures from the standard. In such cases, it becomes necessary to provide additional features
designed to help drivers follow the line of the road (e.g. vegetation, signs and delineation).
To give motorists the best chance of keeping their vehicles on the road, it is necessary to provide a
geometric design conducive to safe travel. The principal factor influencing a vehicle’s ability to traverse and
remain on a road is the speed of the vehicle. Accordingly, it is necessary to take into account the operating
speed of a road when setting such parameters as curve radii, lane widths, shoulder widths, seal types,
drainage and vertical alignment. Designers should refer to AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2021d) for guidance on
geometric design elements.
Design consistency needs to be considered in relation to all relevant design elements and considerations.
Key examples are summarised in Table C1.2.

Table C1.2: Key considerations for consistent design
Consideration Comment
Cross-section Cross-section dimensions should be compatible with horizontal and vertical alignment.
consistency (e.g. improving cross-section dimensions while retaining poor alignment can create the
hazardous illusion that the road can be driven at a higher speed than is safely possible).
Where cross-sections change (e.g. where a divided road link joins an undivided link) generous
tapers and advance signing should be provided to make the change obvious.
Operating Differing speeds in the traffic stream can be caused by:
speed • an unclear road hierarchy
consistency
• drivers being unsure of what lies ahead
• drivers having differing levels of confidence in negotiating road geometry with low design
values.
Road networks that do not provide a hierarchy of road functions can cause speed differentials
because local, short-trip traffic is mixed with high speed through traffic.
The greater and more frequent the speed differentials between vehicles, the greater is the
chance of crashes.
Driver workload Abrupt changes in driver workload may influence crashes because driver response to
consistency situations may be slow or inappropriate. If driver workload is:
• too low then drivers may become inattentive
• too high then drivers begin to shed information (look but not see). Some of the shed
information may be critical (e.g. other vehicles entering the travel path).
Increases in driver workload may be caused by:
• limited sight distance
• inconsistent design, causing surprise (e.g. a sharp curve at the end of a long straight)
• the driver being unfamiliar with the road (e.g. on infrequently travelled highways).
Design aspects that affect driver performance to be considered include:
• Avoid low arousal straight alignments. A curve with a very large radius (i.e. almost straight)
will be monotonous for drivers leading to a lack of concentration on the steering task).
• Avoid the concentration of decisions into a short time frame as this will create information
overload (e.g. excessively complex intersection layouts).
• Stage speed changes (e.g. change the design speed of geometry in steps rather than
implement abrupt changes from high speed to low speed).
• Provide rest areas to cater for fatigued drivers.
C1.3 Vehicle Mix Considerations
Total travel by trucks is growing at a rate twice that for cars and recent traffic growth estimates indicate that
this growth is likely to continue for at least another 15 years. A significant proportion of trucks are articulated
heavy vehicles. It is important to consider the impact and additional risk of a higher than normal percentage
of heavy vehicles.
The consequences of crashes involving heavy vehicles are much greater than for cars. A run off road crash
involving a truck may kill or injure the truck driver and passengers, but in a catastrophic crash involving a
truck and cars, the consequences to the car occupants and other people outside the truck (e.g. pedestrians)
are the major effects.
In the case of a bus, a crash is more likely to injure persons outside the bus. However, a catastrophic crash
involving a bus may kill or injure many of its passengers.
When designing for heavy vehicles, designers should examine the road design parameters shown in Table
C1.3.

Table C1.3: Road design parameters for consideration in relation to heavy vehicles
Parameter Consideration
Grades Weight and low power-to-weight ratio cause heavy vehicles to slow below the speed limit on
grades and cause problems with faster traffic.
Acceleration lanes Heavy vehicles accelerate slower than cars and need longer to reach a target speed.
Forcing trucks to merge with main traffic lanes too early can adversely affect faster traffic.
Lanes that merge with high speed roads should be long enough to allow for heavy vehicle
acceleration. A downgrade on these lanes will help.
Curve radii Longer vehicles may encroach into the adjacent lane on corners that have small radii or
narrow lanes.
The roll stability of heavy vehicles is less than cars, because of their weight and higher centre
of gravity. A heavy vehicle is more likely to roll than to skid in a tight corner.
Designers should provide the largest curve radii consistent with the environment.
Stopping and sight Although the eye height of a heavy vehicle driver is higher than that of a car driver, truck
distances stopping distances are considerably longer because of the relatively inferior braking of heavy
vehicles thus requiring longer sight distances.
Embankments Heavy vehicles are more unstable than cars on steeper slopes.
Barriers Barriers need a higher containment level for heavy vehicles.
Cross-section widths Heavy vehicles require more width than cars to allow for both the vehicle width and sway.
[Back to body text]


Commentary 2 Run-off-road Crashes
Key factors that may contribute to run-off-road crashes are:

• Road geometry, including sight distance. Vehicles are more likely to leave the road at curves that have
small radii or inadequate pavement crossfall, particularly at curves with radii inconsistently smaller than
those of preceding curves or at curves with restricted approach sight distance.
• Traffic volume and speed. Drivers are more likely to leave the road when performing avoidance
manoeuvres on high speed, high-volume roads, especially two-lane rural roads that have limited
overtaking opportunities.
• Driver inattentiveness, fatigue and lack of awareness of the road environment. Drivers who are tired,
inattentive or unfamiliar with the road are more likely to leave the road than alert drivers. Thus, long
distance routes in monotonous terrain or roads that are inconsistent with the terrain require special
consideration.
• Adequacy of visual cues of road alignment, including delineation. Lack of adequate edge delineation or
misleading cues because of gaps in vegetation or lines of service poles may increase the risk of drivers
leaving the road.
• Number and frequency of decisions required of the driver. Drivers are more likely to make mistakes and
leave the road in complex situations requiring many decisions in rapid succession, especially if visual
cues are insufficient or misleading.
• Road surface condition. Drivers are more likely to leave the road if a large part of their attention is
devoted to negotiating a poor road surface, or if they suddenly encounter loose or slippery surfaces.
• Weather. Rain, frost, snow, fog, wind gusts and sun glare reduce the effective control drivers can exert on
the paths of their vehicles and thus increase the risk of encroachments.
• Mechanical failure.
However, the likelihood of a vehicle leaving the road may be minimised by implementing appropriate
measures.
Other road design issues that may contribute to the number of errant vehicles are outlined in Table C2.1
Table C2.1: Other factors contributing to errant vehicles
Factor Contribution to
Lack of overtaking lanes Drivers overtaking ill-advisedly and causing:
• vehicles to swerve into the roadside to avoid head-on crashes with
oncoming vehicles
• head-on crashes
• vehicles hitting objects in the median.
Unsealed shoulders Causing a vehicle to lose control and travel further into the roadside making
it more likely to impact a hazard or overturn.
Rounded pebbles encroaching on
sealed or unsealed shoulders
Clear roadside areas with surface that
is either rutted or covered with rounded
pebbles
Pavement edge drop-off Vehicles becoming errant or over-correcting to regain the pavement and
swerving across the road into oncoming traffic.
Crack filling with slippery, hard, raised Loss of friction and loss of control.
lines Motorcycles being thrown off line.
Forming slippery, hard, abrupt humps causing motorcycles to bump.

Factor Contribution to
Settlement of the roadway behind Deep depressions in the roadway and sharp transverse edges at
bridge abutments abutments, causing a change in the line of travel.
Road patching with uneven, raised or Motorcycles having to change their line of travel.
depressed edges and surfaces
Mounding and/or cracking of road
surface due to tree roots
Raised service covers (e.g. water,
sewerage, communications)
Non-standard raised pavement
markers
Gravel on the road Loss of friction causing vehicle to slide.
Sun glare and dust Blinding of drivers causing swerving, or ill-advised overtaking and:
• causing vehicles to swerve into the roadside to avoid head-on crashes
with oncoming vehicles
• causing vehicles to hit objects in the median.
Cross-winds Throwing vehicles seriously off line, causing a crash.
Overhanging vegetation May:
• obstruct sight distance so the driver has no warning of the road
alignment ahead or of slower-moving vehicles in the lane ahead
• be struck by a motorcycle rider’s head.
• This in turn can cause:
• vehicles to brake excessively and veer into the roadside

• rear-end crashes.
[Back to body text]

Commentary 3 Background to Clear Zone Width
The clear zone concept was first introduced in the USA in the 1970s. The concept was if a clear area was
provided alongside the road, then most drivers would be able to regain control and come to a safe stop.
While this is true in most cases there are a significant number of cases where vehicles have travelled beyond
this clear area.
Reports on studies into roadside run-off-road crashes (e.g. Hutchinson & Kennedy 1966) stated that an
unencumbered 9 m wide corridor beside the travelled lane permits about 80% of the out of control vehicles
leaving a high speed roadway to recover. It is understood that the original dimensions were obtained from
incidents at the US General Motors proving ground (Stonex 1960). This width did not take into account
roadside geometrical factors that may determine the extent of vehicle run-off-road incidents, such as slopes,
bends or individual road characteristics.
Kloeden and McLean (1999) conducted a study of roadside hazard involvement in fatal and serious injury
crashes in South Australia. Analysis of fatal crash records for the 12-year period from 1985 to 1996 revealed
that 95% of fatal crashes involving a collision with a roadside object occurred between 0 and 10 m adjacent
to the road.
Austroads (2018a) have noted that research by Austroads (2011) indicated that objects are continuing to be
struck at very large clear zone widths and a high threshold for the road departure to the left casualty crashes
is observed. For rollover casualty crashes, the proportion appears to increase with very wide clear zones.
Austroads (2011) concluded that:

Clear zones should now be considered in the following light:
• Clear zones cannot deliver Safe System outcomes in isolation and should be
regarded as a supporting treatment.
• Some clear zone is better than none at all when continuous lengths of barrier cannot
be installed.
• Clear zones should be regarded as having the potential to be a hazard in their own
right in the same way that barriers are afforded this attention.
It is now considered that the clear area alongside the road should be treated as a mitigating treatment and
that designers do not consider only those hazards within this area, as this does not adequately evaluate the
risk to motorists.
[Back to body text]

Commentary 4 Vehicle Escape Ramps
An escape ramp may be provided on a descending, horizontal or ascending grade as illustrated in Figure
C4.1. It requires the use of single sized or uniform graded aggregate to prevent compaction in an arrester
bed to increase rolling resistance and, therefore, slow the vehicle. The descending grade ramps can be
rather long because the gravitational effect is not acting to help reduce the speed of the vehicle.
For the horizontal-grade ramp, the effect of the force of gravity is zero and the increase in rolling resistance
has to be supplied by an arrester bed composed of single sized or uniform graded aggregate to prevent
compaction. This type of ramp will be longer than those using gravitational force acting to stop the vehicle.
The ascending-grade ramp uses both the arresting bed and the effect of gravity, in general reducing the
length of ramp necessary to stop the vehicle. The loose material in the arresting bed increases the rolling
resistance, as in the other types of ramps, while the force of gravity acts downgrade, opposite to the vehicle
movement. The loose bedding material also serves to hold the vehicle in place on the ramp grade after it has
come to a safe stop. Ascending grade ramps without an arresting bed are not encouraged in areas of
moderate to high commercial vehicle usage as heavy vehicles may roll back and jack-knife upon coming to
rest.
Figure C4.1: Types of vehicle escape ramps

Each one of the ramp types is applicable to a particular situation where an emergency escape ramp is
desirable and must be compatible with the location and topography. The most effective escape ramp is an
ascending ramp with an arrester bed. On low-volume roads of less than approximately 1000 vehicles per
day, clear run-off areas without arrester beds are acceptable.
[Back to body text]


AGRD06-22 Guide To Road Design Part 6 Roadside Design Safety and Barriers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

AGRD06-22 Guide To Road Design Part 6 Roadside Design Safety and Barriers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

AGRD06-22 Guide To Road Design Part 6 Roadside Design Safety and Barriers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

© This material is not to be used for commercial training purposes, unless approved by Austroads.

Edition 4.0 prepared by: Professor Rod Troutbeck Publisher

width, medians, containment level, working width, run-out length, length of

ISBN 978-1-922700-46-9 © Austroads Ltd 2022 | This work is copyright. Apart

1. Introduction to Roadside Design .......................................................................................................... 1

1.6.4 Appropriate Barriers and Other Treatments ............................................................................. 10

2. Network Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................. 28

Austroads 2022 | page i

2.4 The Network Roadside Risk Intervention Threshold (NRRIT) ............................................................... 30

3. Program and Project Risk Assessment ............................................................................................. 35

4.2 Summary of Treatment Options ............................................................................................................. 50

5. Fundamentals of Safety Barrier Systems .......................................................................................... 58

Austroads 2022 | page ii

5.5 Barrier System Performance Measures ................................................................................................. 68

6. Road Safety Barriers ............................................................................................................................ 87

6.1.1 Design Philosophy .................................................................................................................... 88

Austroads 2022 | page iii

6.13.4 Sight Distance Requirements ................................................................................................. 122

6.20.1 Sign Supports ......................................................................................................................... 141

7. Installation of Other Roadside Safety Devices ................................................................................ 151

Austroads 2022 | page iv

7.3 Frangible Sign Posts ............................................................................................................................ 154

8. Roadside Design for Steep Downgrades ......................................................................................... 162

8.6.9 Step S8 – Design End Treatment ........................................................................................... 171

9. Work Zone Safety Barrier Systems .................................................................................................. 173

References ................................................................................................................................................. 174

Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 182

Detailed Risk Evaluation Procedure .................................................................................... 188

Austroads 2022 | page v

Limitations of the Risk Assessment Process ....................................................................................... 204

Treatment of Roads Based on Jurisdictional Policies ......................................................219

Risk Score Charts .................................................................................................................. 221

Cost of Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 232

Likely Impact Conditions and Consequences .................................................................... 233

Length of Need....................................................................................................................... 236

Leading Point of Need ............................................................................................................ 236

Austroads 2022 | page vi

Commentary 1 Design Parameters and Environment .............................................................................. 255

Commentary 2 Run-off-road Crashes ......................................................................................................... 261

Commentary 3 Background to Clear Zone Width ..................................................................................... 263

Commentary 4 Vehicle Escape Ramps ...................................................................................................... 264

Austroads 2022 | page vii

Austroads 2022 | page viii

Austroads 2022 | page ix

Figure 6.10: Length of need – two directions of travel ................................................................................... 110

Austroads 2022 | page x

Figure B.4: Curve correction factor ............................................................................................................... 192

Table D.6 for road details).......................................................................................................... 228

Austroads 2022 | page xi

1. Introduction to Roadside Design

1.1 Context Sensitive Designs

Austroads 2022 | page 1

The collective purpose of these documents is to:

Austroads 2022 | page 2

Figure 1.1: Flow chart of the Guide to Road Design

1.3 Reading this Part in the Context of Part 1

Austroads 2022 | page 3