Road Safety Inspection Guideline For Safety Checks of Existing Roads

www.piarc.
org
2012R27EN
Cycle 2004-2007
ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION
GUIDELINE FOR SAFETY
CHECKS OF EXISTING
ROADS
Technical Committee C.3
Managing Operational Risks in Road Operations
The World Road Association (PIARC) is a nonprofit organisation established in 1909 to improve
international co-operation and to foster progress in the field of roads and road transport.
The study that is the subject of this report was defined in the PIARC Strategic Plan 2004 2007
approved by the Council of the World Road Association, whose members are representatives of
the member national governments. The members of the Technical Committee responsible for
this report were nominated by the member national governments for their special competences.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this publication are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their parent organizations or
agencies.
This report is available from the internet site of the World Road Association (PIARC)
http://www.piarc.org
Copyright by the World Road Association. All rights reserved.
World Road Association (PIARC)
La Grande Arche, Paroi nord, Niveau 2
92055 La Dfense cedex, FRANCE
International Standard Book Number 978-2-84060-259-8
Cover: A road safety inspection underway in Romania
STATEMENTS
ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION GUIDELINE FOR SAFETY CHECKS OF EXISTING ROADS 2
2012R27EN
This report has been prepared by working group 1 Make cost-effective road safety investments
of the technical Committee C.3 Road Safety of the World Road Association PIARC.
The contributors to the preparation of this report are (in alphabetical order):
Larus Agustsson (Denmark);
Beth Alicandri (USA);
Phil Allan (Australia);
Finn Harald Amundsen (Norway);
Joao Lourenco Cardoso (Portugal);
Sabine Degener (Germany);
Peter M.W. Elsenaar (Netherlands);
Yves Fobelets (Belgium);
Lise Fournier (Canada-Quebec);
Franois Ganneau (France);
Mike Greenhalgh (United Kingdom);
Peter Hollo (Hungary);
Arve Kirkevold (Norway);
Krzysztof Kowalski (Poland);
Steve J. Lee (United Kingdom);
Patrick Mallejacq (France);
Jozef Mikulik (Czech Republic);
Yoshitaka Motoda (Japan);
Tawanda Mdawarima (Zimbabwe);
Roberto Llamas Rubio (Spain);
Anastasios Tsaglos (Greece);
Hans-Joachim Vollpracht (Germany).
The editor of this report is the World Road Association (PIARC).
The translation into French/English of the original version was produced by Armand Rouffert
(Belgium)
The translation into Spanish/English of the original version was produced by
The technical Committee C;3 was chaired by Hans-Joachim Vollpracht (Germany). Patrick
Malljacq (France), Elizabeth Alicandri (USA) and Roberto Llamas (Spain) were respectively
the French-, English- and Spanish-speaking secretaries.
2012R27EN
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................7
1. WHAT IS A ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION (RSI) ...........................................................................8
1.1. DEFINITION ...................................................................................................................................8
1.2. INSPECTIONS AND AUDITS .......................................................................................................9
1.3. INSPECTIONS AND ACCIDENT DATA ......................................................................................9
1.4. INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................10
1.5. INSPECTIONS AND HUMAN FACTORS ..................................................................................10
2. WHAT SHOULD BE INSPECTED? ..................................................................................................11
2.1. DIFFERENT ROADS ...................................................................................................................11
2.2. THE BASICS .................................................................................................................................11
3. WHEN SHOULD INSPECTIONS BE CARRIED OUT? ................................................................12
3.1. KEY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................12
3.2. FREQUENCY ................................................................................................................................12
4. THE INSPECTION PROCESS ...........................................................................................................13
4.1. OVERVIEW...................................................................................................................................13
4.2. PREPARATORY WORK IN THE OFFICE ..................................................................................14
4.3. FIELD STUDY ..............................................................................................................................16
4.4. CHECK LISTS ..............................................................................................................................20
4.5. THE INSPECTION REPORT .......................................................................................................22
4.6. REMEDIAL MEASURES AND FOLLOW UP ...........................................................................23
5. WHO SHOULD CARRY OUT AN INSPECTION? .........................................................................23
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................25
APPENDIX 1.1 CHECKLISTS FOR MOTORWAYS AND FREEWAYS ....................................25
APPENDIX 1.2 CHECKLISTS FOR INTERURBAN ROADS AND HIGHWAYS .....................34
APPENDIX 1.3 CHECKLISTS FOR URBAN ROADS ...................................................................52
APPENDIX 2 INVESTIGATION FORM FOR DEFICIENCIES ...................................................67
APPENDIX 3 EXAMPLES OF ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION REPORTS ................................68
APPENDIX 3.1 FOR INTERURBAN ROADS ...............................................................................68
Part A General project data ........................................................................................................69
Part B Results of the inspection on the feld study .....................................................................72
Part C Proposals and recommendations ...................................................................................75
APPENDIX 3.2 ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT FOR URBAN MAIN ROADS ...........78
Part A General description .......................................................................................................78
Part B Results of the inspection .................................................................................................80
Part C Proposals and recommendations ...................................................................................83
2012R27EN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Many countries carry out so called road safety reviews others call them road
safety audits of existing roads.
PIARC took the initiative to clarify the definitions of the pro-active procedures of:
Road Safety Audits (RSA) at the project design stage, before any construction
has started, screen the designs on paper for any safety issues. This is a formal
process best conducted by an independent auditor.
Road Safety inspections (RSI) is a systematic on-site review of an existing road
by driving and walking to identify hazardous conditions, faults and defciencies
that may lead to serious accidents
and to develop guidelines for both.
Accident data is not required for an inspection process to be established. If
accident data or other network analysis tools are available, they can be used to
select the roads where the inspection should be targeted.
A RSI should cover the following topics:

There are FOUR steps in the RSI process:

STEP 1 Preparatory work in the offce
STEP 2 On site feld study
STEP 3 Road Safety Report
STEP 4 Remedial measures and follow up
Step 4 may be considered as the implementation of remedial measures and the
evaluation of the countermeasures.
As part of the preparatory work, background information about the road, the
function of the road, the road standard and the traffic volumes should be obtained.
A range of items need to be gathered for the on-site work and check lists are
provided for different types of roads from the experiences around the world in
terms of likely deficiencies that could be seen during an inspection.
Road functions
Cross section,
Alignment,
Intersections
Public and private services, service
and restareas
Vulnerable road users needs
Traffc signing ,marking and lighting
Road side features and passive safety
installations
2012R27EN
The Inspection report needs to outline the process followed; results obtained and
suggest remedial action for deficiencies discovered.
To assist the inspectors how to identify potential deficiencies and develop suitable
strategies to prevent these, a Catalogue of Design SafetyProblems and
Countermeasures has been developed. It presents a range of countermeasures can
be considered, from inexpensive to costly. An evaluation of any implemented
countermeasures is needed within a few years.
2012R27EN
INTRODUCTION
The road safety Technical Committee of PIARC (TC 3.1) has produced a Guideline
on Road Safety Audits (RSA), this Guideline on Road Safety Inspections (RSI)
and a Catalogue of Design Safety Problems and Countermeasures. The guidelines
and the catalogue have a unique structure in respect of the road characteristics to
be checked and analysed:
The road and road characteristics to be analysed are:
1. Function
2. Cross Section
3. Alignment
4. Intersections
5. Public and Private Services
6. Vulnerable Road Users
7. Traffic Signing, Markings
and Lighting
8. Roadside Features
These characteristics also conform to the sections in the detailed checklists which
have also been published as annexes 1 to assist both the RSA and RSI procedures.
The following diagram explains the interaction between the RSA and RSI
guidelines, the accompanying checklists and this catalogue:
2012R27EN
ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION GUIDELINE FOR SAFETY CHECKS OF EXISTING ROADS
1. WHAT IS A ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION (RSI)
1.1. DEFINITION
A Road Safety Inspection (RSI) is a systematic, on site review, conducted by road
safety expert(s), of an existing road or section of road to identify hazardous conditions,
faults and deficiencies that may lead to serious accidents.
It is important to note that:
a RSI is systematic this means it is both comprehensive and carried out in a
methodical way;
a RSI needs to be carried out by an independent person or team with experience in
road safety work, traffc engineering, road user behaviour and/or road design who
are not involved in the maintenance of the road or road section;
a RSI relates to an existing road not roads being constructed;
a RSI is pro-active, trying to prevent accidents through the identifcation of safety
defciencies for remedial action rather than responding to recorded crashes.
Road safety inspections are a safety management tool that can be implemented by
road authorities as part of an overall safety process. RSIs aim to identify potential
problems so countermeasures can be applied to remove or minimise the chance of an
accident occurring. This in turn will lead to reduced costs associated with accidents,
to individuals, families and society. Inspections can lead to reductions in the
likelihood of accidents, in the severity of any accident that does occur and, potentially,
the need for costly remedial infrastructure work.
To be effective, treatments must be identified and implemented as a result of the RSI.
Research by Rune Elvik (report to Institute of Transport Economics August 2006)
shows significant expected accident reductions as a result of a road safety inspection
and associated remedial works. Examples include:
Correcting incorrect signs 5 - 10% reduction
Adding guardrails along embankments 40 50% reduction
Providing clear recovery zones 10 40% reduction
Removing sight obstacles 0 - 5% reduction
More details of expected accident reductions from various treatments and
countermeasures are outlined in the PIARC Catalogue of design problems and
potential countermeasures.
8
2012R27EN
1.2. INSPECTIONS AND AUDITS
A Road Safety Audit (RSA) applies to roads being constructed, whereas a RSI applies
to existing roads. The PIARC Road Safety Audit Guideline provides more detail
about the RSA process. The diagram below illustrates the link between RSA and RSI.
1.3. INSPECTIONS AND ACCIDENT DATA
A RSI does not require accident data. It is a systematic review of a selected road or
relatively long section of a road, regardless of the number of accidents. The traditional
road engineering approach to safety has very often been to wait and see, i.e. safety
countermeasures are not considered until the accident situation becomes unacceptable.
This may occur at one or a few locations or for longer road segments. Then, the
accident situation is analysed and countermeasures designed and implemented. This
approach, commonly known as black spot identification, analysis and remediation
is a reactive approach, largely event-driven.

The RSI process is systematic and not just focused on a particular black spot
identified by accident data or anecdotal accident or incident information from local
police or local residents. An RSI is comprehensive, with extensive preliminary work,
on site appraisal including detailed check lists, analysis of the problems and suggested
countermeasures. RSIs aim to identify any features that may lead to future accidents,
so that remedial treatment may be implemented before accidents happen.
Road accident data can provide some guidance in terms of prioritising which roads
should be inspected. If a road authority wishes to only inspect a limited number of
roads, the priority could be on roads with a high number of accidents expressed as
accident per kilometre of road or accidents per traffic volume using the road.
Accident data can also be used to simplify the inspection process if data shows one
type of accident is predominant, the inspection could focus on issues related to that
type of accident. For example if run off road accidents are the dominant type and
9
2012R27EN
there have been no head on collisions, the focus could be on the roadside, shoulders
and hazards. Network management tools can also provide valuable information in
terms of selection of roads for inspections.
For more information about the use of accident data see the PIARC Accident
Investigation Guideline for Road Engineers.
1.4. INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE
A RSI is not related to routine maintenance. Maintenance is a regular process where
key infrastructure issues such as overhanging branches, the road surface, potholes
and poor quality signage are reviewed and remedied. This can be carried out by
people who do not necessarily have road engineering or road safety experience but
are simply following a planned process. RSIs can identify safety deficiencies that
are a result of poor maintenance, for example poor signing and line marking or
visibility issues caused be vegetation.
1.5. INSPECTIONS AND HUMAN FACTORS
All inspections should take into account a range of human factors which relate to
driver errors that are induced by the road. Issues that should be investigated include
strain/workload issues (either a very low or very high level of workload leads to
a poor quality of driving e.g. a changing landscape rather than a monotonous
landscape could assist in keeping drivers awake, or multiple signals/signs and events
at one location can overwhelm the driver and lead to confusion), perception (illusions
can lead to incorrect estimation of speed, direction, curves), as shown by figure 1,
and choice of speed (this is mostly an automatic process that depends on different
factors that include the road geometry and surrounds). Orientation and anticipation
are also human factor issues. For more information, see the PIARC Human Factors
Guideline).
FIGURE 1 EXAMPLE OF AN ILLUSION THE ROAD APPEARS INITIALLY TO BE GOING
STRAIGHT AHEAD
10
2012R27EN
2. WHAT SHOULD BE INSPECTED?
2.1. DIFFERENT ROADS
Any road can be inspected, but a road authority may wish to prioritize for a number
of reasons, including funding restrictions. The prioritization could be based on the
role of the road, location, traffic volume, network management tools or accident data.
2.2. THE BASICS
The following key areas relating to the road should be investigated during a RSI:
1. Function
Is the road suitable for the role it plays, does it have mixed functions, are speeds
limit appropriate, are there any impacts from land development?
2. Cross section
Is the road wide enough for the traffic using it, is the marking sufficient, what are
the surface conditions, are the shoulders adequate but not too wide, is the road
designed so water does not pool on the surface i.e is drainage from the road
adequate, is the pavement in a suitable condition?
3. Alignment
How many horizontal curves are there, make sure none commence just over a
hill, what about vertical curves, is there consistency of curve design, are sight
distances adequate?
4. Intersections
Is the intersection appropriate for the traffic volumes, are there traffic signals and
are they sufficient (e.g are turning arrows needed). It is also necessary to look at
local accesses and railway crossings.
5. Public and private services; service and rest areas, public transport
Is there sufficient space and acceleration/deceleration lanes into the Service and
Rest Areas, how is access controlled to other services such as schools, hospitals,
supermarkets, restaurants etc. Parking and loading facilities and Public Transport
facilities such as tramlines, bus stops, their position relative to traffic lights
should also be examined. Are they adequately protected including the needs of
their passengers?
6. Vulnerable road user needs
Have the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and scooter/moped or motorbike riders
been taken into account?
7. Traffic signing, marking and lighting
Is the signing and marking appropriate and clear, is lighting adequate or is it
needed?
11
2012R27EN
8. Roadside features and passive safety installations
What structures, steep slopes and embankments, plantings, trees and other
obstacles are near the roadside that could pose a problem? Are there open windows
in the passive safety system and/or is it an obstacle itself?
3. WHEN SHOULD INSPECTIONS BE CARRIED OUT?
3.1. KEY CONSIDERATIONS
At least the following issues need to be considered as part of the inspection process:
Time of inspection it is strongly recommended that inspections take place BOTH
during the day and at night. This is important so the inspector(s) can focus on
issues that are specifc to night such as checking if traffc signs and line markings
are still visible at night time. An analysis of the lighting along a road or at an
intersection should be undertaken to make sure it is suitable for all road users,
including pedestrians and cyclists. If there is no lighting and pedestrian or cycling
use is heavy, the inspection team may recommend lighting be incorporated as a
countermeasure
Seasonal variation it is also suggested that consideration be given to inspections
in different seasons if the seasons are vastly different e.g. snow in winter and very
dry and hot conditions in summer.
Site specifc matters if the road includes a school for example, the inspection
should take place partly when school children are arriving or leaving the school.
Similarly if the road includes a shopping precinct, the inspection should incorporate
busy shopping times. If the direction of travel on the road is east/west, checks for
sun glare should be carried out, including their effect on the visibility of any traffc
signals. A hood on the traffc signal can be used to minimize this problem.
3.2. FREQUENCY
Some road authorities instigate inspections very spasmodically as they may not have
the funding for a regular process or for the recommended remedial works resulting
from the inspection. However, costs can be controlled by being selective in choosing
roads for inspections, altering the timing of inspections and by prioritizing remedial
works following an inspection. As outlined earlier, if countermeasures are
implemented following an inspection, there are expected accident reductions and
consequently significant cost savings, likely to be greater than the costs involved in
the inspection or the remedial works.
This guideline is suggesting road safety inspections become a routine process, carried
out at regular intervals. However, the exact timing is a decision for the road authority
and could vary according to the road, investment patterns and available funding.
12
2012R27EN
Design features such as cross sections and alignment may not change for many years
but may have to be adapted to changing functions, traffic amount and composition.
While no exact timing is recommended, timing between four and ten years is
suggested for main roads where there has been little change.
Other road elements may change more often. If road conditions are known to have
changed e.g. new signing and/or markings, new plantings, lighting and surface
conditions, a focused or specific road safety inspection limited to these topics can be
carried out by the road administration. These inspections are essentially checking
works undertaken to make sure no errors that can lead to accidents have been made.
Examples could include wrongly installed traffic signs and markings, missing safety
barriers or other installations with unintended gaps in the safety barriers and
dangerous objects or obstacles within the safety zone of the road, such as non-breakaway
poles and posts, rock formations, trees, steep and deep ditches. Treatments for
pedestrians and bicycles, intersection treatments, access control and driveway sight
zones are also areas that could be checked. These specific road safety inspections
would occur at irregular intervals depending on how conditions have changed.
Inspections, in addition to road safety audits during design and construction phases,
could also be conducted if a one-off project such as the building of a new shopping
centre occurs. Such a project could affect road safety in terms of issues such as
increased pedestrians and vehicles, parking issues and increased presence of delivery
trucks. Authorities should ensure approval to build the project includes a road safety
audit in the planning and design stages of the project.
4. THE INSPECTION PROCESS
4.1. OVERVIEW
A RSI can be instigated as part of the safety management of the road network. The
first decision is to determine the extent of the inspection by defining the start and
end points of the inspection. Generally this will be a road from start to finish
(i.e. between well defined major intersections) but it could also be a section of a road,
of a reasonable length) This will be outlined in an agreement between the parties
involved in the inspection, usually the road authority (owner) and the inspection
team. The agreement will describe what to inspect, who is paying for what, timelines
and deadlines, what the local agency should contribute with and so on.
13
2012R27EN
There are FOUR steps in the RSI process:

Step 1 preparatory work in the offce
Step 2 on site feld study
Step 3 RSI report
Step 4 remedial measures and follow up
It should be noted that Step 4 may be considered as two separate processes the first
is the implementation of remedial measures, while the follow up is likely to be some
time later to evaluate the impact of the countermeasures.
4.2. PREPARATORY WORK IN THE OFFICE
Background information about the road, the function of the road, the road standard
and the traffic volumes should be obtained as a first step. Information from local
residents might prove useful and can be obtained through face to face discussions or
a questionnaire. The list below provides information about the sort of questions that
should be asked and the answers recorded during the preparatory work:
Road function
Describe the function of the road. Is it a national, regional or a local road?
Is the road a school bus route?
Does the road pass through any towns or villages?
What kind of vehicle traffc uses this road? Is it long distance or short distance
traffc, or maybe there is a mix.
What about heavy vehicle traffc? Is the proportion more or less than other similar
roads? Is the road a part of a freight route?
Do vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, scooter riders or cyclists, use the
road?
If the road passes through agricultural areas, are there slow moving vehicles along
the road.
Traffic situation
Determine the traffc volume and the traffc growth during the last fve years.
Determine the types of vehicles that make up the total traffc count - cars, trucks,
scooters, motorcycles, buses as well as the relative density of cycles and pedestrians.
Is there any traffc volume prediction for the road?
14
2012R27EN
Road standard
Describe the road standard in general and how it links with the road function, traffc
volume, types of junctions and intersections, speed limits, etc.
Analyze the speed limits. Are they reasonable for built-up areas, presence of
vulnerable road users, especially children, elderly and disabled persons, the
alignment of the road, etc.?
All relevant guidelines and regulations need to be available. The main goal in this
step is to get as much relevant information about the road as possible including the
roadside environment and intersecting roads if relevant.
If possible, reasonably detailed maps, drawings or video footage should be made
available. These should be used as an instrument during the field-study but also as
support for presentation of the results of the inspection. One of the most important
parts of an inspection is to accurately indicate where particular problems are along
the road. The method of identifying different locations has to be determined at an
early stage. Examples of different methods are:
1. The coordinates measured by GPS-equipment and registered in a hand-computer.
2. The Control Section Number together with km-posts.
3. The trip meter of the car used during the field-study.
4. The distance or the coordinates measured in the map or the drawing.
5. Easily identified landmarks or reference to video footage.

Method 1 will be most convenient and accurate when the equipment is available. If
GPS is not available, it is suggested a combination of the other methods should be
used to enhance accuracy. It is important that the system chosen is accurate, as the
location will need to be precise when it comes to implementation of countermeasures.
Preparation for the actual on-site part of the inspection is included in this first step.
It is suggested at least the following items should be taken along to assist during the
inspection:
safety vest to be worn during the inspection so inspectors are visible to road users
hat and sunscreen in hot weather
safety boots
tape measure/measuring wheel
a spirit level to check the cross fall and super elevation especially in curves
aerosol can for marking specifc spots
maps
some form of recording e.g portable computer, tape recorder and a digital camera
paper and pencil
15
2012R27EN
stop watch if you wish to record vehicle speeds, headway gaps and traffc fows
A handheld speed gun (radar pistol) may be helpful too
checklists
4.3. FIELD STUDY
The vehicle used to get the inspector or inspection team to the site and for use during
the inspection should preferably have flashing lights. Inspectors need to take care,
not only wearing a safety vest but also ensuring they take all necessary precautions
such as standing behind guard rails for example if it is provided or standing as far
away from traffic as possible.
For a reliable inspection report the inspection should be made both by car and on foot
where needed and incorporate both sides of the road and roadsides. The road should
be driven a number of times if possible and photographs taken of specific issues.
It is desirable for some sort of warning signage to be placed on the road being
inspected and on roads that intersect this road. Signage, if available, should be placed
at least 500m before the inspection team in rural areas, and at least 100 metres in
urban areas. A temporary lower speed limit could be applied. These measures need
to take into account the length of road being inspected and it may be necessary to
shift signage from one point to another.
When an intersection is included in the road to be inspected it is necessary to inspect
part of the intersecting road as well (at least the approaches), including both by
vehicle and on foot.
The on-site field study should start with the description of the surroundings:
Surroundings
Describe the surroundings in general rural, urban or suburban and a description
of what surrounds the road - forest, agricultural area, built-up area or a mixture of
these?
If there is a built-up area, describe the type in greater detail, such as an industrial
area, shopping area, residential area, etc.
Make specifc notes if there are facilities that generate heavy traffc.
If the road is in a rural area, are there linear settlements at long distances along the
road?
Are there accesses to properties outside towns and villages?
16
2012R27EN
Traffic situation
The road safety inspectors should observe the traffic flow and document traffic
incidents which could easily lead to accidents in specific traffic compositions. They
could measure the average speed with speed guns or at certain distances with stop
watches because the choice of speed is often related to the infrastructure features
such as wide cross sections, long sight distances or lack of orientation. Specific
activities which generate traffic and the mix of traffic should be noted including the
level of activity by vulnerable road users.
Infrastructure deficiencies
Road safety inspections aim to detect all deficiencies on existing roads that may
cause accidents or could have an influence on the severity of accidents. The checklists
provided in Appendix 1, page 23 will help to detect deficiencies which regularly lead
to accidents. In terms of what deficiencies might be observed, accident data from
countries around the world show the most common and severe accident types are
likely to be side and head on collisions, collisions with roadside obstacles and
vulnerable road users.
Side collisions at intersections
Intersections should be designed to minimise the risk of collisions, particularly right
angle collisions. Often intersections are the same as in the times with low speed
horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians only. The situation is vastly different now and
with the speed and volume of traffic better lay-outs at such locations is essential and
the intersection must be capable of providing appropriate information to every road
user in order to make a safe decision.

Some intersection layouts can lead to significant problems. For example, Y-Type
intersections as illustrated in figure 2 left can lead to risky decisions or misunderstandings
regarding right of way and subsequent accidents. Others are poorly designed or
obscured by vegetation (see figure 2 right) or obstacles and are hard to detect. The
suggested treatment could range from clearing vegetation to improved signage or
infrastructure treatments such as converting the intersection to a roundabout or T
junction from a Y junction (i.e make the smaller road intersect the major road at right
angles) or a staggered T junction if the intersection was a cross road.
17
2012R27EN
FIGURE 2 Y-TYPE INTERSECTIONS (LEFT) AND INTERSECTION OBSCURED BY VEGETATION
Head on collisions
Head on collisions occur for a variety of reasons, but on some occasions a poor road
cross- section can contribute. Illustrated by figure 3 are two cross-sections that have
the potential to lead to head-on collisions.
FIGURE 3 CROSS-SECTIONS HAVING THE POTENTIAL TO LEAD TO HEAD-ON COLLISIONS
The first photograph shows a four lane cross section with a 14 m width of carriage
way and the second a two lane cross section with 2.5 m wide emergency lanes on
both sides. The first has the potential for head on collisions and the second tends to
be used as a very narrow four lane cross section. These designs were used some
years ago in western European countries but, due to the high number of head on
collisions they are now constructed differently. In the first example, a median is
generally added with crash barriers or the speed limit could be lowered. In the second
case, one option is to construct a 2+1 cross section by remarking the lines so that
the road has two lanes only (i.e. a central line and two edge lines nearer the actual
edge of the pavement) with a middle lane for overtaking every few km or so. However,
in many countries, both situations need a separate section for slow vehicles, bicycles
and smaller motorbikes at least on one side of the road.
18
2012R27EN
Collisions with roadside obstacles
Roadside hazards can make the consequence of an accident much more dramatic than
if there was no hazard. Hazards such as poles, drains and trees are not forgiving
when a driver makes a mistake by running or sliding off the carriageway (figure 4).
Such as mistake can occur for many reasons including drowsiness, when trying to
avoid head on collisions caused by another driver or an accident with animals on the
road. Obstacles very close to the carriageway can change incidents into accidents.
FIGURE 4 ROADSIDE OBSTACLES
The nature of these obstacles can be very different, ranging from poles to drains to
walls to trees. Trees along interurban roads pose a particular problem as many do not
want them removed, despite the clear hazard they create. It is interesting to note
some trees/hazards have been the scene of a fatal accident as illustrated by the
flowers or memorials alongside, yet very few people call for their removal. Many
countries have installed barriers in front of hazards as an alternative to removal but
care needs to be taken as some barriers can be a hazard themselves (figure 5).
FIGURE 5 BARRIERS IN FRONT OF HAZARDS
19
2012R27EN
Collisions with pedestrians and cyclists
Pedestrians and cyclists are the most vulnerable road users and their needs require
special attention during the on-site field study. Potential accidents arising from the
interaction of cars and trucks with vulnerable road users are likely in many countries.
The inspection needs to consider many potential countermeasures ranging from slowing
traffic down to infrastructure treatments such as separation through either a cycle lane
along the side of the road or footpath or separate tracks away from the main road. Also,
the need of both cyclists and pedestrians to cross the road should be taken into account.
FIGURE 6 PEDESTRIANS FORCED TO WALK ON THE ROAD
As the pictures of figure 6 illustrate, footpaths for pedestrians in some countries are
either non-existent or completely occupied by shops, stalls, garages, restaurants,
construction materials, or parked motorbikes. Pedestrians are forced to walk on the road
itself which can be dangerous where there is traffic including cars and trucks. This
situation is even more dangerous in countries where there are linear settlements along
the major roads and pedestrian fatalities particularly are a major cause for concern.
Similar situations exist worldwide and some form of control is necessary to limit
accesses to and from private property along interurban roads to minimise the danger
of these the hazards.
FIGURE 7 LACK OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
20
2012R27EN
These and more deficiencies of the road infrastructure are described in the PIARC
Catalogue of design problems and potential countermeasures .
4.4. CHECK LISTS
During the inspection, checklists need to be used and completed (see Appendix 1).
Different checklists are required (and provided in Appendix 1 for Motorways and
Freeways, Interurban Roads crossing small towns and villages and for Urban main
roads). The process can involve small sections of the road with repeated check lists
or several runs along the whole road using a single check list. The length chosen
depends on the complexity of the road.
The checklists are quite detailed (as requested by representatives of developing
countries) and consequently there should be a systematic collection of the deficiencies
that were found. The general structure of the checklists is shown in the table below.
The completed checklists themselves will not be added to the Inspection Reports. But
the summary of the results will be contained in an investigation form (Appendix 2,
page 65). In this form, the deficiencies are collated under the broad headings from
the check list with locations provided. This document is a way of gathering all of the
information onto one form. This form should comprise part of the Road Safety
Inspection Report.
TABLE 1 STRUCTURE OF THE CHECKLISTS
General data of the road
Length
About ..km, percentage of inside and outside towns and
villages
Max Speed km/h outside, km/h inside towns and villages
Traffic data Recent and predicted traffic volume
Accident data If available
Road characteristics for active safety avoiding human errors and accidents
Geometric Design Characteristics
1. Function
Is the road suitable for the role it plays, does it have mixed
functions, are vulnerable road users separated, are speed limits
appropriate, are there any impacts from land development?
2. Cross section
Is the road wide enough for the traffic using it, what are the surface
conditions, are the shoulders adequate but not too wide, is the road
designed so water does not pool on the surface, is drainage from the
road adequate?
3. Alignment
Is the alignment consistent, make sure none commence just over a hill,
are the horizontal and vertical alignment coordinated, are sight
distances adequate?
21
2012R27EN
TABLE 1 STRUCTURE OF THE CHECKLISTS (follow)
Road characteristics for active safety avoiding human errors and accidents
4. Intersections
4.1 Geometry
4.2 Signalization
4.3 Railway crossings
Are the intersections appropriate for the traffic volumes and road
characteristics, are they fully visible and recognizable are they
perpendicular, are weaving lanes long enough, are there traffic signals
and if are they sufficient. Also need to look at local accesses and
railway crossings?
5. Services
5.1 Service and rest areas
5.2 Access control, City halls,
hospitals, churches and
cemeteries Supermarkets,
cinemas etc
5.3 Public transport
Is there sufficient space and acceleration/deceleration lanes into the
rest area, what amenities are provided (including petrol stations,
public services such as schools, hospitals etc restaurants and
parking places), should also look at parking and loading facilities
and public transport facilities such as bus stops, their position
relative to traffic lights, are they adequately protected including the
needs of their passengers?
6. Needs of vulnerable road
users
Have the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and scooter/moped or
motorbike riders been taken into account?
Road equipment
7. Traffic signing, marking
and lighting
Is the signing and marking appropriate and clear, is lighting
adequate or is it needed?
8. Road side features and
passive safety
installations
8.1 Forgiving road sides,
8.2 Engineering structures
8.3 Plantings
8.4 Other obstacles
8.5 Passive safety measures
What structures, steep slopes and embankments, plantings, trees
and other obstacles are near the roadside that could pose a problem?
Are there open windows in the passive safety system and/or is it an
obstacle itself?

4.5. THE INSPECTION REPORT
The RSI report should consist of an introduction, three parts and appendices with
maps and illustrations as necessary. The introduction should include details of the
road or section of road being inspected and the composition of the inspection team,
date, times and conditions at the time of the inspection. Part A should outline the
background data obtained during the preparatory work in the office and a description
of the activities undertaken. Part B describes the shortcomings or deficiencies which
were found and an assessment of these deficiencies. It should contain the completed
investigation form and the documentation with pictures. Part C should contain
proposals for countermeasures, from short to long term.
22
2012R27EN
A typical inspection report table of contents would be:
Introduction including road being inspected.
Part A. Project data (road function, traffc situation, road standards, surroundings).
Part B. Investigation form with the defciencies.
Part C. Proposals and options for counter measures short term (e.g. signage,
enforcement), medium term (e.g. speed reductions using traffc calming measures,
refuge islands for pedestrians etc) and long term (larger investment may be
required). A brief cost estimate should be included if possible.
Appendix Maps and illustrations (in order to clarify the results, different kinds
of illustrations may be used including photos and sketches of countermeasures,
locations need to be specifed).
The Road Safety Inspection Report should propose and discuss a range of
countermeasures. They may be chosen from the PIARC Catalogue mentioned
previously. This catalogue was developed to help both Road Safety Inspections and
Road Safety Audits. The safety effects of the alternative measures should be
estimated. A check must also be made whether the proposed measures can cause any
negative effects.
Costs for the alternative countermeasures should be estimated and a ranking of
remedial measures should be made on the basis of the Cost/Effectiveness ratio and
the efforts in respect of the time that is needed. There are a number of tools that are
available from various countries which would assist in the prioritisation of works and
choice of countermeasures.
4.6. REMEDIAL MEASURES AND FOLLOW UP
Although one could argue the actual implementation of remedial measures and an
evaluation of their effectiveness some time later, they do not form part of the formal
inspection process, but they are important steps. Implementation will depend on
available funds and other factors such as the need for land acquisition. Studies can
be carried out at a later time to evaluate the effects of the remedial measures.
Behaviour studies should be made in the same way and in the same positions as
during the investigation. Traffic volumes and speeds should be checked, as well as
the traffic environment. It is suggested that the follow up involve different people
from those who carried out the inspections and recommendation of countermeasures
and be some years after the implementation of the remedial action.
5. WHO SHOULD CARRY OUT AN INSPECTION?
Depending on the complexity of the work, an inspection may be done by a single
inspector or by a group of inspectors. This guideline suggests on major roads, a
23
2012R27EN
multi-member team is engaged to ensure there are more than one pair of eyes doing the
inspection, there is exchange of ideas from discussions between the members of the
team and all necessary skills and backgrounds are covered by the team. However, on
some smaller projects a single inspector may be adequate and a more practical option.
The members of the road safety inspection group should be independent i.e. not part
of the team that designed and built the road or maintains the road. They should have a
very good specialised and in-depth knowledge of the region as well as an understanding
of potential countermeasures and what is required for their implementation.
It is preferable for an inspector to have specific training in audits and/or inspections.
However, it is possible for a person with knowledge of road safety and road
engineering, using the check lists provided to complete an inspection. If RSAs and
RSIs are embraced by the road authority as road safety management tools, there
may be advantages in all inspectors having the same training and certification on
uniform safety analyses and solutions, providing a nationwide uniform approach to
road safety.
It is suggested that on-going training be provided for inspectors to provide any
updating on issues critical to the inspection process.
The preferred requirements of a road safety inspector should include:
professional education in road design and road maintenance or special training;
substantial experience in day to day road operation and/or road maintenance
respectively or road traffc police work;
an excellent knowledge of the regulations and guidelines regarding roads and road
traffc, traffc signs etc;
strong communication skills to be able to write a clear and concise report and then
convince various stakeholders of the proposed countermeasures.
It is also possible to have a team of inspectors with specific expertise spread across
the team.
24
2012R27EN
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.1 ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION CHECKLISTS
FOR MOTORWAYS AND FREEWAYS
MOTORWAYS ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION
MOTORWAY NUMBER FROM KM , TO KM , DATE:
Characteristic No. Question
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
1. Function,
operating
elements and
surrounding
0
Have eventual final audit results from previous
audit phase been taken into consideration?

1
Are there any issues from accident data if
available?

2
Is the motorway
A long distance motorway,
A regional motorway or
An urban motorway
3
Is the design of the road in accordance with its
category?

4
Do we realize the change of characteristics early
enough?
120 km/h 500 m ahead
80 km/h 200 m ahead
60 km/h 150 m ahead
5
Are there accumulations of events such as curves
+ hilltops + intersections etc?

6
Are speed limits required and applied in the best
way?

7
Is stopping sight distance guaranteed along the
entire section?
100 km/h 185 m for trucks
8 Is the landscaping work finished?
9
Are all fixed or planted obstacles that can be
dangerous placed outside the safety zone?
120km/h 12 m
100 km/h 9 m
80 km/h 6 m (away from the carriage way)
10
Is the end of the construction area away from
critical points, e.g. summits, downgrades, curves,
areas with restricted sight distance or
distractions?

25
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
2. Cross section
1 Is the cross section appropriate for the category?
2
Does the road surface provide the required grip
over the long term where small radii occur (e.g.
also on ramps)?

3
Are there any doubts regarding the surface grip
because of excess bleeding or polished
components?

4 Is the surface even and free from grooves?
5 Is the surface free from short or long waves?
6
Is there sufficient drainage for the road and its
surrounding?

7 Is there sufficient cross / diagonal fall?
8 Is the cross fall in straight sections constant?
9 What is the medium width of the road shoulders?
10
Are there hard shoulders at the same level of the
carriage way?

11 Are the road verges strong and stable enough?
12
Have sufficient measures been taken in cutting
slopes to prevent falling material (e.g. falling
rocks)?

13
Is stopping sight obstructed, for example by
safety barriers, plants?

14
Is there a median? Does it have a safe design, e. g.
safety barrier or sufficient width to prevent turn
accidents?

15
Does the embankment require passive safety
installations?

16
Do the elements of the cross section realize the
situation for the road users?

3. Alignment
1
Is the existing speed limit adequate for the
horizontal and vertical elements of the
alignment?

2
Is sight obstructed, for example by safety
barriers, fences, road equipment, parking areas,
traffic signs, landscaping/greenery, bridge
abutments, buildings?

4 Is visibility in curves ensured?
5 Is the super elevation in curves sufficient?
26
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
3. Alignment
continued
6
Has the uphill sector a passing lane for
overtaking slow traffic?

7
Has the passing lane a sufficient length in order
to ensure that the vehicles can overtake and
return safely?

8 Are there hidden dips in the vertical alignment?
9
Is the alignment consistent and easily recognized
by the road users? Or are there many surprises
for the drivers?

10
Are changes (surprises) indicated by transitions
such as signing, points of fixation?

11
Are the outside of the curves framed parallel
and consistent?

12 Are the insides of curves free from side obstructions?
13 Are there optical illusions?
4. Intersections
Interchanges
1
Are the type and design of the intersections
suitable for the category and traffic volume of the
intersecting roads? (Separate answers for each
intersection!)
2
Are the movements clearly guided and easily to
understand? Are traffic flows guided by markings?

3
Are the auxiliary lanes or tapers for turning
movements large enough?

4
Is the intersection fully visible and recognizable
in time from all approaches for different driver
eye heights of: cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles,
etc, and are the required sight triangles clear?

5
Does the ambient lighting present any special
requirements?
6

7
Is a reduction in speed required in the direction of
the intersection? And are there transitions for
speed reductions on the minor road?

8
For checking the intersection at the secondary
roads please use the checklists for interurban or
urban main roads.

27
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
5. Traffic signals
and ITS
measures
1
For traffic signals along secondary roads follow
the checklists for interurban or urban main roads

2
Are ITS measures for communication and driver
assistance installed?

3
Is the information clearly recognisable and
understandable?

6. Service and
rest areas
1
Are there deceleration and acceleration lanes at
the entrance and exit?

2
Are the dimensions of the parking areas sufficient
for parking for passenger vehicles, trucks and
buses?

3
Is the layout of the service or rest area appropriate
for the different traffic movements? And if so, is
layout suitable in access areas to and from
property?

4
Is the layout in such a way, that vehicles are
running at the appropriate speed?

5 Are no-stopping zones provided as necessary?
6
Are the dimensions of the parking areas sufficient
for parking for passenger vehicles, trucks and
buses?

7
Are parking areas easily accessible and do they
provide sufficient manoeuvring space?

8
Are these areas physically separated from the
carriageway (guardrail, kerb, green area etc.)?

9 Do users feel safe and secure?
10
Have measures been taken to ensure safe access
for emergency service and rescue vehicles?
11
Are sufficient parking areas provided to
minimize illegal parking on footpaths, cycle
facilities, and on the carriageway with the
corresponding hazards or have corresponding
preventative measures been taken?

12
Are loading areas provided next to the road where
it is unavoidable?

13
Is it possible to enter and leave parking areas
safely?

14
Is sight obstructed by parking areas or by by
illegally parked vehicles?

28
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
7. Public
transport
1 Is public transport using the motorway?
2 Are bus stops clear of the motorway?
8. Needs of
vulnerable
users
1
Are there any pedestrian facilities in the service
and rest areas? And if so, are they of a safe
design?

9. Traffic
signing,
marking,
lighting
9.1 Signing
1
Have speed limits been signed appropriately
(start, end, height, location)?

2
Are there speed limitations of 70/60 km/h ahead
of intersections and build up areas?

3
Is the visibility of the road course assisted by
edge delineation?

4 Is sight obstructed by the traffic or by the signs?
5
Is prohibition of overtaking for trucks, buses, etc.
appropriately designed and located? Are there
warning signs ahead of the intersection
prohibiting overtaking?
6
Can the signs be clearly recognized and read (size
of signs)? And do the signs conform to the Vienna
and Geneva Conventions?

7
Are there more than 2 different traffic signs in
one place?

8
Is a reduction in speed when approaching the
intersection assigned to the correct place and
properly designed?

9
Is signing logical and consistent? Does it show
the right of way clearly?

10 Is signing for service and rest areas clear?
11
Have variable direction signing or traffic control
systems been installed and are they fully
functional?

12
Are advanced warnings in place for features that
cannot be seen in time?

13
Could greenery lead to safety problems if the
vegetation grows (e.g. as a result of covered road
signs)?

14
Are signs located in such a way as to avoid
restricting visibility from approaches or
intersecting roads?

29
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
9.1 Signing
continued
15
Are signs retro reflecting or are they illuminated
at night? In daylight and darkness, are signs
satisfactory regarding visibility?
16 Are the additional information panels uniform?
17
Are there misunderstanding or misguiding traffic
signs or additional information panels?

18
Is readability ensured at the required distance?
Are there background problems?

19
Where needed have signs been located above
the carriageway?

20
Do the signs have a dimension according to the
type of road?

21 Are the signs provided with protective edges?
22
Are the signs in a uniform position, compared
to the pavement?

23
Is the vertical signing properly emplaced
and complete?

24
Are the sign masts and foundations sufficiently
protected against collisions?

25
Do the traffic signs including their supports have
sufficient passive safety by: low mass and/or
break away structure and/or are they beyond the
safety zone? Passive safety installations?

26 Do delineators have a break away structure?
27
Does the overhead directional signing correspond
with the traffic lanes?

9.2 Markings
1
Do all signs and markings correspond without
any contradictions?

2 Are the road markings clear and recognizable?
3
Have old markings/signs been completely
removed (phantom markings)?

4
Are the markings in a parallel line to the edge
of the road surface?

5
Are the markings appropriate for the function
and category of the road?

7
Are the markings likely to be effective under all
expected conditions (day, night, wet, dry, fog,
rising and setting sun)?

8
Is the obligation to yield right of way enforced by
markings according to the one enforced by signing?

30
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
9.3 Lighting
1 Is the road sufficiently illuminated?
2 Is the stationary lighting appropriate?
3
Is the lighting of special situations (transition
zones, changes in cross section) suitably
designed?

4 Is contrast lighting required at the intersection?
7
requirements?

9
Can the stationary lighting cause problems in
recognizing the traffic signs or the alignment of
the road?

9
Are the lighting masts situated outside of the
safety zone or properly protected?

10
Is stationary lighting at intersections/service and
rest areas properly situated?

11
In the areas where there is no stationary lighting,
are there any potential dangers?

10. Road side
features and
passive safety
installations
10.1 Miscelleneous
road
equipment
1
Are there any features within the safety zone?
100 km/h 9 m
80 km/h 6 m
60 km/h 3 m
2 Are antidazzle screens provided as required?
3
Has suitable road equipment (fog warning signs,
automatic sprinklers for de-icing agents, snow
fences etc.) been installed and is it fully
functional?
4
Are the emergency telephones in appropriate and
safe positions with regard to traffic?

5
Is the beginning and end of game fencing
correctly determined?

6
barriers, fences, road equipment, advertising
billboards, and traffic signs?

7
rocks)?

31
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
10.2 Plantings
1 Is there any vegetation along the motorway
2 Are there trees within the safety zone
3 Are tree trunks free of scars from accidents?
4
Does the greenery or will the growth of greenery
lead to future safety problems?

5
Does the greenery and type of planting preclude
irritations to the road users (e.g. alignment)?
6
Is sight obstructed by the planting? Is good
visibility ensured at the intersection?

7
Does vegetation protect the road from natural
disasters like land slides etc?

8
Is the vegetation along the road old and could it
lead to safety problems?

9
Does road side vegetation guide the drivers in
curves continuously?

10 Does it obstruct the visibility on the road course?
11
Is the vegetation monotonous? Or does it help to
avoid a monotonous character of the road?

10.3 Civil
engineering
structures
1 Is reconcilability guaranteed?
2
Are passive safety installations set up at the
required locations?

3
Are parapets and overpasses at a safe distance
from the road?

4
Have masts, abutments, supporting walls, bridge
railings etc. been safeguarded?

5 Is lighting appropriately designed?
10.4 Drainage
6
Is the drainage system a linear obstacle with deep
ditches in the safety zone?

7 Are the constructions of culverts obstacle like?
10.5 Other
obstacles
1
What is the distance of the road directional
signing to the pavement?

2
Are there unprotected supports for cables (other
than lighting) in the obstacle-free zone?

3
Are traffic signs (other than road directional
signs) to be considered as dangerous obstacles?

4
Are there unprotected advertisement boards or
other fixed obstacles outside the safety zone? Are
they avoidable, or safeguarded?

32
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
10.6 Passive
safety
installations
1
Are fixed obstacles avoidable, set up at sufficient
distances or safeguarded (masts, abutments,
supporting walls, bridge railings, trees etc.)?

2
Have passive safety installations been set up at
the required locations?

3
Are all road safety barriers in place and safely
located so that they are not obstacles themselves?

4 Is the length of any guardrail adequate?
5
Is the guardrail correctly installed, regarding:
- End treatments:
- Anchorages,
- Post spacing,
- Post depth,
- Rail overlap?
6 Are dangerous windows of guardrails avoided?
7
Are all necessary medium barriers in place and
properly signed or delineated?

8
Are barriers placed so that they dont restrict
visibility?

33
2012R27EN
FOR INTERURBAN ROADS AND HIGHWAYS
CHECKLISTS FOR INTER URBAN MAIN ROADS CROSSING BUILD UP AREAS
OF TOWNS AND VILLAGES ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION
HIGHWAY NR. .. BETWEEN KM , AND KM , DATE:
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
1. Function,
operating
elements and
surroundings
0
audit phases been taken into consideration?

1
available?

2
Are there specific traffic composition
characteristics to be taken into consideration?

3
Are special measures required for particular
groups e.g. for young people, older people, sick
people, physically handicapped,
hearing-impaired or blind people?

4
Is the design of the road according to its function
and hierarchy in the network?

5 Are there built up areas with mixed traffic?
6
Is access to abutting properties and agriculture
appropriate for road safety?
7
Are there any parallel ways to be used by carts
and farm equipment?
8
Do we realize the change of functions and
characteristics early enough?
80 km/h 200 m ahead
60 km/h 150 m ahead
9
+ hilltops + intersections etc?

10
Are transitions installed between different
functions and road characteristics?

11
Are there traffic islands and lane shifts at the
entrance of villages and towns?
12
Are speed limits and traffic calming measures in
villages and towns required and applied in the
best way?

13
Can road maintenance service vehicles be parked
safely?

34
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
1. Function,
operating
elements and
surroundings
(continued)
15
entire section?
16 Is the landscaping work finished ?
17
100 km/h 9m
80 km/h 6m
60 km/h 3m (away from skidding cars?)
18
Is the transition from a built-up to a rural road or
from an illuminated to an unilluminated road
appropriately designed (village/town outskirts)?

19
Is the end of the construction area away from
critical points, e.g. summits, downgrades,
curves, areas with restricted sight distance or
distractions?

2. Cross section
1 Is the cross section appropriate to the function?
2
also on ramps)?

3
components?

6
surroundings?

9 What is the medium width of the road shoulders?
10
Are the shoulders and the carriageway at the
same level?

11 Are the road verges strong and stable enough?
35
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
2. Cross section
(continued)
12
rocks)?

13

14
Is narrowing of the carriageway required and, if
so, designed in such a way to ensure traffic
safety?

15
Have suitable measures been taken to ensure that
speed limits are obeyed?

16
Have the needs of public transport and its users
been taken into consideration?

17
Is slow and non motorized traffic separated from
fast and heavy traffic? Or have pedestrian and
cyclist requirements been considered (e.g.
separate cycle facilities)?

18
Is there a median? Does it have a safe design, e.
g. safety barrier or sufficient width to prevent
turn accidents?

19
Is a separating strip required between cycle path
and parking strip?

20
Are there any bottlenecks? If so, are they
properly signed?

21
Do curves with small radii have an enlarged
width of the pavement?

22
installations?

19

3. Alignment
1
Is the existing speed limit adequate for the
horizontal and vertical elements of the
alignment?

2

36
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
3. Alignment
(continued)
4 Is visibility in curves ensured?
5 Is the super elevation in curves sufficient?
6 Are there sufficient overtaking possibilities?
7
Has the uphill sector a passing lane for
overtaking slow traffic?

8
Has the passing lane a sufficient length in order
to ensure that the vehicles can overtake and
return safely?

9 Are there hidden dips in the vertical alignment?
10
Is the alignment consistent and easily recognized
by the road users? Or are there many surprises
for the drivers?

11
Are changes (surprises) indicated by transitions
such as signing, points of fixation?

12
Are the outside of the curves framed parallel and
consistent?

13
Are the insides of curves free from side
obstructions?

14 Are there optical illusions?
4. Intersections
4.1 Geometry
and lay out
1 Are the intersections perpendicular?
2
Is the main direction clearly recognizable? And
if so, Is the right of way clearly recognizable?

3
Are the movements guided clearly and easy to
understand? Are traffic flows guided by
markings?

4

5
eye heights of: Cars, trucks, motorcycles,
bicycles, etc, and are the required sight triangles
clear?
6
requirements?

37
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
4.1 Geometry
and lay out
(continued)
7

8
Are type and design of the intersections suitable
for the function and traffic volume of the
intersecting roads? (Separate answers for each
intersection!)

9
Is pedestrian/cyclist routing at intersections
adapted to the actual conditions and clearly
marked and signposted?

10
Are all approaches equipped with pedestrian and
cycle crossings?

11
Has right of way been specified and clarified at
cycle crossings, in particular for cycle paths that
are set back?

12
Is the transition safely designed if footpaths and
cycle paths end on a intersection or road or are
directed across the road?

13
Are stop lines for motorists further back for the
benefit of cyclists?

14

15 Are there no-stopping zones?
16
Is a reduction in speed required in the direction
of the intersection? And are there transitions for
speed reductions on the minor road?

17
Does the obligation to yield right of way need to
be reinforced (e.g. using repetition)?

18
Are pedestrian crossings clearly marked? Is each
section equipped with signals (including railway
structures)?

19
Are the crossings for pedestrians and cyclists
provided with low kerbs?

20 Should turns be prohibited (block diversion)?
38
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
4.1 Geometry
and lay out
(continued)
21
Are the type and spacing of different crossing
installations coordinated (e.g. railway crossings,
traffic signals, zebra crossings)?

22
Is right of way clearly defined at points where
cyclists come into contact with each other or
with motorized traffic?

23
Are refuges large and wide enough for crossing
pedestrians and cyclists to stand and wait?

24
Are the islands above the level of the
carriageway?

25 Are the islands made only by markings?
26
Are the islands clearly visible and of a suitable
design?

27
Is there a danger of underestimating speed and
overestimating distance of crossing vehicles?

4.2 Roundabouts
1
Are all approaches to roundabouts perpendicular
and radial to the centre?

2
Is the central island of the round about shaped as
a hill?

3
Is the through-visibility effectively stopped by
the roundabout and the hill?

4
Is the central island of the roundabout free of
fixed obstacles which could be reached by
vehicles?

4.3 Traffic
signals
1
Is the stopping line correlated with the traffic
signal so that the signal can be seen?

2
Have any turning movements been excluded
from signal control? If so, is traffic management
safe?

3 Are traffic signals easily recognizable?
4
Have cyclists requirements been considered
(e.g. route through the intersection)?

5

39
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
4.3 Traffic
signals
(continued)
6
cycle crossings?
See 6.
needs of
vulnerable
road users
7
Are pedestrian crossings clearly constructed? Is
each section equipped with signals (including
railway structures)?

8
Are exclusive green phases provided for
pedestrians and cyclists where necessary?

9
Can pedestrians cross the road in one attempt? Is
the green time sufficient?

10
If there is no exclusive pedestrian phase, is a
leading pedestrian interval provided?

11
Are phase offsets required for pedestrians and
cyclists within the cycle?

12
Are separate signals provided for cyclists? (Are
the signal aspects correctly located for the
cyclists? Estimate clearance times for cyclists?
Avoid protected turn phases/ risk of cyclists
crossing on red.)

13
Is the maximum delay reasonable for cyclists?
Are cyclists partially or totally removed from
signal control?

14

15
Are the signals affected at dawn/dusk by direct
sunlight?

16
Are advanced warnings provided for traffic
signals that cannot be seen in time?

17
Have the locations for the signals been selected
correctly (additional signals, overhead signals,
etc.)?

18 Are secondary signals provided as necessary?
40
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
4.3 Traffic
signals
(continued)
19
Does the existing road lighting lead to conflicts
in recognizing the yellow indication (sodium
discharge lamps)?
20
Is access from abutting properties affected and,
if necessary, included in signal control?

21
Are perspectives that appear to be continuous
(passage effect) interrupted by highlighting the
nearest signals?
23
Are the traffic signals properly situated so that
they can be distinguished by each particular
traffic flow?

24
Are there any additional signs correlated with
the traffic signals to show the direction to which
that traffic signal is referring to?
25
Is the visibility of the traffic signal ensured on a
sunny day?

26

27
Are signals covered/ obstructed (e.g. by traffic
signs, lighting masts, plants, traffic jams)?

4.4 Railway
crossings
1
Is the type of the railway crossing in accordance
with the traffic volume?

2
Are passive safety devices at the required
locations?

3
Are the traffic signs correlated with the type of
railway crossing?

4
If the railway crossing is situated in a curve are
the traffic signs doubled on the other side of the
road?

5
Are traffic control devices required and
optimally set up with regard to future traffic
developments?

7 Is good visibility guaranteed?
8 Is lighting required and appropriately installed?
41
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
4.4 Railway
crossings
(continued)
9
requirements?

10
Are prohibition of overtaking and speed limits in
place as necessary?

5. Services
5.1 Service and
rest areas
1
Are service and rest areas and parking facilities
on both sides of the road?
If not, are there left turn lanes?
2
Are there deceleration and acceleration lanes at
the entrance and exit?

3
Are the dimensions of the parking areas
sufficient for parking for passenger vehicles,
trucks and buses?

4
Is the layout of the service or rest area
appropriate for the different traffic movements?
And if so, is the layout suitable in access areas to
and from property?

5
Is the layout in such a way, that vehicles are
running at the appropriate speed?

7
trucks and buses?

8

9
Are there any pedestrian facilities? And if so, are
they of a safe design?

10 Do users feel safe and secure?
11
for emergency service and maintenance
vehicles?

12
Are sufficient parking areas provided to
minimize illegal parking on footpaths, cycle
facilities, and on the carriageway with the
corresponding hazards? Or have corresponding
preventative measures been taken?

42
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
5.1 Service and
rest areas
(continued)
13
Are loading areas provided next to the road
where it is unavoidable?

14
Is it possible to enter and leave parking areas
safely?

15
Is sight obstructed by parking areas or by
illegally parking vehicles,

6. Public
transport
1
Are tram lines separated from the vehicle
traffic?

7. Needs of
vulnerable
Road users
7.1 At Public
transport
stops
1
Are stops easily and safely accessible to
pedestrians and are the pedestrian crossings
situated at the rear of the bus stop?

2
Are the bus stops signposted and detectable by
the drivers? Is reconcilability guaranteed?

3
Are the bus stops situated outside of the
carriageway where appropriate?

4
Are areas for waiting pedestrians and large
enough?

5
Are the queuing areas for waiting passengers
sufficient?

6

7
Is cyclist routing safely designed in the area near
public transport stops?

8
Is lighting required? And if so, is it appropriately
designed?

7.2 Other needs
of pedestrian
and cyclists
1
Are the pedestrian crossings located where most
required by pedestrian traffic?

2
Have pedestrian crossings been appointed in
such a way that collective use is guaranteed and
the road will not be crossed at other points?

3
Is there a risk of pedestrian underpasses and
bridges being bypassed? Are suitable measures
in place?

4 Are further crossing aids required?
43
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
7.2 Other needs
of pedestrian
and cyclists
(continued)
5
Are areas for waiting pedestrians and cyclists
sufficient?

6

7
Are crossings over special railway structures of
a safe design?

8
Is two-way visual contact ensured between
pedestrians and motorists?

9
(e.g. route across central refuges, bottlenecks)?

10
Has priority been given to cyclists over other
traffic where necessary?

11
Is the visibility for motorised traffic adequate to
see cyclists along the road?

12
Are parked vehicles obstructing the visibility of
the road users regarding cyclists?

13
Are points where cyclists cross intersecting
roads provided with low curbstones?

14
Are the pedestrian ways physically separated by
kerb stones, barriers or greenery?

15
Is there a speed limit? And if so, is it respected
by the drivers?

16
Are there traffic islands at the entrances of these
areas?

17
Are the pedestrian crossings signposted and
detectable by the drivers?

18
Have pedestrian crossings been emplaced in

19
Are the islands clearly visible and properly
placed?

20 Is lighting provided where necessary?
44
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
7.3 Needs of
motorcyclists
1
Are motorbikes a significant percentage of the
traffic?

2
Have devices or objects that might destabilize a
motorcycle been avoided on the road surface?

3
Is the road side clear of obstructions where
motorcyclists may lean into curves?

4
Will warning or delineation be adequate for
motorbikes?

5
Have barrier kerbs been avoided in high speed
areas?

6
In areas more likely to have motorcyclists run off
the road is the roadside forgiving or safety
shielded?

8. Traffic
signing,
marking
and lighting
8.1 Signing
1

2
of intersections and built up areas?

3
edge delineation?

5
Is prohibition of overtaking for trucks, buses,
etc. appropriately designed and located? Are
there warning signs ahead of the intersection

6
Can the signs be clearly recognized and read
(size of signs)? And do the signs conform to the
Vienna and Geneva Conventions?

7
Are there more than 2 different traffic signs at
one place and are all traffic signs necessary?

8
properly designed?

9

45
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
8.1 Signing
(continued)
11
functional?

12
signposted?

13
Are the installations shared by pedestrians and
cyclists, including underpasses and bridges,
properly signposted?

14

15
Is it clear to motorists whether they are crossing
a one-way or two-way cycle path?

16

17
signs)?

18
intersecting roads?

19
Is the roundabout fully visible and recognizable
from all approaches and are the markings and
signs clear and unambiguous?

20

22
Are there misunderstanding or misguiding
traffic signs or additional information panels?

23

24
Where needed have signs been located above the
carriageway?

46
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
8.1 Signing
(continued)
25
type of road?

27
Are the signs at a uniform position, compared to
the pavement?

28
Is the vertical signing properly emplaced and
complete?

29

30
a sufficient passive safety by: low mass or/and?
Break away structure or/and? Are they beyond
the safety zone? Passive safety installations?

31 Do delineators have a break away structure?
32
any contradictions?

8.2 Markings
2

3
from signal control? If so, are markings clear for
turning motorists?

4
Are the markings in a parallel line to the edge of
the road surface?

5

7
Is it clear to the motorist whether he is crossing a
one-way or two-way cycle path?

8

9

10

47
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
8.2 Markings
(continued)
11

12
Are the markings according to the pedestrian/
cyclist traffic flow?

13
Is the obligation to yield right of way enforced
by markings according to the one enforced by
signing?

8.3 Lighting
3
designed?

4
Do remaining unlit areas present potential
problems?

7
discharge lamps)?

9
Does lighting need to be changed so that
crossing pedestrians are clearly visible?

10
requirements?

11
the road?

12

13

14
In the areas where is no stationary lighting, are
there any potential dangers?

48
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
9. Road side
features and
passive safety
installations
9.1 Other road
equipment
1
Are there any features within the safety zone?
100 km/h 9 m
80 km/h 6 m
60 km/h 3 m
2 Are antidazzle screens provided as required?
3
Has suitable road equipment (fog warning signs,
automatic sprinklers for de-icing agents, snow
fences etc.) been installed and is it fully
functional?

4
Are the emergency telephones in appropriate and
safe positions with regard to traffic?

5
Is the beginning and end of game fencing
correctly determined?

6
barriers, fences, road equipment, advertising
billboards, and traffic signs?

7
rocks)?

9.2 Plantings
1 Is there any vegetation along the road?
2 Are there trees?
3 Are tree trunks free of scars from accidents?
4

5

6
Is sight obstructed by the planting? Is good
visibility ensured at the intersection?

7
Is visual contact motorist-pedestrian-cyclist
restricted by greenery?

8
Does vegetation protect the road from natural
disasters like land slides etc?

9
Is the vegetation along the road old and could

10

49
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
9.2 Plantings
(continued)
11 Does it obstruct the visibility on the road course?
12
Is the vegetation monotonous? Or does it help to
avoid a monotonous character of the road?
9.3 Civil
engineering
structures
2
required locations?

3
from the road?

4

6
(e.g. separate cycle facilities)?

9.4 Drainage 7
Is the drainage system a linear obstacle with
deep ditches in the safety zone?
Are the constructions of culverts obstacle like?

9.5 Other
obstacles
1

2
Are the light poles to be considered as an
obstacle (steel, concrete construction)?

3
Are there unprotected supports for cables (other
than lighting) in the obstacle-free zone?

4

5
other fixed obstacles outside the safety zone?
Are they avoidable, or safeguarded?

9.6 Passive safety
installations
1

2

3

50
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
9.6 Passive safety
installations
(continued)
5
- End treatments:
- Anchorages,
- Post spacing,
- Post depth,
- Rail overlap?
7

8
visibility?
51
2012R27EN
FOR URBAN ROADS
URBAN MAIN ROADS ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION
.. ..STREET BETWEEN ,. AND , DATE:
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
1. Function,
operating
elements and
surroundings
0
audit phases been taken into consideration?

1
available?

2
Are there specific traffic composition
characteristics to be taken into consideration?

3
Are special measures required for particular
groups e.g. for young people, older people, sick
people, physically handicapped,
hearing-impaired or blind people?

4
Is the design of the road in accordance with its
function and hierarchy in the network?

5
Is access to abutting properties appropriate for
road safety?

6
+ intersections etc?

7
Are transitions installed between different
functions and road characteristics?

8
Are there traffic islands and lane shifts at the
entrance of the town and other traffic calming
measures inside?
9
Can road maintenance service vehicles be parked
safely?

10
entire section?

11

12
Is the transition from a built-up to a rural road or
from an illuminated to an unilluminated road
appropriately designed (village/town outskirts)?

13
Does the road communicate well with the
driver so that he realizes the situation without
any surprises?
52
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
2. Cross section
1 Is the cross section appropriate to the function?
2
also on ramps)?

3
components?

6
surroundings?

9

10
Is narrowing of the carriageway required and, if
so, designed in such a way to ensure traffic
safety?
11
12
Have the needs of public transport and its users
been taken into consideration?

13
Is slow and non motorized traffic separated from
fast and heavy traffic? Or have pedestrian and
cyclist requirements been considered (e.g.
separate cycle facilities)?

14
Is there a median? Does it have a safe design, e.
g. safety barrier or sufficient width to prevent
turn accidents?

15
Is a separating strip required between the cycle
path and parking strip?

16
Are there any bottlenecks? If so, are they
properly signed?
See 5.3
public
transport
53
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
2. Cross section
(continued)
17
Do curves with small radii have an enlarged
width of the pavement?
See 6
needs of
vulnerable
road users
18
installations?

19

3. Alignment
1

2
Does the alignment guide the drivers well
without any irritations about the main direction
of the road course?

4. Intersections
4.1 Geometry
and lay out
1 Are the intersections perpendicular?
2
Is the main direction clearly recognizable? And
if so, is the right of way clearly recognizable?

3
Are the movements guided clearly and easy to
understand? Are traffic flows guided by
markings?

4

5
eye heights of: Cars, trucks, motorcycles,
bicycles, etc, and are the required sight triangles
clear?
6
requirements?

7

8
Are the type and design of the intersections
suitable for the function and traffic volume of
the intersecting roads? (Separate answers for
each intersection!)

54
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
4.1 Geometry
and lay out
(continued)
9

10
cycle crossings?

11
Has right of way been specified and clarified at
cycle crossings, in particular for cycle paths that
are set back?

12
Is the transition safely designed if footpaths and
cycle paths end on an intersection or road or are
directed across the road?

13

14

15 Are there no-stopping zones?
16
Is there random and unorganized parking within
the intersections?
Are the pedestrian crossings as narrow as
possible?

17
Does the obligation to yield right of way need to
be reinforced (e.g. using repetition)?

18
Are pedestrian crossings clearly marked? Is each
section equipped with signals (including railway
structures)?

19
Are the crossings for pedestrians and cyclists
provided with low kerbs?

20 Should turns be prohibited (block diversion)?
21

22

23

55
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
4.1 Geometry
and lay out
(continued)
24
Are the islands above the level of the
carriageway?

25 Are the islands made only by markings?
26
Are the islands clearly visible and of a suitable
design?

27
Is there a danger of underestimating speed and
overestimating distance of crossing vehicles?

4.2 Roundabouts
1
Are all approaches to roundabouts perpendicular
and radial to the centre?

2
Is the central island of the roundabout shaped as
a hill?

3
Is the through-visibility effectively stopped by
the round about and the hill?

4
Is the central island of the roundabout free of
fixed obstacles which could be reached by
vehicles?

4.3 Traffic
signals
1

2
from signal control? If so, is traffic management
safe?

3 Are traffic signals easily recognizable?
4
(e.g. route through the intersection)?

5

6
cycle crossings?
See 6
needs of
vulnerable
road users
7
Are pedestrian crossings clearly constructed? Is
each section equipped with signals (including
railway structures)?

8
Are exclusive green phases provided for
pedestrians and cyclists where necessary?

9
Can pedestrians cross the road in one attempt? Is
the green time sufficient?

56
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
4.3 Traffic
signals
(continued)
10
If there is no exclusive pedestrian phase, is a
leading pedestrian interval provided?

11
Are phase offsets required for pedestrians and
cyclists within the cycle?

12
Are separate signals provided for cyclists? (Are
the signal aspects correctly located for the
cyclists? Estimate clearance times for cyclists?
Avoid protected turn phases/ risk of cyclists
crossing on red.)

13
Is the maximum delay reasonable for cyclists?
Are cyclists partially or totally removed from
signal control?

14

15
Are the signals are affected at dawn/dusk by
direct sunlight?

16
Are advanced warnings provided for traffic
signals that cannot be seen in time?

17
Have the locations for the signals been selected
correctly, additional signals, overhead signals,
etc

18 Are secondary signals provided as necessary?
19
discharge lamps)?
20
Is access from abutting properties affected and,
if necessary, included in signal control?
21
Are perspectives that appear to be continuous
(passage effect) interrupted by highlighting the
nearest signals?
23
Are the traffic signals properly situated so that
they can be distinguished by each particular
traffic flow?

24
Are there any additional signs correlated with
the traffic signals to show the direction to which
that traffic signal is referring?
57
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
4.3 Traffic
signals
(continued)
25
Is the visibility of the traffic signal ensured on a
sunny day?

26

27
Are signals covered/ obstructed (e.g. by traffic
signs, lighting masts, plants, traffic jams)?

4.4 Railway
crossings
1
Is the type of railway crossing in accordance
with the traffic volume?

2
Are passive safety devices at the required
locations?
3
If the railway crossing is situated in a curve, are
the traffic signs doubled on the other side of the
road?

4
Are traffic control devices required and
optimally set up with regard to future traffic
developments?
5
Are safeguards in place if required as a result of
seasonal use of the railway crossing?

7 Is good visibility guaranteed?
8 Is lighting required and appropriately installed?
9
requirements?

10
Are prohibition of overtaking and speed limits in
place as necessary?

5. Public
and private
services,
parking
1
Are there major traffic generators such as a city
hall, religious sites and cemeteries, hospitals,
housing or shopping centres, petrol stations and
tourist attractions? If so, are they taken into
account?

2
Are the accesses suitable for the amount of
traffic?

3
trucks and buses?

4

58
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
5. Public
and private
services,
parking
(continued)
6
for rescue vehicles at hospitals from all
directions?

7
Is the arrangement of parking (parallel, diagonal
or perpendicular) along the road sides safe?

8
Are loading areas provided next to the road at
shops and restaurants?

6. Public
Transport
(See also 7.1)
1
Are tram lines separated from the vehicle
traffic?

2
If not, is the course of the tram lines clearly
recognizable for the other road users?

7. Needs of
vulnerable
road users
7.1 At public
transport
stops
1
Are stops easily and safe accessible to
pedestrians and are the pedestrian crossings
located at the rear of the bus stop?

2
Are the bus stops signposted and detectable by
the drivers? Is reconcilability guaranteed?
3
Are the bus stops situated outside of the
carriageway where appropriate?
4
Are areas for waiting pedestrians and large
enough?

5
Are the queuing areas for waiting passengers
sufficient?

6

7

8

9
Is lighting required? And if so, is it appropriately
designed?
7.2 Other needs
of pedestrians
and cyclists
1
Are the pedestrian crossings located where most
required by pedestrian traffic?
59
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
7.2 Other needs
of pedestrians
and cyclists
(continued)
2
Have pedestrian crossings been appointed in
3
Is there a risk of pedestrian underpasses and
bridges being bypassed? Are suitable measures
in place?

4 Are further crossing aids required?
5
Are areas for waiting pedestrians and cyclists
sufficient?

6

7
Are crossings over special railway structures of
a safe design?

8
Is two-way visual contact ensured between
pedestrians and motorists?

9
(e.g. route across central refuges, bottlenecks)?

10
Has priority been given to cyclists over other
traffic where necessary?

11
Is the visibility for motorised traffic adequate to
see cyclists along the road?

12
Are parked vehicles obstructing the visibility of
the road users regarding cyclists?

13
Are points where cyclists cross intersecting
roads provided with low curbstones?

14
Are the pedestrian ways physically separated by
kerb stones, barriers or greenery?

15
Is there a speed limit? And if so, is it respected
by the drivers?

16
Are there traffic islands at the entrances of these
areas?

17
Are the pedestrian crossings signposted and
detectable by the drivers?

18
Have pedestrian crossings been emplaced in
60
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
7.2 Other needs
of pedestrians
and cyclists
(continued)
19
Are the islands clearly visible and properly
placed?

20 Is lighting provided where necessary?
7.3 Motorcyclists
requirements
1
Are motorbikes a significant percentage of the
traffic?

2
Have devices or objects that might destabilize a
motorcycle been avoided on the road surface?

3
Have barrier kerbs been avoided in high speed
areas?

4
In areas more likely to have motorcyclists run off
the road is the roadside forgiving or safety
shielded?

8. Traffic
signing,
marking
and lighting
8.1 Signing
1

2
of intersections and build up areas?

3
edge delineation?

5
Is prohibition of overtaking for trucks, buses,
etc. appropriately designed and located? Are
there warning signs ahead of the intersection

6
Can the signs be clearly recognized and read
(size of signs)? And do the signs conform to the
Vienna and Geneva Conventions?

7
Are there more than 2 different traffic signs at
one place and are all traffic signs necessary?

8
properly designed?

9

61
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
8.1 Signing
(continued)
11
functional?

12
signposted?

13
Are the installations shared by pedestrians and
cyclists, including underpasses and bridges,
properly signposted?

14

15

16

17
signs)?

18
intersecting roads?

19
Is the roundabout fully visible and recognizable
from all approaches and are the markings and
signs clear and unambiguous?

20

22
Are there misunderstanding or misguiding
traffic signs or additional information panels?

23

24
Where needed, have signs been located above
the carriageway?

25
type of road?

62
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
8.1 Signing
(continued)
27
Are the signs at a uniform position, compared to
the pavement?

28

29
sufficient passive safety by: low mass and/or
break away structure and/or are they beyond the
safety zone?
8.2 Markings
1
any contradictions?

3

4
from signal control? If so, are markings clear for
turning motorists?

5
Are the markings in a parallel line to the edge of
the road surface?

6

7

8

9

10

11

12
Are the markings according to the pedestrian/
cyclist traffic flow?

63
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
8.2 Markings
(continued)
13
Is the obligation to yield right of way enforced
by markings according to the one enforced by
signing?

8.3 Lighting
3
designed?

4
Do remaining unlit areas present potential
problems?

7
discharge lamps)?
8
Does lighting need to be changed so that
crossing pedestrians are clearly visible?

10
requirements?

11
the road?
12

13
14
In the areas where there is no stationary lighting,
are there any potential dangers?

9. Road side
features and
passive safety
installations
9.1 Miscellaneous
road
equipment
1
Are road equipments such as signalization boxes,
masts for overhead traffic signing and lighting
etc placed without the safety zone?
2
Are they protected by passive safety
installations?

9.2 Plantings
1 Is there any vegetation along the road?
2
Does it obstruct the visibility on the traffic signs
or the intersections and pedestrian crossings?

64
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
9.2 Plantings
(continued)
3

4

5
Is visual contact between motorist-pedestrian-
cyclist restricted by greenery?

6
Is the vegetation along the road old and could it

7

9.3 Civil
engineering
structures
2
required locations?

3
from the road?

4

6
(e.g. separate cycle facilities)?

9.4 Drainage
1
Is the drainage system a linear obstacle with
deep ditches in the safety zone?
2 Are the constructions of culverts obstacle like?
9.5 Other
obstacles
1

2
Are the light poles to be considered as an
obstacle (steel, concrete construction)?

3
Are there unprotected supports for other cables
than lighting in the obstacle-free zone?

4

5
other fixed obstacles outside the safety zone are
they avoidable, or safeguarded?

65
2012R27EN
Yes ()
No (X)
Comments
9.6 Passive safety
installations
1

2

3

5
- End treatments:
- Anchorages,
- Post spacing,
- Post depth,
- Rail overlap?
7

8
visibility?

66
2012R27EN
APPENDIX 2 INVESTIGATION FORM FOR DEFICIENCIES
RESULTS OF ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION ON THE ROAD NUMBER.. DATE/
TIME
BETWEEN .. AND .. INSPECTOR ..
Length About ..km
Max Speed km/h outside, km/h inside towns and villages
1. Function
2. Cross section
3. Alignment
4. Intersections
4.1 Geometry
4.2 Roundabouts
4.2 Traffic signals
4.3 Railway crossings
5. Services
5.1 Service and rest areas
5.2 Access control, City halls, hospitals,
churches and cemeteries,
Supermarkets, cinemas etc
6 Public transport
7. Needs of vulnerable road users
8. Traffic signing, marking and
lighting
9. Road side features and passive safety
Installations
Forgiving road sides, obstacles
Passive safety measures
67
2012R27EN
APPENDIX 3 EXAMPLES OF ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION
REPORTS
APPENDIX 3.1 FOR INTERURBAN ROADS
ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT (Post opening inspection)
National road No 20B From Km 229 + 000 to Km 234+000
Inspectors:
- Mr. Lutz Stefan Pfeiffer Team Leader
- Mr. Quy Nhn Dn Vice chief of Road Management
- Mr. Huynh Hong Thanh Vice chief of Quality Management
- Mr. Hoang Minh Tm Road Management Expert
- Mr. Nguyen Ph Hung Road Management Expert
- Mr. Nguyen Thanh Tai Road Management Expert
- Mr. Ph Ngoc Anh Quality Road Management Expert
- Mr. Nguyen Van Tun Quality Road Management Expert
- Mr. Tran Thanh Nam Planning Expert
- Mr. Le Ngo Thanh Nhn Road Technical Expert
- Mr. Le Huu Hoa Road Inspection Expert
- Mr. Nguyen Huu Dong Expert of Town Management N.2
- Mr. Trung Van Dinh Expert of Ca Mau Public Work Division
- Mr. Bui Quang Tien Expert of Ca Mau Public Work Division
Dalat, July 2006
68
2012R27EN
Part A General project data
Road function
NR 20B is a new constructed substitute for the heavy traffic on the old and narrow
national road NR 20 dated from French colonialism. From km 224+ 000 to the urban
area of Dalat city at km 234 + 000 the old road is passing some pine-tree forests,
mountainous areas with high diagonal fall, small radius curves and deep drainage
ditches; the end of the route from Km 232 to Km 234 is the urban area of Dalat city.
The new road is the connection of the current National roads NR 20 to Ho Chi Minh
City and NR 27 to the costal city of Pan Rang-Thap Cham. with the inner parts of
Dalat city, Lam dong province.
Transportation for tourists and good exchange between Da Lat and other Southern
provinces made the new connection necessary.
Da Lat was a famous summer residence during its time as a French colony and is one
of the Vietnamese tourist attractions today. It is an important centre for agriculture
products such as fruits, vine tea and timber.
Surrounding
The whole road crosses pine tree and fruit-tree forests, there are a few linear
settlements in the road section except for the section of Km 232 and Km 234 and the
intersection of Km 234 at the end of the route.
Traffic situation
The new road is a mountainous road with mixed traffic of heavy trucks carrying
goods, buses, passenger cars and low motorized local traffic of motorbikes and
bicycles owned by the surrounding people. 10% of the road is part of the urban road
network of Da Lat. Along another 20% we find accesses to private properties.
69
2012R27EN
ACCESSES TO PRIVATE PROPERTIES

A school is situated at the southern part of the road and school children have to use
the shoulders.
LOCAL SCHOOL
There is an arrester bed to stop downhill runaway heavy vehicles.
70
2012R27EN
ARRESTER BED
Road standard
Following the Vietnamese regulations National road 20B is of class 3 for
mountainous area.
The width of the main carriageway is 2 x 3m = 6m with bituminous pavement.
The shoulders are of 2 x 1m of asphalt and 2 x 0.5m graded aggregate.
There is no median separation.
There is no sidewalk for pedestrians.
The main junctions are of the Y-Type.
The design speed is about 60 km/h along the mountainous parts and 40 km/h in the
urban area of Da Lat. The regulation of speed limits is due to the mixed traffic
situation with high volume of motorbikes and bicycles.
JUNCTION OF THE Y-TYPE AT KM 224

Because the road section has just been completed and prepared to be transferred to
the management unit statistics of accidents have not been recorded.
71
2012R27EN
Part B Results of the inspection on the field study
RESULT OF ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION ON 4
TH
JULY 2006 ON THE NATIONAL
ROAD 20B FROM KM 229 TO KM 234
Length 11 km
Speed limit
40km/h: in the urban area, village and town;
60km/h outside the village and town.
1. Function and
surrounding
National road;
Long traffic transportation, mixed functions;
About 20% of the inspected area is surrounded by linear settlements;
The remaining 80% is the mountainous area with pine-tree and
fruit-tree forests;
There are many private accesses outside the built up areas;
At the transitions from the interurban area to the urban area, there is
no speed limit by signings, etc.
2. Cross section
The cross section is suitable to the traffic volumes on the whole road
section;
The width of the two main carriageways is 2 x 3m = 6m with
bituminous concrete pavement, the shoulders of 2 x 1m of asphalt
and 2 x 0.5m graded aggregate;
There is no separation lane between the motorized and non
motorized traffic;
There are markings of edge lanes but they are insufficient and at some
places they are heavily damaged;
At several dangerous positions, there are crash barriers and guardrails;
There are guardrails and curb stones for the protection of landslide
on the slope;
The drainage system is not sufficient at some places;
There are some crossing culverts;
The road surface is not sufficient at some locations especially
the edge of the road is not constructed in a stable enough manner
so at some places they are heavily damaged.
3. Alignment
Visibility on the whole route seems to be clear enough but at some
places it is obstructed by the architecture and some greenery so sight
distance is not sufficient in some sections;
The possibilities for overtaking are suitable with a 6m wide cross
section of 6m wide.
4. Intersections
There is no signing of speed reduction at the beginning of the
junction;
At the junction of Km 234, the layout of lanes is not clear and this
is confusing to vehicle drivers;
There are no traffic signals;
The junction at Km 234 is illuminated.
72
2012R27EN
RESULT OF ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION ON 4
TH
JULY 2006 ON THE NATIONAL
ROAD 20B FROM KM 229 TO KM 234 (follow)
5. Service and rest areas
and exit lanes
There is no petrol station along the road section;
There is a rest area at Minh Tam park;
At some places there were exit lanes;
6. Public transport
There are no bus stops on the whole route even though there is public
transport and buses, especially minibuses are stopping every where.
7. Needs of vulnerable
road users
There are only sidewalks in the urban area;
There are no safe pedestrian crossing, not even at the school.
8. Traffic signing,
marking and Lighting
The traffic signings are insufficient and not clear enough; the
markings tend to be damaged at some places;
There are no curve chevrons (not regulated in the Vietnamese
guidelines for traffic signing);
There is no signing at the entrance of the built-up area;
There are rumble strips at the beginning of some curves;
The dimension and construction of the delineators is not standardized
due to the Vietnamese Regulation of Road signings 22 TCN 237 01;
There are no reflectors and they are not of a break away construction
In the urban area, there is a lighting system.
9. Road side features
The shoulders close to the slopes are not stable, at some places there
were landslides at Km 232+062 and Km 232+152, and the positions
of the crash barriers are not suitable;
Mud and soil carried by trucks at some places led to the slippery
and problems;
Some buildings are constructed in the safety zone;
The greenery obstructed the visibility in some sections.
9.5 Other obstacles:
Some trees at curves;
Headwalls of culverts;
Edge surface at the slope area;
Delineators and kilometer stones are dangerous obstacles.
9.6 Passive safety
installations
Crash barriers are too high and do not fulfill the national regulations;
At some important parts crash barriers are missing;
There are open windows in the rash barrier system;
End treatment and foundation of posts are insufficient;
Reflectors at the crash barrier system are just painted and have
disappeared at most locations.
73
2012R27EN
Additional pictures
TO CHARACTERISTIC 2
INSUFFICIENT ROAD DRAINAGE INSUFFICIENT PREVENTION AGAINST SLOPE
EROSION AND LAND SLIDES AT KM229+060
TO CHARACTERISTIC 3
OBSTRUCTED VISIBILITY ON THE COURSE
OF THE ROAD
JUNCTION AT KM234
UNSAFE JUNCTION DESIGN, INSUFFICIENT
TRAFFIC SIGNINGS, THE SIGHT IS OBSTRUCTED
TO CHARACTERISTIC 4
TO CHARACTERISTIC 7 AND 8
INSUFFICIENT DELINEATOR INSUFFICIENT FOUNDATION OF CRASH
BARRIERS
TO CHARACTERISTIC 8
74
2012R27EN
TO CHARACTERISTICS 8 CONTINUATION
INSUFFICIENT PASSIVE SAFETY INSTALLATION:
- OPEN WINDOW
- END TREATMENT
- KM- STONE IS AN UNPROTECTED OBSTACLE
INSUFFICIENT PASSIVE SAFETY INSTALLATION:
- REFLECTOR IS RUSTY AND OUT OF FUNCTION
Part C Proposals and recommendations

1. Short term proposals:
Give a clear orientation for the right of way at the intersections by vertical signing
and marking (see sketches below).
Remove greenery at the inside of curves.
Add (lengthen) the system of crash barriers, adjustment of the height of the existing
crash barrier-beams according to the guidelines, add the missing signs, delineators,
paint the markings in the suitable positions and standards of Vietnamese Regulation
of Road signings 22 TCN 237 01 of the Ministry of Transportation!
Close windows in the crash barrier system!
Install curve chevrons!
Construct and install the pedestrian facilities in the urban area and mark pedestrian
crossings at the school.
At the entrance of the urban area, there should a speed limit sign be installed.
Treat the problem of road surface damage.
Stabilize the slope erosion.
Remove trees or add passive safety installations along the greenery and architecture
in the safety zone.
Add more covers on the culverts or deep ditches and remove headwalls of culverts.
Add refectors on the crash barriers and delineators.
Repaint the markings at the place of Minh Tam Park.
75
2012R27EN
2. Medium term proposals:
Add some more traffc signings at the intersections of the private accesses; install
more rumble strips on the secondary road connecting to NR 20B and NR 20.
Reconstruct and separate lanes at the junction of Km 234, see sketch of a proposal
below.
Note of the team leader: In the main road, a separate left turning lane should be added.
Widen the road width at curves.
Add more guardrails at the positions of the slopes where they are missing.
Construct a refuge island at the school.
Exchange the massive concrete delineators by those of a break away structure
(plastics) country wide as soon as possible.

3. Long term proposals or larger investments
Construct separate access ways to private properties along the interurban section!
Construct separate ways for none motorized road users along the road!
Complete and improve the drainage system at some missing positions (subsurface
drainage pipes), stabilize and prevent erosion on the crossing culvert, construct
some more top ditches on the slopes!
Construct some escape lanes (arrester beds) at the small radii curves and high
horizontal fall.
Clear up the need for the installation of some bus stops on the whole road section
and combine them with pedestrian crossings.
Improve the geometric alignment for visibility in curves.
Reconstruct the road surface and geometric alignment at the entrances to private
accesses.
Reconstruct the Y-Type intersection at km 224 into a right angle intersection (see
the following picture).
76
2012R27EN
Make a clear decision for the right of way on the new National Road Nr 20B!
Combine the T-Junction and the private access way to a clear intersection!
Construct traffc island at the junction in the secondary roads!
Close and remove the carriage way of the old road west of the right angle
intersection!
77
2012R27EN
APPENDIX 3.2 ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT FOR URBAN
MAIN ROADS
Road Safety Inspection Report for Bucharest: Constantin Brancoveanu Boulevard
between str. Nitu Vasile and Sos. Oltenitei
Part A General description

The Str. Constantin Brancoveanu is a main distributor road connecting residential
areas in the districs Berceni and Progressul with the urban main road Soseaua
Oltenitei. Bus lines connect the residential areas with the Metro station Constantin
Brancoveanu the North.
The inspected road section between the roads Nitu Vasile and Sos. Oltenitei is a four
lane road. In the southern direction, there are two free lanes and a wide lane for
perpendicular parking. In the opposite direction perpendicular parking reduces the
free carriageway north of street Secuilor to one usable lane only.
There are built up areas on both sides and an important hospital on the west side (see
city map).
The intersections with Soseaua Oltenitei, Secuilor and Sergent Nitu Vasile are
signalized. Sidewalks for pedestrian are sufficient, partly even separated by a green
space with trees and hedges which underlines properly the residential character of
the lateral spaces.
78
2012R27EN
Inspected by:
Date: 2
nd
April 2007
Civ. Eng Postoaca Razvan Project leader Hans-Joachim Vollpracht
Detailled project data
City: Bucharest
Road categorie: Main Distributor road
Road Name: Constantin Brancoveanu intre/between Str. Nitu Vasile and
Sos. Oltenitei
Lenght: 1.9 km
Cross section: 4-lane without median (14 m) + 5 m? parking lane on the west
side for perpendicular parking and a 3m parking lane on the
eastside which is also used for perpendicular parking
reducing the traffic lanes to one in the northern direction.
Alignment: Long straight road
Junctions: Three signalized junctions with Soseaua Oltenitei, Secuilor
and Sergent Nitu Vasile.
Seven small junctions with residential roads, left turning is
not forbidden but leads to critical incidents.
Pedestrian needs: There are wide sidewalks and pedestrian crossings, some of
them are signalized with the intersections.
Remarks about speed: the legal speed limit is 50km/h but the 85 % speed is 64 km/h,
maximum speed is 78 km/h.
Remarks about the accidental situation based on the year 2006
- speed not adapted to road conditions - three minor accidents;
- not respected vehicle priority-three minor accidents and two casualties;
- jay-walking-six slight accidents and seven casualties;
- 7 heavily injured pedestrians.
79
2012R27EN
Part B Results of the inspection
CHARACTERISTICS REMARKS AND DEFICITS
1. Function, surrounding
and operating elements
Str. Constantin Brancoveanu is a main distributor road connecting
residential areas with the urban main road network.
The function of distribution is mixed with local traffic and
accesses to private and public properties.
2. Cross sections
The road is used as a 4 lane road with perpendicular parking on
both sides.
The two directions are separated by double markings and are
interrupted for left turns at junctions.
The lane width with 3.5 m is too wide for urban situations and the
speed is high.
3. Alignment The alignment is straight and increases speed
4. Intersections and traffic
signals
The signalized intersections are in good conditions, but parking in
the intersection with Secuilor is unacceptable for safety.
5. Public and private
services,
There is a hospital and two petrol stations on the west side.
5.2 Parking and loading
There is sufficient space for parking and loading in lateral spaces
and perpendicular parking, which is unsafe for this type of road.
Special parking places are provided in front and between the
residential buildings.
The parking on the east side of the intersection with Street Secuilor
interferes with orientation.
6. Public transport
Bus stops at the pedestrian sidewalks are located in reasonable
distances.
7. Needs of vulnerable
Road users
7.1 Pedestrian needs
There are sufficient sidewalks on both sides at most sections even
separated by a green stripe from the parking lane.
Pedestrian crossings are too long, there are no side walk extensions
and no refuge islands
Pedestrian on the crossings are in difficult conditions because
of the high speed
7.2 Cycle needs
Nothing provided but possible for both directions on the wide
pedestrian way.
9. Road side features No problems
9.2 Plantings and trees No problems
9.6 Passive safety
installations
No problems
80
2012R27EN
Additional pictures
CHARACTERISTIC 1+2
URBAN DISTRIBUTOR ROAD WITH 4 LANES
AND UNSAFE PERPENDICULAR PARKING
ON BOTH SIDES
THE WIDE CROSS SECTION IS NOT WELL
ORGANIZED AND UNSYMMETRICAL
CHARACTERISTIC 1+2
CHARACTERISTIC 4+5
LINE MARKING IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO THE
SITUATION AT INTERSECTION WITH SECUILOR,
TAXI PARKING DISTRACTS ORIENTATION
THE MIX OF PARKING PLACES
AND INTERSECTION IS NOT ARRANGED SAFELY
AT STREET SECUILOR
CHARACTERISTIC 4
81
2012R27EN
CHARACTERISTIC 5
ENTRANCE TO IMPORTANT HOSPITAL PETROL STATION
CHARACTERISTIC 5
CHARACTERISTIC 5
LEFT TURNS FROM THE PETROL STATION
ARE DANGEROUS
BUSES CANNOT STOP AT THE SIDEWALK
CHARACTERISTIC 5.3
CHARACTERISTIC 6
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ARE TOO LONG
AND NOT SAFE
UNREGULATED PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
CHARACTERISTIC 5+6
82
2012R27EN
Assessment of the deficits:
The most critical deficits in respect of road safety are:
The wide cross section and the straight alignment increase the speed;
The parking situation at the intersection with street Secuilor interferes with
orientation;
Left turns are dangerous at all non-signalized intersections, at the petrol stations
and the hospital;
Pedestrian crossings are too wide and dangerous because of high speeds and
restricted sight by parking vehicles.
Part C Proposals and recommendations
1. The cross section has to be reorganized with two lanes in each direction, a medium
and parking lanes for diagonal parking on both sides.
2. There will be 3,0 m + 3,25 m wide lanes in each direction, 4,15 m wide parking
lanes for 45 degrees diagonal parking and a 1,5 m wide medium.
3. Parking will be forbidden at signalized intersections for better orientation and
implementation of left turns.
4. The medium and the parking will be interrupted at the access to the hospital.
There will be a left turn lane in combination with a pedestrian crossing across the
medium.
5. Improve the Geometry of the whole Intersection with Street Secuilor.
6. Widening of the medium at all pedestrian crossing as 3.0 m wide either staggered
refuge islands or signalized pedestrian crossings (see below), sidewalk extension,
end of parking bays 10 m before, bus bay of 30 m length behind. Where lane
shifting makes it necessary the diagonal parking will be reduced to parallel
parking.
7. Prevent jay-walking by green landscaping pedestrian fences on the medium.
83
2012R27EN

Road Safety Inspection Guideline For Safety Checks of Existing Roads

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Road Safety Inspection Guideline For Safety Checks of Existing Roads

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Road Safety Inspection Guideline For Safety Checks of Existing Roads

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.piarc.

ACCESSES TO PRIVATE PROPERTIES

JUNCTION OF THE Y-TYPE AT KM 224

Part C Proposals and recommendations

Part A General description

You might also like