Road Safety Audit Manual

Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
Road Safety Audit Manual
February 2004
Road Safety Audit Manual Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1 BACKGROUND TO ROAD SAFETY AUDIT ....................................... 1
1.1 What is a Road Safety Audit? ........................................................................................ 1

1.2 The Steps in a Road Safety Audit .................................................................................. 3
1.3 Breaking the Accident Chain ......................................................................................... 4
1.4 Road Safety Audit is Part of a Road Safety Strategy................................................... 5
1.5 Why Do We Need to Conduct Road Safety Audits? .................................................... 6
1.6 When Should a Road Safety Audit be Conducted?...................................................... 7
1.7 What Types of Projects Should be Road Safety Audited? .......................................... 8
1.8 Who Should Perform a Road Safety Audit?................................................................. 8
1.9 Ways of Organizing a Road Safety Audit ..................................................................... 9
1.9.1 Audit by a Specialist Audit Team ............................................................................. 9
1.9.2 Audit by Other Road Designers................................................................................ 9
1.10 The Costs and Benefits of Road Safety Audit............................................................. 10
1.10.1 The Cost of Auditing Designs................................................................................ 10
1.10.2 The Benefits of Auditing Designs.......................................................................... 10
PART 2 DPWH ROAD SAFETY AUDIT POLICY ............................................ 12

2.1 Policy Statement ............................................................................................................ 12
2.2 Responsibilities of Road Safety Section, Project Evaluation Division, Planning
Service (RSS, PED, PS)............................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Responsibilities of Other Offices.................................................................................. 13
2.4 Project Selection Criteria ............................................................................................. 13
PART 3 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT PROCEDURES ............................................ 15

3.1 Road Safety Audit of New Projects and Existing Roads............................................ 15
3.2 Road Safety Audit Steps ............................................................................................... 16
3.3 Step 1 - Selecting the Road Safety Audit Team .......................................................... 17
3.4 Step 2 - Providing the Background Information ........................................................ 19
3.5 Step 3 - Holding a Commencement Meeting............................................................... 20
3.6 Step 4 - Assessing the Documents ................................................................................ 22
3.7 Step 5 - Inspecting the Site ........................................................................................... 22
Road Safety Audit Manual Table of Contents
3.8 Step 6 - Writing the Road Safety Audit Report.......................................................... 24

3.9 Step 7 - Holding a Completion Meeting ...................................................................... 27
3.10 Step 8 - Responding to the Audit Report Recommendations .................................... 27
3.10.1 Risk Assessment in Considering Audit Recommendations ................................ 29
3.11 Closing the Loop – Feeding Back the Knowledge Gained......................................... 31
PART 4 SAMPLE ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT ....................................... 33

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 36
1.1 Description of the Project ............................................................................................. 36
1.2 Auditors and Audit Process.......................................................................................... 36
1.3 Deficiency and Recommendation Rankings................................................................ 37
1.4 Responding to the Audit Report .................................................................................. 37
2 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS STAGE AUDITS .............................. 37
3 AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 37
4 CONCLUDING STATEMENT ............................................................................... 49
PART 5 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT CHECKLISTS............................................... 50

5.1 The Purpose of Checklists ............................................................................................ 50
5.2 When to Use the Checklists .......................................................................................... 50
5.3 Using the Checklists ...................................................................................................... 51
Design Stage Audits:

Checklist 1 - Feasibility Stage
Checklist 2 - Draft Design Stage
Checklist 3 - Detailed Design Stage
Other Audits:
Checklist 4 - Pre-opening Stage
Checklist 5 - Roadwork Traffic Scheme
Checklist 6 - Existing Road
February 2004 Department of Public Works and Highways iii

Road Safety Audit Manual Part 1 – Background to Road Safety Audit
Part 1 BACKGROUND TO ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
1.1 What is a Road Safety Audit?

A Road Safety Audit (RSA) is a formal process where an independent and qualified
audit team examines and reports on the traffic accident potential and safety
performance of:
a future road project (through design plans), or
a traffic management scheme, or
an existing road.
Road Safety Audit has become established in many countries abroad including
Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Great Britain, Canada, Denmark, Ireland
and South Africa. Road Safety Audit is extremely cost effective. A few hours spent by
a skilled audit team can eliminate an unsafe design element that would be costly to
remove in the final built state.
Road infrastructure safety programs (e.g. accident blackspot programs) generally focus
on improvements for accident reduction at sites with a history of accidents. Road
Safety Audit focuses on accident prevention. The RSA process applies mainly to road
designs, although it may also apply to existing roadways, to identify potential safety
hazards with the primary objective of preventing future traffic accidents.
The RSA approach is based on the principle that “Prevention Is Better Than Cure”.
Road infrastructure safety programs (including accident prevention and accident

reduction) have the relationship shown in Figure 1.1
Road Safety
Accident Blackspot
Road Safety Audits
Investigations
Existing Locations
New Road
Existing Roads with a Traffic
Projects
Accident History
Accident Prevention Accident Reduction
Figure 1.1: Road Safety Audit and Accident Blackspot Inputs to Road
Safety
February 2004 Department of Public Works and Highways 1

Road Safety Audit Manual Part 1 - Background to Road Safety Audit
Road Safety Audit IS:
• A formal process, and not an informal check;
• Conducted by persons who are independent of the design;
• Conducted by persons with appropriate experience and training; and
• An assessment of road safety implications of a design or identification of a safety

defect of an existing road.
Road Safety Audit IS NOT:
• A critical appraisal of the design or a way of assessing or rating a project as good or

bad;
• A means of ranking or justifying one project against others in a work program;
• A way of rating one option against another;
• A check of compliance with standards;
• A substitute for design checks;
• An accident investigation;
• A re-design of a project;
• A term used to describe informal checks, inspections or consultation.
Road safety audit has the greatest potential for improving safety and is most cost-
effective when it is applied to a road or traffic design before the project is built. It can
be conducted on any design proposal which involves changes to the ways road users
will interact, either with each other or with their physical environment. An audit’s
purpose is to look at the crash potential and safety performance of the proposal. It is a
formal process using a defined procedure and not an informal check. To be effective it
must be conducted by people who have appropriate experience and training, and who
are independent of the design. An audit or ‘review’ may also be conducted on an
existing road, and while it permits hazards to be identified before they lead to crashes,
the opportunity is not available to improve safety without the cost of additional works.
A road safety audit is an input into the design process for any road or traffic project, in a
way similar to an independent structural check being an input into a bridge design:
Any road or traffic project is worthy of road safety audit before being built. The
project’s objectives do not have to include crash reduction or safety improvement;
and
Road safety audit needs to be a routine and common practice in any road or traffic
design office, in the same way as independent structural checking is a routine and
common practice for a structural design office.

When a road safety audit is conducted, the designer of the new road project (or other
applicable project) remains responsible for the design. He or she, as a matter of good
practice and as part of a quality management approach, should make regular, informal
checks of the physical safety of a design as it progresses. Road safety audits do not
alter the need for this ‘safety first’ approach amongst designers. The road safety audit
process provides, at regular intervals, for an independent assessment to be made by a
team specifically skilled in the areas of accident prevention and road safety
engineering. The client and/or the designer then consider that assessment. The client
and/or designer remains responsible for all design decisions.
1.2 The Steps in a Road Safety Audit

The road safety audit process itself is straightforward, and has just eight main steps.
Getting real value from an audit is dependent on the judgment and technical skills of
the audit team. The key steps in the process are shown in Figure 1.2, and are
described in more detail in Section 3.3
Figure 1.2: Steps in the Road Safety Audit Process

1.3 Breaking the Accident Chain

Studies have shown that the three contributing factors in motor vehicle crashes are:
human factors (which are involved in around 95% of crashes);
road environment factors (which are involved in some 28% of crashes); and
vehicle factors (which are involved in around 8% of crashes).
A road safety audit looks at the physical elements of a road - the 'road environment'
factors. But, with human factors involved in so many crashes, wouldn't we be better
concentrating on this area? While human factors are present in crashes to the greatest
extent, these factors are usually the hardest to alter. There are so many underlying, in-
built and interactive reasons why we behave as we do that it can be more effective to
focus attention on reducing the effects of the other factors. Road safety engineers can
help driver behavior - 'developing and applying traffic control systems, such as signals,
signs and line marking to help road users drive safely.'
As well, the three factors often combine in a chain of events that result in an accident.
Poor driving behavior, or behavior affected by any number of pressures we encounter
daily, can combine with adverse weather, other road users, an unforgiving roadside
environment or an inconsistent section of road with disastrous consequences.
Figure 1.3: The Three Factors that Contribute to Road Crashes

About a quarter of the human factors that contribute to accidents actually interact with
road environment factors. Addressing the road environment factors through road safety
audit or other means allows us to break a link in the chain of events that leads to many
accidents. It only takes one of the links to be broken to prevent an accident or reduce
its consequences.

Road safety audit takes the principles and experiences that have been found effective
in accident remedial programs (crash location treatment programs) and applies them
pro-actively. The aim of road safety audit is to identify what needs to be done either to
prevent the occurrence of crashes or to reduce their severity should they occur.
Prevention is better than cure, as it:
involves less trauma; and
costs a road authority less money than remedial treatments.
The community pays for a road in many ways:
the cost of designing it (e.g. designers’ salaries);
the cost of building it (e.g. land acquisition, materials, builders’ wages);
the cost of maintaining it (e.g. cleaning, line marking, lighting costs);
the cost to road users (e.g. day to day operating costs, as well as the costs of
fatalities, accident damage repairs and injury treatment); and
the cost to others during its life (e.g. impacts on nearby property owners).
Crash costs can be a major component of total road costs over the whole economic life
of a project if there is a significant safety problem designed into the road.
Road safety audits of designs allow a pencil line on a plan to be changed, rather than
having to change lengths of concrete or asphalt on the road. Where roads have newly-
built-in accident problems, even the expensive option of changing the concrete is not
practical in some cases and a ‘second best’ remedial patch-up may have to suffice.
This can result in either on-going crash costs or on-going costs like capacity
restrictions. It is usually much cheaper for the community if the problem is avoided
before it is built.
Of course, with road safety reviews of existing roads, the need for remedial treatment is
highlighted after the road has been built. But the operational safety of an existing road
can change over time, as volumes, types of users or nearby land uses change. A road
safety review of an existing road, when combined with the other tools available to the
road safety engineer, allows action to be taken to provide a level of safety consistent
with current use.
1.4 Road Safety Audit is Part of a Road Safety Strategy

A belief may arise that ‘accidents will happen’ or that it’s someone else’s responsibility
(e.g. the road user). This situation can develop into one where the risk of crashes is not
managed but is allowed to exist unchecked.
The management of accident risk is a long-term strategy that requires corporate

support. This is true whether the business is roads or anything else. The most effective
way of managing accident risk is through the development of a ‘safety culture’. A safety
culture has been described by the British Confederation of Industry as ‘the ideas and
beliefs shared by all members of an organization about accidents and the risk of their
happening’.

Road authorities have the task of delivering products and services to road users, and
there are many practical things they can do to foster the interests of road safety. The
most important thing within any road authority is to have a commitment to road safety,
starting at the top and filtering through the organisation. This commitment allows each
person to assume responsibility for their actions, be it designing a road, approving a
development access, allocating resources or training staff. Having a safety culture can
mean the difference between mediocrity and excellence in the delivery of the service or
product.
It is not necessary for accidents to occur before steps are taken to both reduce the
likelihood of them occurring and lessen their consequences. Road safety audit should
be viewed as part of an overall strategy to reduce accident risk. A road authority
committed to road safety will:
have road safety included in its corporate plan;
develop its own Road Safety Plan, based on the national and relevant state,
territory or local government ‘road safety strategies’; and
include an accident remedial program (the treatment of crash locations) and routine
road safety audit of new road and traffic designs in its road safety plan.
Applying road safety audit (the pro-active identification and treatment of potential crash
problems before they are built) does not negate the need to respond to crashes that
will continue to occur on the road system, through investigation and treatment of the
physical factors associated with the crashes.
1.5 Why Do We Need to Conduct Road Safety Audits?

During design, every effort is made by the designer to comply with design standards
and client requirements. It is surprising how one can overlook elements when we trade
off road safety against other considerations. RSA is a specialist area, which requires
the audit team to be suitably qualified. RSA allows someone to independently review
the project and ask questions which may not have been asked or adequately
answered.
The benefits (and hence the objectives) of conducting road safety audits are:
• the likelihood of accident occurrence on the road network can be minimized;
• the severity of accidents and therefore cost to the community can be reduced;
• road safety is given priority amongst other considerations; and
• the need for costly remedial work is avoided – it is easier to change a design than to
modify a road after it is built!

1.6 When Should a Road Safety Audit be Conducted?

There are six stages at which a RSA can be conducted:
Stage 1: Feasibility (or conceptual development) stage;
Stage 2: Draft design stage;
Stage 3: Detailed design stage
Stage 4: Pre-opening stage;
Stage 5: Roadwork Traffic Scheme audit; and
Stage 6: Audit of an existing road.
The earlier a road is audited within the development and design process, the easier it
leads to the elimination of problems, and consequently minimization of wasted design
time at later stages.
Stages 1 to 5 involve audit of new road projects. Major road projects should be audited
at each stage, however, medium or minor projects may only require audits at Stage 2,
and then either Stage 3 or 4. Stage 6 is used for auditing existing road conditions for
identification of current potential road safety hazards. Further details of project audit
criteria are in Part 2.
The earlier a RSA is conducted during the development and design process, the earlier
it may lead to the elimination of potential safety problems, and consequently,
minimization of wasted design time at later stages if changes are necessary.
Stage 1: The Feasibility or Conceptual Stage
Feasibility audits can influence route options, layout options or intersection treatment
options. They allow an assessment of the relative safety performance of scheme
options and identify safety needs of various road users. They may also influence the
change of nearby road networks to accommodate change of traffic.
Stage 2: The Draft Design Stage
At this stage, route options and/or intersection design options have been determined.
Issues such as intersection or interchange layouts and the chosen standards are
addressed in the audit. The audit at this stage is carried out when the final alignment is
determined. The audit at this stage is sometimes combined with Stage 1 depending on
the complexity of the project, and whether land acquisition is required.
Stage 3: The Detailed Design Stage
At this stage, the geometric design, traffic signage scheme and plans for pavement
marking, lighting and landscaping are available. The audit will examine safety features
such as sight distance, pedestrian safety, and vehicle conflict points in relation to the
operation of the road.

Stage 4: The Pre-opening Stage
Prior to opening to traffic, a site inspection by driving through the site, walking and/or
cycling for all relevant conditions (e.g. day and night) is required to ensure that
construction has addressed earlier audit concerns and to check any hazardous
conditions, which may not have been apparent during the design stages.
Stage 5: Roadwork Traffic Scheme Audit
Road safety audits are performed on roadwork traffic management schemes to identify
road safety issues that may be created due to a changing speed environment, confined
space or alignment, roadside hazards, additional conflicts and temporary signage
arrangements during construction of roadworks.
Stage 6: Existing Roads
Road safety audits are performed on sections of the existing road network to enable
road safety hazards to be identified before they may result in accidents. Even though
some roads may have been audited when they were built, traffic patterns and the use
of the road may have changed over time.
1.7 What Types of Projects Should be Road Safety Audited?

Road safety audits are applicable to all types of road projects at various stages during
design or construction and to any type of existing road.
Table 2.1 outlines project audit criteria for different types of road projects.
1.8 Who Should Perform a Road Safety Audit?

A RSA should be performed by a team of people who have sufficient experience and
expertise in the areas of road safety engineering, accident investigation and
prevention, traffic engineering and road design. Benefits of an audit team rather than a
single person include:
• The diverse backgrounds and different experience of people in the team;
• Cross fertilization of ideas which can result from discussions; and
• Advantages of having more knowledge available.
A successful Road Safety Auditor must have experience in road safety engineering and
an aptitude for accident investigation and prevention techniques. The experience of a
Road Safety Auditor should also be linked with an understanding of:
• Traffic engineering and traffic management;
• Road design and construction techniques; and
• Road user behavior.

The last of these skills is important because road user behavior, particularly driving
behavior, is influenced to some extent by design of intersection layouts and traffic
management provisions. It is possible to influence road user behavior with good, safe
road designs.
1.9 Ways of Organizing a Road Safety Audit

There are many ways of organizing a road safety audit. Whatever approach is adopted,
the two essential attributes of each road safety auditor are that she or he be skilled and
independent. In this context, there are two main options:
Audit by a specialist audit team (either within the organization, or from a consulting
firm); and
Audit by other road designers (usually within the organization).
1.9.1 Audit by a Specialist Audit Team

For agencies, consultants or other organizations involved with road and traffic design,
individual specialist road safety audit teams may be set up, or alternatively, consultants
with road safety expertise are available.
A specialist auditor or audit team needs to be separate from the normal road design
functions of an organization and team members should not be involved with the design
of the project.
There needs to be a clear understanding prior to commencement of an audit, about

how the audit findings and recommendations will be handled. Someone has to
consider the safety recommendations and resolve the inevitable decisions related to
other factors (e.g. project cost, road capacity). It is preferable that a senior person
within the design organization or its client organization decides whether to accept or
not accept each recommendation.
In every case where an audit recommendation is not accepted, the reasons must be
documented.
1.9.2 Audit by Other Road Designers

Instead of using specialist road safety auditors, another designer or design team could
undertake the audit. This approach may be applicable in organizations that have
sufficient road design work to have two or more separate design teams (e.g. larger
road authorities or consultant firms). This separation provides a level of independence.
However, this arrangement may not provide for the one essential ingredient in any road
safety audit: experience in road safety engineering. Experience indicates that audits
involving only road designers become ‘technical checks’, rather than audits.

1.10 The Costs and Benefits of Road Safety Audit
1.10.1 The Cost of Auditing Designs

The cost of a road safety audit can range from less than a thousand dollars (for a one-
person audit of a minor traffic project at one design stage) to ten thousand dollars or
more per stage for a major road project. This may be equivalent to less than 4% of the
road design costs (although the percentage could be higher on minor projects). As
design costs can be in the order of 5% to 6% of total implementation costs for larger
projects, the cost of an audit as part of the total project cost is quite small. The cost of
rectifying any inadequacies depends on how early in the design process they are
identified and the consequent amount of redundant design time.
1.10.2 The Benefits of Auditing Designs

The benefits of road safety audit range from the more obvious direct improvements in a
design to things as broad as enhancement of corporate safety policies. They include:
Safer new highways through accident prevention and crash severity reduction;
Safer road networks;
Reduced whole life costs of road schemes;
Providing one component of local and State crash reduction targets;
A reduced need to modify new schemes after they are built;
A better understanding and documentation of road safety engineering;
Eventual safety improvements to standards and procedures;
More explicit consideration of the safety needs of vulnerable road users; and
The encouragement of other personnel in road safety.
There are five documented evaluations that have been undertaken to demonstrate and
quantify the benefits of road safety audits.
A comparison by Surrey County Council, UK of 19 minor traffic schemes

(intersection signals, mini roundabouts, pedestrian refuges, intersection
improvements, etc.) which had been audited during their design and 19 similar
schemes which had not been audited (Surrey County Council, 1994) gave the
following results. For sites with audited designs, the average number of
casualties per site per year dropped from 2.08 to 0.83, compared with
unaudited sites dropping from 2.60 to 2.34 (This compares with a County-wide
average of 1.31). I.e. the audits could be considered to result in a further
saving of one casualty per site per year, above the benefits otherwise accruing
from the schemes. Only 5% of audited sites were planned for further works,
compared with 21% of unaudited sites.

An evaluation of 13 pilot projects in Denmark (Denmark Ministry of Transport,

1996) concluded that there was a 146% first year rate of return, considering the
savings in accident costs over the direct costs of undertaking the audits.
A study in Jordan (Al Masaeid, 1998) considered nine unaudited projects,

constructed over the previous decade, where crash problems followed their
completion. It was assumed that design stage audits would have identified the
problems and no crashes would have occurred. Based on this assumption and
estimates of crash costs and audit costs, the overall first year rate of return for
conducting design stage audits was estimated to be 120%.
A study of 22 audited trunk road projects in the UK by the Transport Research

Laboratory (Wells, 1999) considered the cost of the audits and the cost of
implementing the audit recommendations after the works were complete
instead of implementing them at the design stage. The study found there was
an average cost saving per project of £11,373 by implementing the changes at
the design stage.
The results of a series of design audits and existing road audits were obtained
from road authorities around Australia and New Zealand. Each
recommendation in the audit reports was closely examined. For each one, the
proposed recommended action was identified, the benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) for
each audit recommendation was calculated, the range and median of BCRs
recorded, and the overall BCR of the design and existing road audits calculated.
In each case, for each audit recommendation, the reduction in risk was
determined using the ARRB ‘Road Safety Risk Manager’ (McInerney and White
1999, and ARRB 2002) and the cost of implementing the recommendations was
estimated. The total reduction in risk and implementation costs for each audit
was summed, allowing the full benefit for each audit to be calculated. From
those the audit BCR was calculated.
The AUSTROADS study looked at design stage audits as well as audits of
existing roads. For the nine design stage audits:
The BCR’s of implementing the recommendations ranged from 3:1 up to
242:1;
BCR’s for individual recommendations within these audits ranged from
0.06:1 to 2600:1;
More than 90% of all the recommendations had positive BCR’s;
More than 75% of the recommendations had BCR’s greater than 10; and
65% of the recommendations were “low cost” (ie less than US $500);
The results for the audits of existing roads were lower overall but still very
positive:
The BCR’s for these audits ranged from 2.4: to 84:1;
BCR’s for individual actions ranged from 0.003:1 up to 460:1;
78% of all proposed actions had positive BCR’s;
47% had BCR’s in excess of 5; and
More than 50% of all proposed actions were below US $3000.
This evidence supports the view that road safety audits pay for themselves many times
over through a reduction in crash numbers and crash severity.

Road Safety Audit Manual Part 2 - DPWH Road Safety Audit Policy
Part 2 DPWH ROAD SAFETY AUDIT POLICY
2.1 Policy Statement

The DPWH policy relating to Road Safety Audit will apply to new road infrastructure
projects and to existing national roads. The policy applies to the road safety audit of:
All new road projects. The Road Safety Audit at a number of stages during
their design and construction shall be carried out according to the Project
Selection Criteria;
All roadwork traffic schemes that are to be in place for more than two
months; and
The existing national road network (as resources permit) to identify road
safety hazards as an input to a program of hazardous location remedial
treatments.
The Road Safety Audits may be initiated and managed by the following DPWH offices:
• Project Management Offices (PMOs);
• Highways Division, Bureau of Design (BOD);
• Regional Offices; and
• District Engineering Offices.
2.2 Responsibilities of Road Safety Section, Project

Evaluation Division, Planning Service (RSS, PED, PS)
The RSS, PED, PS will provide strategy direction and technical support for the road
safety audit program. Other responsibilities of RSS will include:
Recommending policy;
Establishing RSA procedures;
Maintaining and reviewing road safety design standards;
Maintaining and updating the Road Safety Audit Manual to ensure it reflects
current policy and procedures;
Providing training and seminars on RSA to engineers within DPWH, and

desirably to outside engineers that may be involved in DPWH projects (e.g
consultants and contractors), to ensure adequate availability of trained Road
Safety Auditors; and
Providing guidelines for an Accident Prevention Program for improvements

on existing National Roads identified in audits of existing roads.

Road Safety Audit Manual Part 3 - Road Safety Audit Process
The RSS will report annually on the number of projects audited in accordance with the
policy.
2.3 Responsibilities of Other Offices

1. The responsibilities of the Highways Division, Bureau of Design, DPWH include:
Organizing and/or conducting RSA on all road projects that are managed or
carried out by District Engineering Offices (in accordance with Table 2.1);
Liaising with RSS on road safety requirements for designs;
Participating in training courses and seminars organized by RSS; and
Reporting annually to the RSS, PED, PS on projects under its responsibility
and the road safety audits carried out.
2. The responsibilities of each DPWH Regional and District Engineering Office

include:
Undertaking an annual program of RSA within each region, of new road
projects and selected existing roads, in accordance with Table 2.1;
Ensuring that only appropriately skilled and experienced road safety

auditors (who are independent of the project) are used in undertaking RSAs;
Communicating any problems and suggestions to the RSS, PED, PS so that
the RSA process or road safety standards are improved;
Participating in training courses and seminars organized by the RSS; and
3. The responsibilities of each Project Management Office (PMO) include:

Liasing with RSS, PED, PS and BOD on road safety design requirements
for all road projects managed by the PMO;
Managing the RSA process in which audits are undertaken by independent

auditors;
Resolving and responding to RSA recommendations on projects or roads
under their control;
Participating in training courses and seminars organized by the RSS, PED,
PS; and
2.4 Project Selection Criteria

All new road projects will benefit from having road safety audits undertaken during the
design and construction stages. However, in recognition of the need to apply resources to
where they can have maximum effect, road safety audits are required by this policy at
selected stages according to the cost of the road project.

The selection criteria for road projects that are to be audited at various stages is detailed in
Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Project Audit Criteria
Cost of Road Project
MAJOR MEDIUM MINOR

AUDIT STAGE
PROJECTS PROJECTS PROJECTS
(1) (2) (3)
Stage 1: Feasibility All projects Not Required Not Required
Stage 2: Draft
All projects
Design
All projects (4)
At the discretion
Stage3: Detailed
All projects of the District
Design
Engineer (5)
Stage 4: Pre-
All projects All projects
opening
Stage 5: Roadwork Any road work traffic scheme that is to remain in place for
Traffic Schemes more than two months
Stage 6: Existing National Highway sections are to be audited each year at the
Roads direction of the District Engineer, and as resources permit.
Notes: (1) Major projects are those with a total cost exceeding PHP 50 million.
(2) Medium projects are those with a total cost between PHP 10 million and
PHP 50 million.
(3) Minor projects are those with a total cost under PHP 10 million.
(4) These projects may be audited at either of the stages shown.
(5) These projects may be audited at any of the stages shown. Suggested
projects may include those where conflicts between vehicles and other
road users will be high (intersections), where speeds will be high, or
where substantial changes to the existing traffic situation are expected.

Part 3 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT PROCEDURES
3.1 Road Safety Audit of New Projects and Existing Roads

The RSA process for a new or existing road project is illustrated in Figure 3.1
RSA
PROJECT Program
MANAGEMENT
OFFICE
ROAD SAFETY
SECTION
PED, PS.
New Project(s) Road(s) to be REGIONS /

or Design(s) Audited DISTRICTS
BUREAU OF
DESIGN Stage 1
FEASIBILITY
Stage 6
EXISTING
ROADS
OK
No Modify
REGIONS / Concept
DISTRICTS Yes
Ok?
Stage 2 No
DRAFT
DESIGN
ACCIDENT
ACCIDENT
PREVENTION PREVENTION
PROGRAM No Modify PROGRAM
OK
Design
Yes
ACCIDENT Stage 3
BLAKSPOT DETAILED
PROGRAM DESIGN
No Modify
OK
Design
Yes
Stage 5
Stage 4
Roadworks
Traffic PRE-OPENING
Scheme
No Corrective
OK
Action
Yes
Open
to Traffic
Figure 3.1: Road

Figure Safety
3.1: Road Audit
Safety Process
Audit

3.2 Road Safety Audit Steps

Once a project has been selected for RSA, the procedure involves a number of steps
to complete the process. The key steps are summarized in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Road Safety Audit Procedure
Steps People Responsible

1 Selecting the Road Safety Audit Team (including the Project Engineer
lead auditor). and/or Designer,
Regional or District
Objective: To select an audit team which is independent
Engineer
and has appropriate skills for the particular project.
2 Providing the background information. Project Engineer,
Objective: To provide the audit team with all the Project Designer,
necessary information to allow an adequate Regional or District
assessment of the project. Engineer
3 Holding a Commencement Meeting. Project Engineer

and/or Project
Objective: To acquaint the road safety audit team with
Designer(s), together
the background to the project; to hand over information;
with the Road Safety
to acquaint the designer or client with the audit process
Audit Team.
and the purpose of the audit.
4 Assessing the documents. Road Safety Audit
Team
Objective: To review the designs and background
information and form conclusions about the safety
performance and crash potential of the road.
5 Inspecting the Site.
Objective: To see how the proposal interacts with its Road Safety Audit
surroundings and nearby roads to visualise potential Team
impediments and conflicts for road users.
6 Writing the Road Safety Audit Report - including Road Safety Audit
recommendations for corrective actions Team
Objective: To report on the audit’s findings and to make
recommendations, where appropriate, regarding how
identified safety deficiencies may be addressed.
7 Hold Completion Meeting – discuss findings, RSA Team, Project
recommendations and corrective actions Engineer and Project
Designer. Regional
Objective: To discuss recommendations for corrective
Director or his
action.
authorized
representative may
attend.
8 Responding to the Audit Recommendations Project Engineer
Objective: To deal with audit recommendations - to
determine whether the recommendations of the road
safety audit should be implemented, modified or if no
action is to be taken (with reasons in writing).

A road safety audit is a relatively straightforward process. In some organizational

structures and for some more minor projects, some of the steps may be brief, but the
sequence of steps will still apply.
The details in each step of the process should be adapted to suit the nature and scale
of a particular project. For example, an audit of a small scale, single site project may
involve a phone call rather than a commencement meeting, documentation may consist
of a few pages of information and a single plan and the report may be as short as one
or two pages if there are no significant problems.
At the other end of the scale, a road safety audit of a major road design project is likely
to involve meetings, a large number of plans and a report of several pages.
Responsibility for planning, design and construction of the project remains with the
project manager and the implementation team. It is not the role of the road safety
auditor to take over or redesign the project. The role of the auditor is to provide
independent advice in the form of written recommendations. This advice is then
considered by the designer and/or the client (depending on who engaged the auditor)
and they make a formal decision on whether or not to adopt each of the recommended
safety alterations.
Detailed checklists to assist and provide guidance to the Road Safety Audit Team are
included in Part 5 of the Manual. The following sections provide further details of each
step in the process.
3.3 Step 1 - Selecting the Road Safety Audit Team
Objective: To select an audit team which is independent and has appropriate

skills for the particular project.
A RSA team will generally consist of a minimum of two people and a maximum of four
people. For a new project, all the skills of road safety engineering, accident
investigation and prevention, traffic engineering, road design and appreciation of road
user behavior need to exist within the team.
For minor projects on low volume roads in low speed locations, an audit by one person
may be applied if approval is first given by the District Engineer for this. In such
instances the Engineer is to be guided by the skills and experience of the person who
is to perform the audit.
An audit team should be drawn from the list of people selected as auditors from time to
time. This can be done through a registration of appropriate personnel from both within
and outside the organization. All members of the audit team must be independent of
the project being audited (i.e. the persons have not been involved in the project
development or design process).
For each RSA conducted, one person in the RSA team will be nominated as the Lead
Auditor. In those instances where specific but limited skills are required for a RSA, it is
appropriate for a specialist to be invited to join the audit team to help resolve specific
issues.
The following checklist can be used when selecting a suitable RSA team (or auditor):

• Are the auditors independent?
• Have the auditors been suitably trained?
• Have the auditors the necessary skills?
• Are the auditors able to see potential safety problems from different road users’
points of view?
The most appropriate size of an audit team depends on the size of the audit task: there
is no optimum number of people, although teams of more than four people can be
unmanageable. Significant projects require at least two people. The benefits of having
an audit team, rather than a single person, include making use of the diverse
backgrounds, experience, knowledge and approaches of different people; the cross-
fertilization of ideas through discussion; and simply having more pairs of eyes.
The one essential ingredient in any road safety audit team is road safety engineering
experience. In addition, it is important to select people with relevant experience: is the
project an expressway or a local street, is it an urban or a rural project etc.? Use
people with that experience. Include local and non-local people, experienced people
and newcomers, men and women. All will bring a different perspective of how road
users will deal with the design once it is built
Obviously, all these attributes are not available in one person. With small road
projects, an audit by one person can be effective - it depends on their skills and
experience. But avoid having a one-person team just because of cost. Consider
including someone from within your organization who is independent from the project -
every audit can be a training exercise and it gives the audit team another pair of eyes.
Audits at the different stages of design call for different skills. As well as always having
someone familiar with road safety engineering principles and practice, consider
including people with the following skills:
Feasibility Stage: The issues to be examined are quite different (broader and often
more subtle) from later stages and these audits should be undertaken only by very
experienced auditors. Include an experienced road design engineer who is familiar
with road design standards and can visualise the layout in three dimensions.
Include a specialist in any unusual aspect of the project and/or someone else with
safety skills who can generate discussion;
Draft Design Stage: Similar skills are required as described for feasibility stage
audits, but not all team members need be as experienced. Include someone with
local knowledge of road user activities;
Detailed Design Stage: Include someone familiar with the types of details the
project includes, e.g. someone with expertise in traffic signal control, traffic signs,
street lighting, bicycle facilities, crash barriers or any other particular local road user
issue. They must be able to critically examine the details;
Pre-opening Stage: Consider including a police officer who has experience in traffic
and safety, a maintenance engineer, someone familiar with traffic control devices
and someone involved with the behavioral side of road safety;

Road Works Traffic Scheme (During Construction): Include someone with

experience in managing road works sites and an engineer familiar with the details
of the traffic control and safety devices typically used at work sites; and
‘Existing Road’ Safety Reviews: Include people with similar skills to those for the
Pre-opening Stage.
A list of potential auditors, containing their skills and experience, can assist with the
selection process. For each road safety audit, one person in the audit team should be
nominated as the road safety audit manager. That position can change from audit to
audit.
The choice of who selects the auditor may not be as important as ensuring that the
auditor is independent and appropriately skilled. The client may choose to nominate the
auditor, or that task may be delegated to the designer, for example as part of a
consultant designer’s tender for a project. In this situation the independence of the
nominated auditor should be clearly demonstrated by the designer.
3.4 Step 2 - Providing the Background Information
Objective: To provide the audit team with all the necessary information to allow
an adequate assessment of the project.
The person responsible (i.e. the Project Manager or District Engineer) for selecting the
RSA team should ensure that the Lead Auditor of the team receives all the necessary
information to allow an adequate RSA of the road project or existing road.
The information provided should cover:
• The purpose of the project, or function of the existing road;
• The development stage of the project;
• Site information, including accident data, traffic volume information, safety

issues, design standards used, and any environmental effects; and
• Plans and drawings relevant to the stage of the project, including reasons for
design compromises made.
The audit team may also request other specific information that it feels is required for
its audit task.
The project designer should collect all the necessary and relevant information in a
useable form for the audit team. This should not be left for the audit team to do.
Information will include scheme reports, data, drawings and relevant sections of
contract documents. This step may need to be initiated well before it is time to engage
the road safety audit team for the particular project stage. It may be necessary to
collect additional information, such as traffic volumes. This should be considered early
enough to avoid delays to the road safety audit.
The audit team also needs to be given a clear understanding of what tasks are to be
included in the audit. The information to be provided to the audit team will typically
include:

a. A clear statement of the expected outcome from the audit.
This may require a written brief or a simple reference to the procedures and audit
report format in these guidelines.
b. Project intent.
This concisely sets out the purpose of the road project, how it is to be achieved, any
deficiencies that need to be addressed, any design compromises that have been made
and the reasons, and any community input from prior discussion, correspondence and
consultations. For large projects, some of this information may be in reports used to
support earlier funding or programming decisions.
c. Site data.
The design standards used and any locations where they were not achieved.
Traffic volumes including commercial and non-commercial components, cyclists

and pedestrians.
Any previous road safety audit reports and the written responses to them and any
known safety issues that remain unresolved from earlier audits.
Any environmental effects relevant to the location or the design, e.g. weather, fog,
flooding etc., animals, services, trees, historic buildings and topography.
d. Plans and Drawings
A set of drawings, at a scale suitable for the stage of design, showing the vertical
and horizontal alignment and other items relevant at the particular stage of audit.
For example, sign, line marking and street lighting plans are essential at the
detailed design and pre-opening stages.
Any other plans to cover adjacent roads or to describe adjacent land and its uses
that might be affected by the proposal or by the traffic changes it induces.
3.5 Step 3 - Holding a Commencement Meeting
Objective: To acquaint the road safety audit team with the background to the
project; to hand over information; to acquaint the designer or client with the
audit process and the purpose of the audit.
The objective of holding a Commencement Meeting is to ensure the design team

understands the audit process and to provide the audit team with all necessary
information.
The Commencement Meeting is where the audit team meets with the designer of the
project and /or the project manager, or the District Engineer (or his representative) in
the case of a road safety audit of an existing road. Any other persons with special
knowledge of the project can be invited to attend. They should also be available for
other discussions or information as required during the conduct of the audit.

At the Commencement Meeting the purpose of the RSA and the checklist(s) to be used
will be discussed. The designer will discuss where any compromises have been made
in the design and the reasons why such choices were made.
The background information will be submitted to the audit team at the Commencement
Meeting.
At a meeting held at the commencement of an audit, the audit team would usually meet
the designer of the project. If the designer is not the project client, it can be useful to
also include the client in the meeting. This provides the opportunity to explain to the
audit team the project’s purpose, any issues particular to this project, and any problems
which have been experienced in achieving planning, design or construction objectives.
The designers may already have safety concerns or queries about a particular aspect
of their design. The audit team will not be able to inspect the site under all traffic or
weather conditions, so if particular conditions are important (e.g. traffic conditions at the
end of each school day), the auditors should be advised. Plans and background
information are handed to the audit team, if this has not occurred before the meeting.
If members of either party are unfamiliar with aspects of the audit process, this meeting
is a good time to explain the process and distinguish between the task of the audit
team and the task of the project manager. The audit team’s task is to identify and
document any road safety concerns and recommendations, while the project
manager’s task is to respond to and act on those concerns and recommendations.
CHECKLISTS
Prior to assessing the documents and inspecting the site, the audit team members
should acquaint themselves with the relevant checklists and the explanatory
information about the checklists at the start of Part 5.
Some experienced road safety engineers and auditors may choose to only use the
master checklists.
Some auditors may choose to use other checklists, including checklists developed
for specific types of traffic facilities.
Less experienced auditors should use the checklists provided with these guidelines.
In this case, before assessing the documents and inspecting the site consider
editing the checklists to delete items which are repetitive or not relevant (e.g. rural
issues if the project is urban).
A successful audit is not achieved by ticking off a checklist (whether on paper or in a

computerized ‘expert system’). The checklists are a means to an end, not an end in
themselves. Their purpose is to help the auditor identify any potential safety issues.
They should be used in a way that best meets each auditor’s needs. There is no single
best way to identify safety issues and no single best way to use checklists. Many of
the items in the checklists may not be relevant to the project being audited; some
checklist items may appear repetitive. Before starting, decide which checklists to use
and how to use them.

3.6 Step 4 - Assessing the Documents
Objective: To review the designs and background information and form

conclusions about the safety performance and crash potential of the road.
This step involves reviewing the relevant drawings, traffic and accident data, field notes
and other information with reference to the checklists.
Any further explanations regarding the project or existing road conditions will be
clarified at this stage. The process of reviewing the documents may need to be
repeated after inspecting the site to ensure the audit team is satisfied that it has
identified all safety concerns that could realistically have been expected.
For any audit stage, RSA checklists are available and would generally be used to
ensure all the elements of the audit are covered. Details of audit elements and
checklists are included in Part 5.
This phase takes place in parallel with the site inspections: documents will need to be
reviewed before and after inspections. Before inspecting the site, initially peruse the
documents and plans to record first impressions and list possible issues to be checked
on site. Drawings, traffic and accident data, field notes and other information should be
assessed using the checklists as required. Using its experience and skills, the audit
team identifies any areas of the project that contain potential safety problems. If the
documents are unclear, explanation should be sought from the designer or client
before the road safety audit report is written. Independence of the audit team from the
designer is important, but it should not get in the way of good communication and a
clear understanding of what the documents and site details mean. Sometimes
designers can be apprehensive about ‘outsiders’ coming in and commenting on their
work. Auditors need to allay designers’ fears and obtain good cooperation.
The audit should confine itself to road safety aspects, although a broad view of this
should be taken. For example there can be road design elements that cause frustration
or nuisance to road users, where a direct relationship with crashes may be difficult to
establish. But these elements can complicate the driving task, which in combination
with other aspects could lead to crashes.
Aspects like amenity or aesthetics, unrelated to safety, should not be included in the
auditor’s report. Likewise, traffic capacity issues should not be included unless they
have a bearing on safety (e.g. stationary turning traffic queuing back into the through
lane).
3.7 Step 5 - Inspecting the Site
Objective: To see how the proposal interacts with its surroundings and nearby
roads to visualise potential impediments and conflicts for road users.
It is essential for the road safety audit team to visit the site in daylight to evaluate any
problems relating to the existing arrangements and to visualise the future proposals
and their effects. The team needs to consider when is the most appropriate time to
inspect the site as traffic conditions can vary throughout the day or week.

A night time inspection is also essential, except where in the experience of the client,
there will be nothing additional to observe. For example, where road access (vehicular
or pedestrian) is not yet available to the project site or to its connection points to the
existing road system. However, these circumstances should be rare. The visual
information available to road users can be markedly different at night time and it can be
surprising what additional issues can be identified on a night time inspection, even
where work has not yet commenced.
When on site, look beyond the limits of the design plans or the limits of works at the
pre-opening stage.
Transition or terminal zones, where the new (and often higher standard) road matches
into the existing adjacent road system, can be locations of greater hazard, as:
road layouts and devices which previously operated safely can fail to do so once
traffic volumes, speeds or movements alter; and
motorists may be unaware of the need to adjust their behavior.
In addition, new roads or new traffic arrangements can often change existing traffic and
pedestrian movement patterns. The inspection should consider all the likely road user
groups and not just motorists. The following user groups have quite different needs:
Child pedestrians have a lower eye height to observe vehicles. Being small, they
can be easily hidden from a motorist’s view. They can also act impulsively;
Elderly pedestrians may be less agile, have poorer sight or hearing or may have a
poorer ability in judging gaps and the speed of traffic;
Truck drivers have a higher eye height but this can lead to visibility issues as their
view can be more easily affected by overhanging foliage. Their vehicles take longer
to stop and start moving, they are wider, and blind spots can also be a problem;
Pedal cyclists and motorcyclists are more seriously affected by surface conditions
(e.g. grates, pot holes and gravel) and gradients;
Elderly drivers may be less able to recognize some traffic control features or judge
gaps due to cognitive difficulties; and
People with disabilities can be affected by poor eyesight, poor hearing or difficulties
moving around objects, moving near edges, moving between levels or moving at
typical pedestrian speeds.
Consider how well the design caters for the different types of movements, such as
vehicles entering or crossing the traffic stream, as well as for pedestrians traveling
along or crossing the road. Consider these movements for the different user groups.
Taking photographs or videotapes allows for later reference and possible inclusion in
the report, but they must not be used as a substitute for a site inspection. All audit team
members should inspect the site.
The Checklists in Part 5 provide prompts during the inspection and allow observations
and findings to be recorded.

3.8 Step 6 - Writing the Road Safety Audit Report
Objective: To report on the audit’s findings and to make recommendations,

where appropriate, regarding how identified safety deficiencies may be
addressed.
The RSA team will prepare a road safety audit report for each audit undertaken. A
typical audit report format is detailed in Part 4. It is not intended to be a substantial
document but a concise report with a succinct description of the project, a brief
summary of the background and brief, clear descriptions of the safety issues identified.
Recommendations may be made, but these are often of a general nature. Such
recommendations should generally indicate the direction of a solution, and not the
details of the solution, unless it is obvious that there is only one technically correct and
safe option. An example of this could be a recommendation to install a warning sign, in
which case the designated sign, its size and its location should be included in the
recommendation.
The findings and recommendations may be listed in order of most important to least
important, but may also be grouped together into items of similar concern.
Alternatively, the recommendations may be listed sequentially along the length of the
project or road or grouped by areas or sections within the overall project. The
recommendations should be numbered for future reference.
There is no single best way of ordering findings and recommendations, but the most
important consideration is that the order be logical and helpful for the report’s
recipients, when they consider the corrective actions. For example, where there are
three distinct intersections and ramps at a grade separated interchange and each one
has identified problems with elements of alignment, cross section, delineation and
visibility, it may be better to discuss each site in turn, rather than discussing each
design element at the different sites. In this way, any possible confusion between the
problems at each site is more likely to be recognized and addressed independently. On
long road projects, it may be more appropriate to split the project into sections. In any
event, if there is any concern that mutually dependent recommendations are separated
in the report, they should be cross-referenced.
The main task of the road safety audit report is to succinctly report on aspects of the
project that involve hazards and to make recommendations about corrective actions.
The recommendations will usually indicate the nature or direction of a solution, rather
than specifying the details of how to solve the problem. Responsibility for that will rest
with the designer. The report provides the formal documentation on which decisions
about corrective action will be based. A notable or excellent element of the design that
improves safety can be mentioned in a road safety audit report, but it is not necessary
to mention positive design elements. It would be assumed that all designs contain good
elements. The purpose of the report is not to rate the design, but rather to address any
road safety concerns.
In some cases safety concerns may be identified but a recommendation, even a

broadly directive one, may not come to mind. In this case the safety issue should not
be ignored: simply record the finding (i.e. the safety concern) and under
‘Recommendation’ write ‘Investigate treatment and implement it’ or something similar.

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT – STRUCTURE AND CONTENTS
(a) Project Information
A report title that includes the name of the road, the extent of the audited project
(length of road or intersecting road name) and the location.
The stage of the audit being undertaken eg. existing road or type of design audit if
a new project.
A brief description of the project and its objectives. In the case of an existing road
briefly describe the road and its function.
Date of the audit
(b) Background Information
The audit team members’ names affiliations and qualifications
The client’s name.
An overall plan of the project or road length. It can be beneficial to add audit
recommendation item numbers to the plan.
Advice that both daytime and a nighttime inspection were undertaken (if applicable),
and dates of commencement and completion meetings (even if only by telephone
for small projects).
A list of documents used during the audit, including the version of audit guidelines
referred to and all drawing numbers with their dates/amendment numbers.
(c) Findings and Recommendations
A listing and details of findings about the safety deficiencies that were identified and
their importance, with appropriate recommendations directly after each finding.
This will be the most substantial part of the report.
Photos of significant issues can be very beneficial.
(d) Formal Statement
A concluding statement signed and dated by all audit team members, advising they
have reviewed the documents provided, inspected the site and identified the road
safety problems noted in the report.
(e) Appendices
Attach copies of documents reviewed, plans, traffic data, accident data, relevant
photographs not included in the Findings section of the report etc.
Any items, which are considered to have a greater potential as road safety hazards,
are recorded as 'IMPORTANT' in the audit findings table and recommendations. Other
items may also be significant road safety concerns but to a lesser degree.

In line with the need to maintain good communication with the designer, the auditor
should endeavour to resolve any uncertainties or misunderstandings by talking with the
designer before drawing conclusions. However the auditor has a position of
independence and should not, for example, be required to provide a draft of the road
safety audit report to the client or designer for comment.
The format of a typical audit report is illustrated in Part 4. Depending on the type of
project and the number and nature of safety concerns, the audit findings and
recommendations may be written in a tabular format or with a separate paragraph for
each finding. The tabular format has the advantage that it can be used directly by the
client to indicate responses or comments adjacent to each finding.
Writing Recommendations
It is the designer’s responsibility, not the auditor’s, to consider optional solutions and
undertake any redesign. Usually, an audit recommendation should indicate the
direction in which a solution should be sought, rather than specifying the solution. After
all, the auditors usually don’t know all of the project constraints and possibilities. With
the above example finding, the solution may be to flatten the embankment or shield it,
with one of several barrier types. An appropriate recommendation may be:
“Flatten the embankment or shield it”, whereas “Install guard fence” is too prescriptive,
as it focuses on only one possible solution and also ignores different crash barrier
types.
But sometimes there is a fine line between a ‘recommendation’ and a ‘solution’. If

traffic may go the wrong way down a one-way street, there may be no other option but
to use a standard sign. Equally, the recommendations need to take account of the
client’s understanding of safe road design practices: a recommendation to the sole
engineer at a small rural council may need to be more specific or give more advice
about where the solution can be found, than would be necessary with a
recommendation to an experienced freeway design unit.
When framing recommendations:
Be constructive about how the safety problem might be resolved;
Be realistic, considering the severity of the problem and the cost of solutions;
Provide feasible recommendations;
Bear in mind there may be high cost/low cost and short term/long term solutions;
and
Avoid redesigning or specifying solutions in detail, but equally don’t be so obscure

or general that the client doesn’t understand the point being made.
In summary, the road safety audit report should be a concise and succinct report on
aspects of the project that involve safety hazards, with recommendations about
corrective actions. It should briefly include other background information.

3.9 Step 7 - Holding a Completion Meeting
Objective: To discuss the recommendations for corrective action.
The completion meeting will involve the safety auditors, the project manager and/or the
project designer(s). In the case of an audit of an existing road, the Completion Meeting
should involve the Regional/District Engineer or his representative.
The auditors will discuss the findings of the RSA with the project manager/road
designer. This meeting will involve the auditor and the client and/or the designer. In the
early days of road safety audit, it can be a useful opportunity to assist in training, by
familiarising participants with the full process and the nature of recommendations. As
experience with safety audit develops, this type of meeting may only be needed for
major or sensitive projects. Otherwise, the audit can be completed by telephone.
The meeting should be run in such a way that the independence of the auditor is not
affected. It should not be viewed as an opportunity to disagree with the
recommendations. Misunderstandings can be resolved at this meeting, but it is
preferable that this be done before the report is written. The meeting can provide an
opportunity for the designer to ask for suggestions for overcoming the identified
problems.
3.10 Step 8 - Responding to the Audit Report

Recommendations
Objective: To deal with audit recommendations - to determine whether the

recommendations of the road safety audit should be implemented, modified or if
no action is to be taken (with reasons in writing).
The Project Engineer is required to respond to the recommendations of the audit

report. If necessary, the person responding to the audit report can discuss suggestions
to overcome the identified safety problems.
The Project Engineer can also initiate or recommend actions to ensure that the safety
problems identified in the audit report are not repeated in future projects.
In the case of existing roads, the Regional/District Engineer may use the findings as
the basis for initiating action or formulating improvement proposals for an accident
prevention program.
A response of the follow up action shall be made to each recommendation and

endorsed by the Project Engineer (or more senior person if appropriate). All decisions
and reasons for those decisions shall be documented in writing. Copies shall be filed
for future reference and forwarded to the road safety audit team for
information/feedback.
Procedures To Deal With Audit Recommendations
When an audit report is received by the Project Engineer it has to be acted upon,
otherwise safety is no further advanced. This can only be done effectively if a
management control system is in place to keep track of audits.

This system needs to include:
Well defined and documented procedures for dealing with audit reports:
• Who will respond to an audit report;
• Who will sign off the corrective actions; and
• Who will ensure the agreed actions are followed through;
For each audit report - the action to be taken in response to each recommendation,
by when, by whom, and the current status of actions; and
Checks to ensure that audit reports, corrective action reports and follow up actions
are finalised within specified times.
Responding To An Audit Report in Writing
A road safety audit is a formal process. The audit report documents the audit team’s
identified safety concerns and will usually make recommendations to improve the
safety of the design. The client (or the designer) shall respond with a written response
to each and every audit recommendation. A responsible representative of the client
shall sign the response document to endorse the recommended actions.
The client or designer may wish to call in an independent assessor for assistance with
details of how to respond to each audit recommendation. It should be borne in mind
that the audit report will not include the design details of a solution to any problem.
Each recommendation in the road safety audit report can be responded to by either:
Accepting it completely and designing a solution to overcome or reduce the

problem in line with the audit recommendation or in another equally effective way;
Accepting it in part or ‘in principle’, but due to other constraints, implementing other
changes which reduce the safety problem; or
Not accepting the recommendation at all.
For each response the action proposed needs to be clearly set out in writing, together
with reasons and the appropriate endorsement of the action proposed.
If it is decided to make significant changes to the design, a further audit of the revised
design may be appropriate, rather than waiting for the next design stage audit. This is a
particularly important consideration if the project has reached the detailed design stage
and is to be built soon.
TO AGREE OR NOT AGREE …
How does a Project Engineer decide whether or not to accept an audit

recommendation? This question often arises with the ‘expensive’ or ‘hard to include’
recommendations.

The earlier an audit is undertaken in a design process, the sooner a potential problem
can be identified and addressed. This generally means it will be easier or cheaper to
resolve a problem. If the project concept has a fundamental safety flaw, discovering it
at the detailed design stage can put pressure on everyone to accept an ineffective
If faced that
change withmay
an audit
not berecommendation
the best option. that is difficult to resolve, a Project Engineer
needs to consider:
The likelihood that the identified problem will result in damage or injury;
The severity of that harm;
The cost of remedying the problem (there may be several alternative treatments); and
The effectiveness of a remedy in reducing the harm.
This requires engineering judgement and may require the Project Engineer to seek
additional road safety engineering advice about managing the risk. Section 3.3.9
provide an approach to risk assessment that may be useful when responding to Audit
recommendations.
In the event of a crash occurring at some time after the road project is opened to the
public, representatives of an injured person may seek the audit documentation. It is
important that audit recommendations are given due consideration, taking account of
the four dot points above and other relevant factors. If it is not possible to adopt a
recommendation (e.g. due to high cost implications), is there another effective way of
partly addressing the problem or can a solution be staged over time? Reasons for not
accepting a recommendation should be adequately documented.
3.10.1 Risk Assessment in Considering Audit Recommendations

A risk assessment process may assist in determining priorities for action when
considering audit recommendations. When an audit report contains a number of safety
concerns, the Project Engineer may use a risk assessment approach to help to
determine those concerns that should have a high priority for being addressed .
Risk
Risk can be defined as the combination of the likelihood and the consequence of a
crash occurring.
The following process provides an indication of the level of risk as a guide when
responding to a recommendation. This system requires the application of professional
judgement at each step.
Likelihood

The likelihood of a crash occurring depends on various factors such as driver behavior
(inattention, fatigue, risk taking), the quality of the road (surface, alignment etc) and the
vehicle (poorly maintained brakes, windscreen wipers).
The likelihood that a given type of crash might occur can be defined in accordance with
the following table:
FREQUENCY DESCRIPTION
Frequent One or more times per month
Occasional More than once per year (but less than

12)
Infrequent Less than once per year
Table 3.3.1 - Likelihood Definition

Consequence
If a crash does occur, the consequence of the crash depends on things like the speed
of the vehicle, the severity of roadside hazards and the ability of the vehicle to protect
the occupants (seatbelts, air bags, crumple zone, collapsible steering column etc). The
consequence can be defined in accordance with the following table:
SEVERITY OF AN
DESCRIPTION
ACCIDENT
Very Serious Multiple fatalities, severe injuries
Serious Single fatality, severe injuries
Minor Minor injuries, property damage
Table 3.3.2 - Consequence Definition

Risk Category
The risk is then estimated from the likelihood and consequence scores in accordance
with the following table:
CONSEQUENCE
Very
Serious Minor
Serious
Frequent HIGH HIGH MEDIUM
Occasional HIGH MEDIUM LOW

LIKELIHOOD
Infrequent MEDIUM LOW LOW
Table 3.3.3 - Risk Category

Treatment Priority
The suggested treatment priority for each risk level is described in the following table:
RISK SUGGESTED TREATMENT PRIORITY

Must be corrected or the risk significantly
High
reduced at the earliest possible time.
Should be corrected or the risk significantly

Medium
reduced as medium priority works.
Should be corrected or the risk significantly

Low
reduced as low priority works.
Table 3.3.4 - Treatment Priority
3.11 Closing the Loop – Feeding Back the Knowledge Gained
Objective: To disseminate the knowledge gained from an audit, for the wider
benefit of road safety engineers and traffic designers.
Unless the knowledge gained from audits is fed back into the design process, there is a
risk that the same ‘mistakes’ will be made again and again. Audits should be the
catalyst for change, so that the road safety engineering experience applied to one
design can benefit future designs.
The opportunities for feedback include:
Feedback into this project;
Feedback into other projects within the same design office. Ensure audit reports
and corrective action reports are widely circulated and discussed within the office.
Deal with any problem issues associated with ‘peer review’, ‘standards vs. safety’,
etc. Have designers included in audit teams (on projects they are not associated
with). Every couple of years, review audit reports to see if there are common or
repeated issues;
Feedback generally to the design profession. Include audit topics in professional

development seminars. Use road safety email discussion groups and internet sites;
Feedback into revised standards. Contact your state road authority custodians of
manuals and standards about any examples of standard treatments which have
compromised safety and request changes;
Feedback to auditors. As a courtesy and to improve future audits, advise your

auditors about how you responded to their audit; and

As a way of gaining knowledge from audits, audited and unaudited design projects
need to be monitored for up to three years after they are built, to see whether crash
problems are occurring and, if so, whether the problems were anticipated in an
audit. This can provide valuable feedback into audit procedures: are sufficient
designs being audited; do audit teams have the right mix of people; are significant
problems being identified; are the responses to audit reports appropriate?
An audit is not a check of compliance with standards; it is an assessment of a

design’s likely level of safety once it is built and operating, or a check of its ‘fitness for
purpose’. Nonetheless, the audit should consider the designer’s compliance with
relevant geometric and traffic engineering standards and guidelines. Compliance will
tend to provide consistency of treatment for road users.
The commencement meeting or the background information may have highlighted

where the designer has considered relevant standards or guidelines, but has either
been unable to meet a requirement or has good reason (e.g. experience about
safety) to depart from it. But in other cases there may be no good reason why the
relevant standard or guideline has not been used. The auditor’s should alert the
designer to those situations if safety is compromised and recommend the use of the
relevant standard or guideline. But remember that complying with standards does
not necessarily guarantee safety, and that some aspects of design are not always
covered by guidelines.

Road Safety Audit Manual Part 4 - Sample Road Safety Audit Report
Part 4 SAMPLE ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT

STAGE 3 – DETAIL DESIGN AUDIT
Expressway Off Ramp in Metro Manila
AUDIT TEAM:
Cesar Fadri
Phillippe Jordano
Jose Raphael
CLIENT:
Department of Public Works and Highways
34
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 36
1.1 Description of the Project 36
1.2 Auditors and Audit Process 36
1.3 Deficiency and Recommendation Rankings 37
1.4 Responding to the Audit Report 37
2 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS STAGE AUDITS 37
3 AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37
4 CONCLUDING STATEMENT 49
35
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Description of the Project
The expressway off ramp in Metro Manila is being built to allow 2 lanes of traffic to exit the
expressway in order to access the new shopping mall that is currently under construction
on the western side of the expressway. Other road works are also proposed in this
vicinity including a new on-ramp to the expressway for one road and a frontage road that
will serve the shopping mall.
1.2 Auditors and Audit Process
This report presents the findings of a Stage 3 Road Safety Audit of the expressway off-
ramp in Metro Manila.
Audit Team
Cesar Fadri Prec. Inst.Tech. III, DPWH

Audit Team Leader
Phillippe Jordano Road Safety Engineer, VicRoads
Jose Raphael Engineer II, DPWH
None of the auditors has had any involvement with the design or development of the
project.
Date of Audit : 19th and 20th November 2003
Weather Conditions : Fine, Hot
Plans and other information used in the Audit
• Site Inspection only
Audit Process
The audit was carried out in accordance with the process set out in the Philippines Road
Safety Audit Manual, 2004. Reference has also been made to various guidelines and
manuals applicable in the Philippines.
The audit covers physical features of the proposal that may affect road user safety and it
has sought to identify potential safety hazards. Adopting the recommendations in this
report would improve the level of safety of the facility.
February 2004 36
1.3 Deficiency and Recommendation Rankings
Some items, which are considered to have a greater potential as road safety hazards, are
recorded as 'IMPORTANT' in the Audit Findings and Recommendations in Table 1. Other
items may also be significant road safety concerns but to a lesser degree.
1.4 Responding to the Audit Report
As set out in the Philippines Road Safety Audit Manual, responsibility for the road design
rests with the Client, and not with the audit team. There is no obligation to accept the
audit recommendations, as a range of factors may need to be considered in relation to the
recommendations and there may also be other options available to reduce the road safety
hazards identified. The audit provides the opportunity to highlight potential problems and
have them formally considered by the Project Managers, in conjunction with other project
considerations.
Road Safety Audit guidelines indicate that the Project Engineer should respond to the
recommendations of the audit report. All decisions and reasons for those decisions shall
be documented in writing and filed for future reference. It is requested that a copy be
forwarded to the road safety audit team for information and feedback.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS STAGE AUDITS

There have been no previous road safety audits on this project.
3 AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings and recommendations from this audit are set out in Table 1.
Sixteen concerns were identified in the audit. Twelve of the concerns identified are
considered to be significant safety issues and have been labeled as ‘IMPORTANT’ as per
Section 1.3 of this report.
During the site inspection it was noted that the work has not only commenced but is well
advanced. In addition to the requested detailed design stage audit the pre-opening
checklists were also examined in order to assist with completing a full and thorough audit.
Several observations about safety at the roadworks are also made.
37
Table 1: Audit Findings and Recommendations
Project Manager
Audit Findings Recommendations Ranking Accept Reasons/Comments
Yes/No
1. The Exit Point
1.1 Lack of direction signs on expressway
The expressway is a high-speed road, and drivers need (a) Ensure that conspicuous advance IMPORTANT
good advance direction signs to assist them to exit at the direction signs are placed on the
new off ramp. This is made even more important as the expressway to face southbound
exit is a two-lane exit and it is located just 100m around a drivers, to provide them with
sweeping right hand curve. There is a danger that some advance guidance of the location
drivers will fail to perceive the location of this exit until late, of the off ramp.
and that they may then try to exit in a way that creates
safety problems. (b) Ensure that there is also a
direction sign placed closer to the
exit to reinforce the exit location.
1.2 Gore Area
The nose of the gore area at the off ramp is difficult to see. Design a lighting layout for the exit IMPORTANT
There is only one street light in existence, and the plans area. Remove the existing light pole
do not show any new lights. While the proposed road as it is a fixed object that will cause
surface delineation is good, there will be times (eg wet serious injury if struck (See 2.2
nights) when this cannot be relied upon. The problem below). Ensure that all street lighting
outlined in 1.1 above will worsen this situation. The island is either slip based or is impact
nose is likely to be often struck. absorbent to minimize hazards.
Install a high visibility hazard marker
on the nose. In addition, consider
floodlighting the nose.
38
Project Manager
Yes/No
Refer Items 1.2 and 1.3
1.3 Narrow, low level median
As drivers exit to the off ramp there is a danger that they (a) Install a series of chevron IMPORTANT
may fail to see the narrow and low-level median that alignment markers on the median
separates the off ramp from the adjacent, parallel on to face drivers using the off ramp.
ramp. The two roads run almost parallel for about 150
meters and if a driver exiting the expressway at high (b) Install street lighting is this area
speed misinterprets the road layout, he/she could strike (see recommendation 1.2 above)
the median.
This risk is increased due to the inadequate street lighting (c) Ensure that good maintenance
in this vicinity, and will further increase when gravel and practices are followed so that line
debris builds up beside the median, obscuring the edge marking is maintained in an
line. optimal condition.
39
Project Manager
Yes/No
2. Fixed roadside objects
2.1 Street lighting columns
About half of the street lighting columns that have been (a) The works are proceeding and
installed along the elevated section of the off ramp these light columns are in place.
protrude into the roadway by about 120mm. This will Investigate if it is possible to
cause pocketing of any errant vehicle that hits the side shave off the offending part of the
railing and is directed into the light columns. concrete base of each column. If
this is not possible, ensure that
each column is clearly delineated.
(b) Introduce a maintenance system
that ensures that the line
marking, street lighting and
delineation along this ramp is
maintained at a high level
throughout its lifetime. The aim of
this is to try to minimize the
chance of a vehicle leaving the
road.
2.2 Street light in high risk location
The single existing streetlight near the exit is located in a (a) Remove this streetlight. IMPORTANT
high-risk location where it is likely to be struck by any (b) Design a street lighting scheme
errant vehicle that leaves the expressway on the sweeping for this area near the exit to
bend near the exit. It is not a “forgiving” pole and it needs ensure that the gore area is well
to be relocated or replaced. illuminated. Ensure that only slip
based poles are used in this
scheme.
40
Project Manager
Yes/No
2.3. Fixed objects close to roadway
At the commencement of the elevated section of the off The end walls are already built. If the IMPORTANT
ramp there are solid concrete end wall on both sides of end walls can be changed and made
the road. These end walls are also close to the more “forgiving” this should be done.
expressway (on the outside of a bend) and the on ramp. If However it is unlikely that this can be
struck by an errant vehicle these end walls will cause done within the lateral clearances
serious injury to the occupants of the errant vehicle. available. Therefore it will be
necessary to ensure that good
pavement marking and signage is
provided to minimize the risk of a
vehicle leaving the roadway. It is also
recommended that low cost crash
attenuators (e.g. sand barrels) be
installed at both locations to reduce
impact severity if a vehicle does
leave the road.
Refer Item 2.3
41
Project Manager
Yes/No
3. Alignment of off ramp
3.1 Horizontal alignment of off ramp
The horizontal alignment of the off ramp appears to have (a) The ramp is substantially
been designed to minimum standards for the design completed and there is now no
speed. Coupled with the vertical alignment of the off ramp opportunity to alter the horizontal
there is a risk that a driver using the right hand lane of the or the vertical alignments. Install
off ramp may not be able to stop in time to avoid a a warning sign approx. 50m in
collision with (say) an object that could be dropped on the advance of the crest to warn of
roadway just beyond the crest (approx 450m chainage) the lack of sight distance ahead.
(b) Consider installing speed limit

signs along the off ramp to try to
control speeds to 50km/h or less.
42
Project Manager
Yes/No
4 Junction of the off ramp and the arterial road
4.1 Lane arrows approaching junction
There are three lanes marked on the northern approach to (a) Review the lane configuration on
the junction – an exclusive left lane, a straight through the approach to this junction.
lane, and an exclusive right lane. This right turn lane is Consider altering the through
expected to carry a heavy flow of traffic (towards the lane to a shared right/through
shopping mall) and yet it has a short length commencing
with a substandard taper length near the horizontal bend.
There is a danger that this lane will “overflow” and that
rear end collisions may then occur. As the demand for the
straight through lane will be very small (it can only be
vehicles that have exited the expressway and have then
decided to return to it), it may be possible to reassign this
lane to a combined through/right turn lane.
(b) The drawings do not show any change to the median (b) Ensure that the median is cut IMPORTANT
strip on the bridge. Unless this median is removed, the back to allow the through
straight through traffic from the off ramp will strike it (at movement to take place.
right angles), and this will create serious crashes.
43
Project Manager
Yes/No
5 Roadworks safety
5.1 Roadworks traffic management
The audit team noted a number of unsafe practices in the

worksite. These are not usually part of a detailed design
stage audit, but as they were observed during this audit it
has been decided to reference them here for urgent
attention by the contractor:
Individual sections of concrete barrier are being If the separate temporary concrete IMPORTANT
used as delineators. barriers are struck they will cause
serious injury – join them together.
Use temporary bollards or delineators
to warn drivers of the presence of the
barriers.
Refer Item 5
44
Project Manager
Yes/No
Most signs are non-reflectorized and difficult to Replace existing signs on the site
read at night. with reflectorized road signs.
There are no advance warning signs for these Install standard advanced warning
roadworks on the expressway approaches. signs on the expressway 1km and
0.5 km in advance of the worksite.
The temporary merge of the on ramp with the Move this merge as far south as IMPORTANT
expressway is located on the inside of a curve, and possible. Place warning signs on the
under the off ramp structure, making it difficult for expressway. If possible, merge the
entering drivers to select safe entry gaps to enter expressway down to two lanes at this
the expressway. point to allow the entry movement to
have an exclusive entry lane.
45
Project Manager
Yes/No
6 Other Matters
6.1 Pedestrians
There is no indication in the drawings on how pedestrians The recommended option is to IMPORTANT
are to be catered for. A number of pedestrians were construct a footbridge across the
observed crossing the expressway to reach jeepney expressway and the Off Ramp plus
stops, and with the opening of the new shopping mall on the on ramp. Full and detailed
the western side the number of pedestrians wanting to investigations will be needed, but this
cross can be expected to increase considerably. The should take place before the mall
existing road bridge is not well located for many of the opens. It will also be necessary for
pedestrians, and its sidewalks are quite narrow. enforcement to take place to prevent
jeepneys from stopping on the
expressway in this vicinity. Co-
operation with the enforcement
agency will be essential.
Refer Item 6.1
46
Project Manager
Yes/No
6.2 Bridge widening
The bridge over the expressway is proposed to be (a) Review the design of the bridge IMPORTANT
widened as part of this contract. During the inspection it widening so that the sidewalks
was noted that the sidewalks on the bridge are too narrow are at least 3.0m wide on each
for the existing volumes of pedestrians. The design for the side of the bridge.
proposed widening shows even narrower sidewalks.
When the shopping mall opens for business, pedestrian (b) Ensure that the traffic signals that IMPORTANT
volumes will increase substantially. This will lead to more are to be installed at both
pedestrians being forced to walk on the roadway, with an junctions of the off ramps and the
additional increase in risk to them. bridge have signal phasing for
pedestrians to use.
(c) Use selected lengths of

pedestrian fencing (of a
“forgiving” type) near the
junctions to direct pedestrians to
the safest routes to follow.
Refer Item 6.2
47
Project Manager
Yes/No
6.3 Road section adjacent to project
The small street through the market area immediately east As a matter of urgency, install IMPORTANT
of the bridge is not a part of this road project. However, it advance direction signs to face
is positioned on a steep down grade with very poor eastbound drivers on the arterial road
alignment. There are neither advance direction signs, nor approx 50 – 70 meters west of the
advance warning signs for eastbound motorists crossing junction with the off ramp. Emphasise
the bridge to warn them of the fact that the wide straight on the direction sign that the road
arterial road ends, and a small steep narrow road into a ahead deteriorates. Install two
market area begins. There is a real risk that a vehicle may warning signs to face eastbound
overshoot at speed into the market street, especially at drivers warning of the rapid
night. downgrade and the rapid
deterioration of the road into the
market street.
Refer Item 6.3
48
4 CONCLUDING STATEMENT
Detailed design drawings provided by the designers have been examined by the
audit team. The audit has been carried out for the sole purpose of identifying any
features of the project that could be altered, included or removed to improve safety.
The identified concerns have been noted in Section 3 of this report and in the
accompanying Table 1 – Findings and Recommendations From This Audit. The
recommendations are put forward for consideration by the Project Engineer for
consideration.
________________________________ / /
Cesar Fadri, (Audit Team Leader)
Prec. Inst.Tech. III, DPWH
________________________________ / /
Phillippe Jordano,
Road Safety Engineer, VicRoads
________________________________ / /
Jose Raphael
Engineer II, DPWH
49
Road Safety Audit Manual Part 5 - Road Safety Audit Checklists
Part 5 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT CHECKLISTS
5.1 The Purpose of Checklists

These checklists in this part of the Manual have been designed so the items listed act
as a prompt. They are not a substitute for knowledge and experience - they are an aid
for the application of that knowledge and experience. The checklists are to help an
audit team avoid overlooking something important.
The checklists should not be appended to the audit report. The written audit report
should contain sufficient explanation of its recommendations, without any need to refer
to notes made on a checklist.
Separate from any audit, designers may also wish to use the checklists to help them
identify potential safety problems in their designs and as a way of knowing the types of
issues an auditor will address.
5.2 When to Use the Checklists

With these guidelines there is a set of checklists for projects at the following stages:
Design Stage Audits:
Checklist 1 - Feasibility Stage
Checklist 2 - Draft Design Stage
Checklist 3 - Detailed Design Stage
Other Audits:
Checklist 4 - Pre-opening Stage
Checklist 5 - Roadwork Traffic Scheme
Checklist 6 - Existing Roads
The checklists are for use when:
Assessing the documentation. In particular, when the project drawings are

being examined;
Inspecting the site. At this point, it is important to visualise how the project will
fit into the existing features; and
Writing the audit report, to re-check that the relevant issues have been
addressed.

Road Safety Audit Manual Part 5 - Road Safety Audit Checklists
5.3 Using the Checklists

Determine which set of checklists is needed. Remember that an audit may cover more
than one stage in the design process.
Use the master checklist on the following pages to scan the topics for audit and to
prompt any questions about additional topics that should be considered. Note that the
Feasibility Stage topics deal more with 'in principle' matters and the Pre-opening Stage
topics deal more with the manner in which the design has been translated into practice.
The checklists provided have been designed so that they can be photocopied and used
as field sheets. A copy of the relevant page of the master list may also be useful as a
quick reference in the office or in the field. When using the checklist, mark on the
checklist any points where items fail to meet safety requirements or require further
checking. More details can be logged on the checklist pages, on plans or in a
notebook.
A successful audit is not achieved by simply ticking off the checklist. The topics listed
are intended to cover only the more common elements of design and practice. The
lists are not exhaustive and auditors should use their own skills and judgement about
the safety of any feature. If a listed topic is not apparently relevant to the project being
audited, a broad view of the topic should be taken, to see if it prompts a relevant
question. For example, sight lines may be obstructed by features not listed in the
checklists, and perhaps only at particular times of day. An understanding of the
general environment around the project will help auditors use the checklists effectively.

Road Safety Audit Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Road Safety Audit Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Road Safety Audit Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS

Road Safety Audit Manual

PART 1 BACKGROUND TO ROAD SAFETY AUDIT ....................................... 1

1.1 What is a Road Safety Audit? ........................................................................................ 1

PART 2 DPWH ROAD SAFETY AUDIT POLICY ............................................ 12

PART 3 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT PROCEDURES ............................................ 15

3.8 Step 6 - Writing the Road Safety Audit Report.......................................................... 24

PART 4 SAMPLE ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT ....................................... 33

PART 5 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT CHECKLISTS............................................... 50

Design Stage Audits:

February 2004 Department of Public Works and Highways iii

Part 1 BACKGROUND TO ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

1.1 What is a Road Safety Audit?

Road infrastructure safety programs (including accident prevention and accident

Accident Prevention Accident Reduction

February 2004 Department of Public Works and Highways 1

Road Safety Audit IS:

• A formal process, and not an informal check;

• Conducted by persons who are independent of the design;

• Conducted by persons with appropriate experience and training; and

• An assessment of road safety implications of a design or identification of a safety

Road Safety Audit IS NOT:

• A critical appraisal of the design or a way of assessing or rating a project as good or

• A means of ranking or justifying one project against others in a work program;

• A way of rating one option against another;

• A check of compliance with standards;

• A substitute for design checks;

• A term used to describe informal checks, inspections or consultation.

February 2004 Department of Public Works and Highways 2

1.2 The Steps in a Road Safety Audit

Figure 1.2: Steps in the Road Safety Audit Process

February 2004 Department of Public Works and Highways 3

1.3 Breaking the Accident Chain

human factors (which are involved in around 95% of crashes);

vehicle factors (which are involved in around 8% of crashes).

Figure 1.3: The Three Factors that Contribute to Road Crashes

February 2004 Department of Public Works and Highways 4

Prevention is better than cure, as it:

involves less trauma; and

costs a road authority less money than remedial treatments.

The community pays for a road in many ways:

the cost of designing it (e.g. designers’ salaries);

the cost of building it (e.g. land acquisition, materials, builders’ wages);

the cost of maintaining it (e.g. cleaning, line marking, lighting costs);

1.4 Road Safety Audit is Part of a Road Safety Strategy

The management of accident risk is a long-term strategy that requires corporate

February 2004 Department of Public Works and Highways 5

have road safety included in its corporate plan;

1.5 Why Do We Need to Conduct Road Safety Audits?

• the likelihood of accident occurrence on the road network can be minimized;

• road safety is given priority amongst other considerations; and

February 2004 Department of Public Works and Highways 6

1.6 When Should a Road Safety Audit be Conducted?

Stage 1: Feasibility (or conceptual development) stage;

Stage 2: Draft design stage;

Stage 3: Detailed design stage

Stage 4: Pre-opening stage;

Stage 5: Roadwork Traffic Scheme audit; and