Road Safety Audit Guidelines for Highways

Department of Transport
Abu Dhabi
Department of Transport – Road Safety Audit Guidelines

Transport Research Laboratory

REPORT 11110401/01

Road Safety Audit Guidelines for Highways

Department of Transport Abu Dhabi

Prepared for: Client: Abu Dhabi Department of Transport

Copyright Transport Research Laboratory December 2010

This Report has been prepared for Abu Dhabi Department of Transport by Stefan Lotter on
behalf of the Transport Research Laboratory.
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of Abu Dhabi
Department of Transport.

Date
Name
Approved

Project Jamie Castle 13/12/2010

Manager

Technical Tim Sterling 13/12/2010

Referee

i
Department of Transport – Road Safety Audit Guidelines

Acknowledgements
These Road Safety Audit Guidelines draw extensively on the experiences and practices of
countries that have introduced Road Safety Audit procedures, and on the various guidelines,
checklists and procedures in use in these countries. The authors would like to acknowledge
their gratitude in particular to Austroads (Australia), Federal Highway Administration (USA),
GHD (Abu Dhabi), Institute for Highways and Transportation (UK), National Roads
Authority (Republic of Ireland), PIARC and Transport for London (UK).

ii
Department of Transport – Road Safety Audit Guidelines

Definitions
Audit Brief: The instructions to the Audit Team defining the scope and details of the Road
Project to be audited, including sufficient information for the audit to be undertaken.
Audit Team: A team that works together on all aspects of the audit, independent of the
Design Team and approved for a particular audit by the Client.
Audit Team Leader: A person with the appropriate training, skills and experience who is
approved for a particular audit by the Client. The Audit Team Leader has overall
responsibility for carrying out the audit, managing the Audit Team and certifying the report.
Audit Team Member: A member of the Audit Team with the appropriate training, skills and
experience who is approved for a particular audit by the Client, and who reports to the Audit
Team Leader.
Audit Team Observer: A person with the appropriate training, skills and experience
accompanying the Audit Team to observe and gain experience of the audit procedure.
Audit Team (CPD): A register of courses, conferences, workshops and any other training
undertaken with the purpose of keeping Road Safety Auditors up to date with the latest
developments in Road Safety Audit, Crash Investigation and Road Safety Engineering.
Crash: A rare random multifactor event in which one or more road users fails to cope with
their environment, and collide with each other or an object. This includes crashes resulting in
casualties or damage only.
Crash Investigation: The collection and examination of historical crash data over a period of
time in order to identify patterns, common trends and factors which may have contributed to
the crashes.
Design and Build (D&B): A type of contractual arrangement whereby a single entity
(contractor/designer consortium) is responsible for undertaking both the design and
construction of a project.
Design Team: The group within the Design Organisation undertaking the various design
stages of the Road Project.
Exception Report: A report from the Client on each recommendation in the audit report that
he/she proposes should either: be implemented, not be implemented or an
alternative/modified action to that recommended.
Maintaining Agent: The authority responsible for maintaining the completed Road Project.
This is typically a term contractor employed on behalf of the Road Authority to undertake
this function.
Planning Authorities: The authority responsible for development control (i.e. Abu Dhabi
Urban Planning Council, or Abu Dhabi/Al Ain/Western Region Municipality).
Road Authority: The authority ultimately responsible for the operations and maintenance of
the road being audited (i.e. Department of Transport, or Abu Dhabi/Al Ain/Western Region
Municipality).
Road Improvement Projects: All works that involve construction of new road or permanent
change to the existing road layout or features. This includes changes to road layout, kerbs,
signs and markings, lighting, signalling, drainage, landscaping and installation of roadside
equipment. A Road Project may involve construction of a major or minor road, major or
minor rehabilitation/retrofit, a major or minor development, or traffic calming.

iii
Department of Transport – Road Safety Audit Guidelines

Road Safety Audits: A Road Safety Audit is a formal systematic process for the examination
of new Road Projects or existing roads by an independent and qualified Audit Team, in order
to detect any defects likely to result in a crash.
Road Safety Engineering: The design and implementation of physical changes to the road
network intended to reduce the number and severity of crashes involving road users, drawing
on the results of Crash Investigations.
Road Users: All persons located within the road reserve irrespective of the purpose of their
trip or mode of transport. They include the visually and mobility impaired (e.g. wheel chair
users).
Temporary Traffic Management: The arrangement of temporary sign, markings and other
devices to guide all road users safely through road works, whilst also ensuring the protection
of works personnel.
Vulnerable Road User (VRU): Someone with little or no external protection, or has reduced
task capabilities, or reduced stamina/physical capabilities. They include pedestrians
(including people with visual or mobility impairments, young children, older people),
cyclists, powered two-wheelers and wheelchair users.

iv
Department of Transport – Road Safety Audit Guidelines

Contents
Acknowledgements i

Definitions iii

Contents v

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose of the Guidelines 1
1.2 Target Audience 1
1.3 Basis of the Guidelines 2
1.4 Structure of the Guidelines 2

2 Road Safety Audits – An Overview 3

2.1 Boundaries of Road Safety Audits 4
2.2 Why Road Safety Audits Should Be Undertaken 4
2.2.1 Human-Environment-Vehicle System 4
2.2.2 Multi-Causal Nature of Crashes 5
2.2.3 Chain of Events 5
2.2.4 Why Road Safety Audits are Necessary When Standards Exist 6
2.2.5 Economic Justification 6
2.3 Types of Road Safety Audits 7
2.3.1 Audit of New Road Projects 7
2.3.2 Other Types of Audits 8
2.4 Risk Assessment 8

3 Road Safety Audit Team Composition 11

4 Road Safety Audits of New Roads 13

4.1.1 Introduction 13
4.1.2 Site Visits 13
4.1.3 Reporting Problems and Recommendations 13

5 Road Safety Audits of Existing Roads (Road Safety Assessments) 15

5.1 Introduction 15
5.2 Conducting Road Safety Assessments 15
5.3 Road Safety Assessment Report 17

6 Road Safety Audits of Development-Led Projects 18

6.1 Introduction 18

v
Department of Transport – Road Safety Audit Guidelines

6.2 When Road Safety Audits Should Be Undertaken 18

6.3 Conducting Road Safety Audits of Developments 18

7 Principles for Safe Road Design 20

7.1 Introduction 20
7.2 General Safety Principles 20
7.3 Designing for Specific Road User Groups 21
7.3.1 Pedestrians and Wheelchair Users 22
7.4 Road Design Elements 24
7.4.1 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment 24
7.4.2 Intersections 25
7.4.3 Cross-Sectional Elements 28
7.4.4 Access Control 29
7.4.5 Parked Vehicles 29
7.4.6 Signs 29
7.4.7 Crash Barriers 30
7.4.8 Temporary Traffic Management (Road Works) 32
7.5 Local Issues 33
7.5.1 Driver Behaviour 33
7.5.2 Sand 35
7.5.3 Camels 35
7.5.4 Weather 35
7.6 Common Issues - Rural 36
7.7 Common Issues – Urban 39

References 45

vi
Department of Transport – Road Safety Audit Guidelines

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Contributory factors to crashes (Source: Treat et al., 1979) ................................... 4
Figure 2-2: Generic risk matrix (Source: IHT, 2008) ................................................................ 9
Figure 6-1: Development of land adjacent to a road can have a significant impact on the
safety of that road or adjacent intersections ...................................................................... 19
Figure 7-1: Advance information and warning should be appropriate – this type of sign is
meaningless as it gives no detail of what the approaching warning is or where to expect it
........................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 7-2: Mobility impaired people require dropped kerbs to help them cross roads - unlike
this example they should be match the width of the crossing, have a mountable upstand
and be free of obstructions ................................................................................................ 23
Figure 7-3: Footways and crossing points should provide a clear passage for pedestrians and
be unobstructed by roadside furniture ............................................................................... 23
Figure 7-4: Vegetation adjacent to footways should be regularly maintained to prevent it
encroaching into the footway and cause pedestrians to use the roadway ......................... 23
Figure 7-5: Narrow medians and refuges offer little protection for groups or pedestrians ..... 23
Figure 7-6: Possible sequences of curves to achieve safer horizontal alignment (Source:
PIARC, 2003) .................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 7-7: Marked changes in radii in curves on a bend can increase the risk of crashes ..... 24
Figure 7-8: Number of conflict points at different types of intersections (Source: PIARC,
2003) ................................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 7-9: The angle between paths of crossing manoeuvres at junctions should be as
perpendicular as possible, as with this u-turn facility ....................................................... 26
Figure 7-10: Dominant visual clues like lines of lighting columns can suggest continuation of
the road when it actually enters a roundabout ................................................................... 27
Figure 7-11: Use of shoulders for overtaking need to be taken into consideration ................. 28
Figure 7-12: An example of sign clutter that can overload the driver ..................................... 29
Figure 7-13: Distance markers should be located away from the edge of the roadway or
otherwise protected behind guard rail ............................................................................... 30
Figure 7-14: Barrier terminals that could potentially launch (left) and spear (right) errant
vehicles .............................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 7-15: Sand accumulation as a result of rigid-barriers (left) and semi-rigid barriers
(right)................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 7-16: Wire rope barriers have the ability to allow for free movement/migration of
sand, which therefore requires less traffic disruption by maintenance teams to clear
accumulation of sand on the roadway ............................................................................... 32
Figure 7-17: Measured speeds on the E22 ............................................................................... 33
Figure 7-18: Aggressive Driving – close following and overtaking........................................ 34
Figure 7-19: Use of hard shoulder as a driving lane ................................................................ 34

vii
Department of Transport – Road Safety Audit Guidelines

Figure 7-20: Drifting sand in the carriageway ......................................................................... 35

Figure 7-21: Camel fencing ..................................................................................................... 35
Figure 7-22: Roadside objects ................................................................................................. 36
Figure 7-23: Crash barriers ...................................................................................................... 36
Figure 7-24: Crash barriers behind kerbs................................................................................. 37
Figure 7-25: Maintenance issues ............................................................................................. 37
Figure 7-26: Approach to roundabout...................................................................................... 37
Figure 7-27: Traffic signs ........................................................................................................ 38
Figure 7-28: „U‟ turns .............................................................................................................. 38
Figure 7-29: Typical urban streets ........................................................................................... 39
Figure 7-30: Pedestrian footways ............................................................................................ 40
Figure 7-31: Pedestrian footways ............................................................................................ 40
Figure 7-32: Pedestrian fencing ............................................................................................... 41
Figure 7-33: Mid block crossing .............................................................................................. 41
Figure 7-34: Dropped kerbs at crossing points ........................................................................ 41
Figure 7-35: Pedestrian sightline ............................................................................................. 42
Figure 7-36: Pedestrian behaviour ........................................................................................... 42
Figure 7-37: Parking ................................................................................................................ 43
Figure 7-38: Traffic signs ........................................................................................................ 43
Figure 7-39: Development ....................................................................................................... 43
Figure 7-40: Junctions.............................................................................................................. 44

viii
Department of Transport – Road Safety Audit Guidelines

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Example of system components typically involved in a crash (Source: PIARC,
2003) ................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2-2: Example of risk assessment for road safety (Source: IHT, 2008) ............................ 9
Table 2-3: Example of risk assessment for road safety (Source: amended from IHT, 2008).. 10
Table 3-1: Recommended competency for Road Safety Audits (Source: Adapted from IHT
2008) ................................................................................................................................. 12
Table 5-1: Example of categories of remedial effort (Source: GHD, 2009) ........................... 16

ix
1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Guidelines

The mission of the Abu Dhabi Department of Transport, DOT is to “regulate, plan and
develop an efficient and well integrated transport system that serves the public interest by
enhancing mobility and delivering safe, secure and environmentally responsible Aviation,
Maritime, Public Transport and Highways sectors.” The Abu Dhabi DOT is responsible for
the planning, design, operation, maintenance, and management of transport and transport
systems on the Emirate of Abu Dhabi‟s main roadway network. Among the DOT‟s many
responsibilities, roadway safety is of major concern to DOT. DOT has endeavoured to
reduce fatalities, injuries, and economic losses caused by vehicle-related crashes through the
implementation of various road safety programs and interventions, including the development
of Road Safety Audits Guidelines and Procedures.
The road network in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi is full of contrasts ranging from the heavily
trafficked, fast developing road network in and around the main urban area of Abu Dhabi to
lightly trafficked older roads in the sparsely populated Western Region. For this reason there
are also many contrasting reasons why road safety can be compromised. There are many
strategies and initiatives that can contribute to a reduction in crash severity and the risk of
road crashes occurring. Road safety auditing aims to reduce risk and prevent new high crash
locations from being constructed, while Road Safety Assessments ensure improvements are
made to the road environment before they develop into crash black spots over time. These
Guidelines are intended to help ensure that Road Safety Auditing is undertaken in a
consistent, appropriate and effective manner.
Speeding remains one of the dominant contributory factors of crashes on Abu Dhabi‟s road
network. Although engineering improvements to the road infrastructure (brought about by
Road Safety Audits and Crash Investigations) can help reduce the severity of these crashes,
the occurrence and severity of these crashes will remain unless poor driver behaviour, in
particular the general disregard of speed limits, is also addressed.
Project management, planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance in the
Emirate of Abu Dhabi (and most of the Middle East) is characterised by the involvement of
significant numbers of multi-national firms, with staff from different countries, cultures and
design backgrounds. This has resulted in a myriad of design standards and guidelines being
used, and many different interpretations of the local design standards, particularly where
aspects are missing or outdated. Those design standards and guidelines from abroad that
have been used to supplement local standards are not always appropriate to local conditions.
The Road Safety Audit Guidelines will provide one method to ensure that road designs do not
compromise safety.
The Road Safety Audit Guidelines will also provide an important linkage between different
local standards/manuals, for example the Urban Street Design Manual, to ensure that the
Road Safety Audits are incorporated into the road design and development planning
processes.

1.2 Target Audience

These Guidelines contain steps that can be followed, and elements that should be considered,
when undertaking Road Safety Audits. The Guidelines are a partner document to the „Road
Safety Audit Procedures for Highways Department of Transport Abu Dhabi‟ document and

1
are intended to assist in the practical application of the Procedures. The Procedures are
mandatory for all schemes on the DoT network.

1.3 Basis of the Guidelines

The Guidelines are a compilation of the most recent best practice for Road Safety Audits in
the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Middle East (Dubai) and North
America. These have been adopted specifically for local conditions for both the urban and
rural road network of Abu Dhabi.

1.4 Structure of the Guidelines

These Guidelines are structured as follows:
Section 2 (Road Safety Audits – An Overview) discusses the concept of Road Safety Audits,
as well as the purpose and value of undertaking Road Safety Audits. It also discusses risk
assessments to help explain one of the fundamental elements of Road Safety Auditing, and to
clarify the difference between Road Safety Audits of new Road Projects and Road Safety
Assessments of existing roads.
Section 3 (Road Safety Audit Team Composition) provides guidance on the general levels of
training, skills and experience that are expected of Road Safety Auditors undertaking Road
Safety Auditing on the road network within the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.
Section 4 (Road Safety Audits of New Road Projects) expands on the different types of audit
of new Road Projects in Section 2, and outlines differences in the level of information
available at each planning or design stage and the required approach required by the auditors
to deal with each stage.
Section 5 (Road Safety Audits of Existing Roads (Road Safety Assessments)) describes how
safety assessments of existing roads can be undertaken, and how this differs from audits of
new Road Projects, with special reference to the concept of risk assessment discussed in
Section 2.
Section 6 (Road Safety Audits of Development-Led Projects) explains when Road Safety
Audits should be undertaken for development-led projects and how they could typically be
incorporated within the development control process.
Finally, Section 7 (Principles for Safe Road Design) provides an overview of the most
important principles for safe road design that are relevant to the road network within Abu
Dhabi, as a source for background rationale for auditors.

2
2 Road Safety Audits – An Overview
A Road Safety Audit is a formal systematic process for the examination of new Road Projects
or existing roads by an independent and qualified Audit Team, in order to detect any defects
likely to result in a crash.
According to Austroads (2009), the essential elements of Road Safety Audits that make them
distinct from other types of reviews are:
Formal Systematic Process
The Road Safety Audit is part of a formal process, in order to ensure their regular and
continued implementation/application in a uniform way.
New Road Projects or Existing Roads
Road Safety Audits focus on the examination of new Road Projects to detect defects or
features which might contribute to casualty crashes, while Road Safety Assessments focus on
the examination of existing roads.
Independent Audit Team
All the members of the Audit Team should be independent of the Design Team responsible
for the new Road Project. This ensures a balanced (impartial) audit that does not favour
issues which the Design Team are keen to implement or avoid, thereby possibly
compromising safety. Their independence also allows the Audit Team to examine the road
design with „fresh eyes‟.
The requirement for independence could still be met when the Audit Team and Design Team
are from the same organisation, provided they operate independently internally. This however
is not advised, particularly on sensitive projects.
Qualified Audit Team
The Audit Team Members should be suitably qualified, which includes: Crash Investigation
or Road Safety Engineering experience; previous Road Safety Audit experience or skills;
and, knowledge of latest developments in road safety.
Focus on Road Safety Issues
The focus of Road Safety Audits are on detecting potentially hazardous features / design
defects (or actual defects in the case of Road Safety Assessments) and not on checking
compliance with design standards.
From Road Users‟ Point of View
The Road Safety Audit should always examine the road design or existing road from the
point of view of road users potentially expected to use or that actually use the road. They
include vulnerable road users such as people with visual or mobility impairments, young
children, older people, cyclists, powered two-wheelers and wheelchair users. All types of
vehicles should be considered, including commercial (particularly heavy goods vehicles),
agricultural and recreational.

3
2.1 Boundaries of Road Safety Audits
As well as understanding exactly what Road Safety Audits are, it is equally important to
understand how they are often misinterpreted. According to Austroads (2009) they are not:
An opportunity to redesign a Road Project
A compliance check with design standards
A means of evaluating an individual road design or design component
A means of ranking design options or Road Projects
A safety review
A crash investigation or crash data investigation

2.2 Why Road Safety Audits Should Be Undertaken

2.2.1 Human-Environment-Vehicle System

The operation of the road network can be described as a system comprising the interaction of
three main components: the humans (i.e. road users) using it, the road environment and the
vehicles on it (PIARC, 2003). In this way contributory factors for crashes can be attributed to
the human, the road environment, the vehicle or any combination of these three factors
(Figure 2-1).
Although human behaviour causes the overwhelming majority of crashes, particularly sudden
manoeuvres and speeding in the case of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, it does not mean that only
this component of the system should be treated. While changes in behaviour are often slow
and require a sustained effort, improvements to the road environment are relatively quick to
implement and have an immediate impact. Road Safety Audits can contribute to the overall
enhancement of this road environment through providing a road environment that is less
likely to lead to human error, and „forgiving‟ roadsides that will reduce the severity of
crashes that may be primarily caused by human factors.

Figure 2-1: Contributory factors to crashes (Source: Treat et al., 1979)

4
2.2.2 Multi-Causal Nature of Crashes
Crashes are characterised by their multi-causal nature, and often a combination of a number
of human, road environment, vehicle related contributory factors. Take for instance the
following example from the PIARC (2003) guidelines:
“A 20-year old man with little driving experience is driving along an unfamiliar road on his
way to an important appointment. Sand reduces the traction between the vehicle tyres and the
road surface, and his tyres are not in a good condition. During the trip, he enters a curve with
a radius below minimum standards, loses control and runs off the road and collides with a
lighting column at the roadside.” Table 2-1 illustrates how the various system components of
the human-environment-vehicle system contributed to the above crash and how a succession
of events occurring under precise circumstances resulted in the crash.
Table 2-1: Example of system components typically involved in a crash (Source:
PIARC, 2003)

System component Event Circumstance

Human Trip Young, inexperienced, stressed
Vehicle Choice of vehicle Tyres in poor condition
Road environment Sand Reduces traction between vehicle
tyres and road surface
Road environment Curve Below standard
Human Steering manoeuvre Oversteering
Human Loss of control Unstabilised (gravel) shoulder
Road environment Roadside conditions Lighting column

2.2.3 Chain of Events

The above example can also be seen as a chain of events and circumstances leading up to the
crash (PIARC, 2003). Road Safety Audits serve to break this sequence by identifying the
risks relating to the road environment and recommending appropriate measures to eliminate
or mitigate the risk.

5
2.2.4 Why Road Safety Audits are Necessary When Standards Exist
According to Austroads (2009), standards do not guarantee safety as:
Standards are developed for a range of reasons, e.g. cost or traffic capacity, as well as
safety
Standards are often a minimum requirement; combining a series of minimums is
undesirable and can leave no room for error, either on the part of the designer, the
builder or the final road users
Standards usually cover general or common situations, not all situations
The standard may not be applicable to the circumstances in the design
Individual road elements, designed to standard, may be quite safe in isolation but
may, when combined with other standard elements, be unsafe (i.e. lead a significant
number of road users to make errors)
The particular standard may be based on old information
A designer may be using an inappropriate standard or an outdated standard

2.2.5 Economic Justification

2.2.5.1 Cost
There is a misperception that the cost of Road Safety Audits somehow exceeds the overall
benefits they produce, in addition to unnecessarily lengthening the total completion time of
Road Projects.
There is, however, evidence that the cost of an audit, measured over the whole life of a Road
Project, will be more than recouped from savings in crashes. This clearly helps to
economically justify the implementation of Road Safety Audits.
According to IHT (2008), the main „costs‟ that can be attributed to a Road Safety Audit
include:
Time to undertake the audit
Overall delay in progress of the Road Project as a result of the audit
Cost of having to redesign or reconstruct the Road Project as a result of the audit‟s
recommendations
Cost of additional construction arising from the audit‟s recommendations

2.2.5.2 Benefits
FHWA (2006) suggests that some of the main benefits to a continued Road Safety Audit
programme include:
Improving design standards and procedures through the feedback mechanism
described in Section 2.1.10 of „Road Safety Audit Procedures for Highways
Department of Transport Abu Dhabi‟.
Enhancing consistency of the road network

6
 Pro-actively addressing road safety
Reducing the number and severity of crashes
Reducing the overall cost (easier and cheaper to correct projects on drawing board
than after implementation)
Identifying low cost / high value improvements
According to the European RIPCORD-ISEREST study the average cost of Road Safety
Audits throughout Europe were significantly less than 1% of construction costs (FHRI 2008).

2.3 Types of Road Safety Audits

2.3.1 Audit of New Road Projects

There are essentially five main stages of audit which coincide with distinct
design/construction stages, namely:
Feasibility Stage Audit (or Stage 0 Audit) undertaken on completion of feasibility or
conceptual design
Preliminary Design Stage Audit (or Stage 1 Audit) undertaken on completion of
preliminary design
Detailed Design Stage Audit (or Stage 2 Audit) undertaken on completion of detailed
design
Opening Stage Audit (or Stage 3 Audit) undertaken on completion of construction and
opening of road to traffic
Post-Opening / Monitoring Audit (or Stage 4 Audit) undertaken 12 months and 36
months after the road has opened to traffic
The Detailed Design Stage Audit (Stage 2 Audit) is the most common type of audit
undertaken. The Feasibility, Preliminary Design, Detailed Design and Opening Stage Audits
are discussed further in detail within the „Road Safety Audit Procedures for Highways
Department of Transport Abu Dhabi‟.
The Opening Stage Audit is often divided into Pre-Opening Stage (Stage 3A) and Post-
Opening Stage (Stage 3B) Audits, where it is too dangerous to inspect the site under full
operation conditions.
The Post-Opening / Monitoring Audit (Stage 4) involves the examination of the operation
and performance of a Road Project after completion (generally 12 and 36 months after
opening of the road) (IHT 2008). This type of audit is often wrongly suggested in Road
Safety Audit guidelines as a substitute for ongoing crash monitoring of the road network,
which should be routinely undertaken by road authorities as a matter of course.
For major Road Projects, there may also be a requirement for Interim Audits on the whole of
part of a Road Project at any time during the Feasibility, Preliminary Design, Detailed Design
or Opening Stages.
The Abu Dhabi Road Safety Audit Procedure document describes which stages of audit are
generally required for a range of Road Project types.

7
2.3.2 Other Types of Audits
The Road Safety Audit methodology can also be applied to examine the following:
Temporary Traffic Management (road works)
Existing roads (i.e. Road Safety Assessments)
Specific road user groups (for example pedestrian audits and mobility audits)
Land use developments

2.4 Risk Assessment

The Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) (2008) guidelines suggest it
is important to understand risk assessment as it is a fundamental element of the Road Safety
Audit of both new Road Projects and Road Safety Assessment of existing roads and helps to
explain the difference between the two types of audit.
A ‘hazard’ is anything that can hurt someone, whilst a ‘risk’ is the likelihood of the hazard
being realised in the circumstances of use.
The CIHT (2008) guidelines illustrate this by using water as an example. There are various
hazards associated with water, one of the most obvious being drowning. If the water is
contained in a bottle on a table, and the use for which it is intended is to store it temporarily
and eventually pour it into a glass for drinking, then the risk of drowning is negligible.
According to the Chartered Institute for Highways and Transportation in the UK risk
assessment aims at not only identifying hazards but also evaluating the associated
consequences in terms of (CIHT 2008):
Severity of the outcome
Likely frequency of occurrence

8
It is possible to develop a risk matrix which combines both these aspects to produce various
basic risk bands or categories ranging from very high, high, medium and low. This is shown
in Figure 2-2 below.

Frequency

Frequent Probable Occasional Remote

Catastrophic Very high High High Medium

Severity

Critical High High Medium Medium

Marginal High Medium Medium Low

Negligible Medium Medium Low Low

Figure 2-2: Generic risk matrix (Source: IHT, 2008)

The risk assessment matrix helps to illustrate one of the key differences between Road Safety
Audits of new Road Projects and Road Safety Assessments of existing roads. Road Safety
Audits typically tend to identify hazards with relatively high risks whereas, because it is
possible to observe live traffic, Road Safety Assessments tend to also identify hazards
associated with lower risks (IHT, 2008). This is discussed in detail in Section 5.
Although it is possible to create any size of matrix, it is advisable to choose an even number
of rows and columns (for example 4 X 4 as opposed to 3 X 3 or 5 X 5) as this forces the user
to be more decisive and not to select an average „value‟ from the rows or columns. The 4x4
matrix shown above in Figure 2-2 is the standard form of matrix for use in Abu Dhabi.
The matrix can be benchmarked (calibrated) to reflect realistic crash situations as per Table
2-2 and Table 2-3 below.
Table 2-2: Example of risk assessment for road safety (Source: IHT, 2008)

Severity of outcome Equivalent crash outcome

Catastrophic Result in at least one fatality (fatal)
Critical Result in at least one serious casualty (serious)
Marginal Result in at least one slight casualty (slight)
Negligible Damage-only crash

9
 Table 2-3: Example of risk assessment for road safety (Source: amended from IHT,
2008)

Frequency of occurrence Equivalent crash frequency

Frequent More than once per year
Probable Once every 1 to 3 years
Occasional Once every 3 to 10 years
Remote Less than once in 10 years

While the selection of a scale for the equivalent crash outcome is relatively arbitrary, the
selection of a scale for equivalent crash frequency can be benchmarked (calibrated) using
crash records for a similar situation, i.e. similar vehicle speeds, similar composition of road
users and similar type of crashes, (IHT, 2008). In this way a matrix for urban areas would
need to reflect the higher involvement of pedestrians and lower vehicle speeds, whilst the
matrix for highways would need to reflect high vehicle speeds and higher speed differentials.
Once a matrix has been benchmarked for a certain area or route, it should be used by all Road
Safety Auditors to ensure consistency of results (IHT, 2008).
The different risk bands or categories can also be designated by a certain response from the
designers or Road Authority, for example:
Very high risk – unacceptable, immediate action required, avoid wherever possible –
risk elimination or reduction required
High risk – high priority – risk elimination or reduction required
Medium – medium priority – minimise risk so far as reasonably practical
Low – low priority – can usually be tolerated
Using the risk assessment matrix requires a certain level of judgement. It becomes easier
when considering that crash severity is influenced by three main factors:
Relative speed of impacting vehicle or vehicles
Relative vulnerability of road users involved
Type of crashes (impact)
For example crashes involving vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists are
invariably more serious than those involving vehicles only, due to their lack of physical
protection from the impact of crashes. Side-impact crashes, which are characteristic of
intersections, are generally more serious than rear-end crashes. Rear-end crashes are more
prominent at roundabouts and are less serious given the greater protection afforded to vehicle
occupants in terms of air bags and forward/rear crumple zones.
Similarly crash frequency can be assessed by considering the expected exposure of certain
road user groups in relation to each other (for example the number of children expected to
use a crossing on a daily basis) as well as the number of associated potential conflict points.
The last component of the risk assessment is the evaluation of the recommendation in terms
of risk elimination or mitigation and the resultant residual risk remaining if the
recommendation is implemented. As with the initial risk, the residual risk can be influenced
through changes in crash severity and/or crash frequency.
10
3 Road Safety Audit Team Composition
3.1.1 Audit Team Training, Skills and Experience
The following Section gives guidance on the general levels of training, skills and experience
that are expected of Road Safety Auditors. It is emphasised that this is guidance. The
following are not absolute requirements but are intended to assist Clients when considering
proposals for Audit Teams and also to assist potential auditors to prepare themselves as
candidates for Road Safety Audit Teams. It is also emphasised that the guidance is intended
to be flexible, recognising that the experienced road safety professionals that are needed to
carry out Road Safety Audits may have developed their careers from a range of backgrounds.
The most appropriate candidates for Audit Team Leader and Audit Team Member are
individuals whose current employment involves crash investigation or Road Safety
Engineering on a regular basis. This should ensure that auditors are well versed in the most
recent practices and developments in the field. Those candidates who have the recommended
experience in crash investigation or Road Safety Engineering experience but who have not
undertaken such work on a regular basis in the previous 2 years should be considered less
appropriate.
Candidates who carry out Road Safety Audits full time to the exclusion of general crash
investigation or Road Safety Engineering work are unlikely to be appropriate as they may
lack practical knowledge from recent crash investigation or Road Safety Engineering
experience.
The Client should be satisfied that the proposed Audit Team Leader, Audit Team Members
and Observer have adequate and relevant training, skills and experience. The Audit Team
Leader, Audit Team Member and Observer‟s Curriculum Vitae submitted to the Client
should consist of no more than 3 pages of information for each. The Curriculum Vitae should
demonstrate that previous experience of Road Safety Audit, crash investigation or Road
Safety Engineering is relevant to the project to be audited, in terms of project type and
complexity. The Continuing Professional Development (CPD) record should focus on Road
Safety Audit, crash investigation and Road Safety Engineering. It should mention any other
relevant Continuing Professional Development, covering areas such as highway design,
traffic management and highway maintenance.
Teams comprising highway design engineers with no experience of road safety work are not
suitable.
The following list gives guidelines on acceptable training, skills and experience for Audit
Team Members and Observers1, which is also summarized in Table 3-1:
Audit Team Leader: A minimum of 5 years crash investigation or Road Safety
Engineering experience. Completion of at least 5 Road Safety Audits as an Audit
Team Leader in the past 12 months, or at least 10 Road Safety Audits or assessments
during the last 5 years as an Audit Team Leader or Member. In order to become an
Audit Team Leader the auditor will already have achieved the necessary training to
become an Audit Team Member, i.e. at least 10 days of formal crash investigation or
Road Safety Engineering training. However, they should also demonstrate a minimum

1
This approach is likely to change in the near future from having to provide supporting evidence to prove
competency, to actual competency testing as being undertaken in Denmark (Gaardbo, A. and Schelling A.,
1997) , UK (Aston University) and proposed through the EU Directive (EU Directive 2008/96/EC).

11
 2 days CPD in the field of Road Safety Audit, crash investigation or Road Safety
Engineering in the past 12 months.
Audit Team Member: A minimum of 2 years crash investigation or Road Safety
Engineering experience. Completion of at least 5 Road Safety Audits as an Audit
Team Leader, Member or Observer in the past 24 months (or at least 10 Road Safety
Audits or assessments during the last 5 years). The Audit Team Member should have
attended at least 10 days of formal crash investigation or Road Safety Engineering
training to form a solid theoretical foundation on which to base practical experience.
They should also demonstrate a minimum of 2 days CPD in the field of Road Safety
Audit, crash investigation or Road Safety Engineering in the past 12 months.
Observer: A minimum of 1-year crash investigation or Road Safety Engineering
experience.
Table 3-1: Recommended competency for Road Safety Audits (Source: Adapted from
IHT 2008)

Road Safety Audit Requirement

Principle

Team Leader Team Member Observer

Road safety engineering 5 yrs 2 yrs 1 yr
experience
Road Safety Audit 5 audits (as Team 5 audits in last 2 yrs N/A
experience Leader) in last or
12 mths
10 in the last 5 yrs
or
10 in the last 5 yrs
Road safety engineering 10 days 10 days 10 days
training
Continuing Professional 2 days in last 12 2 days in last 12 N/A
Development mths mths

12
4 Road Safety Audits of New Roads

4.1.1 Introduction
This Section provides additional guidance on some aspects of the practical application of
Road Safety Auditing which are described in Section 2 of „Road Safety Audit Procedures for
Highways Department of Transport Abu Dhabi‟.

4.1.2 Site Visits

The Audit Team should undertake at least a day time site visit for all stages of audit. A night
time site visit should also be undertaken at Pre- and Post-Opening Stages. All members of the
Audit Team should visit the site together. It is the Audit Team Leader‟s responsibility to
invite representatives of the police and the Maintaining Agent to accompany the Audit Team
to offer their views for the Stage 3 Audit. The Audit Team Leader should notify the Client of
the date proposed for the site visit.

4.1.3 Reporting Problems and Recommendations

The ultimate objective of the audit report is to clearly highlight aspects of the Road Project
which have a reasonable risk of a crash (i.e. the problems) and, where possible, to
recommend actions to either mitigate or eliminate the risk (i.e. the recommendations)
(Austroads, 2009).
Problems
The following questions need to be asked in describing the problem (FHWA, 2006):
What element of the road environment has an associated risk of a crash?
To what extent is it a problem?
To which road users?
Under what circumstances? (How?)
The problem should not be „framed‟ in the solution. For example, consider a new elevated
road construction which has a high steep-sided embankment. Recording the problem as: The
embankment has no guard rail protection focuses on the solution and doesn‟t describe the
actual underlying problem. Instead, the problem should be: The height and steep slope of the
embankment may lead to errant vehicles losing control and possibly rolling...increasing the
risk of injury to the vehicle occupants.
Recommendations
The following question needs to be asked when describing the recommendations (FHWA,
2006): What needs to be done to eliminate or mitigate the risk of a crash?
The recommendations should only indicate the nature or direction of the solution, and should
not specify the details of the solution (FHWA, 2006). It is the responsibility of the Design
Team to devise detailed design solutions, which is discussed in the next step.
The recommendation in the above mentioned example should be: either prevent errant
vehicles from traversing the embankment or reduce the risk of rolling when they do so.
Possible measures to achieve this include the provision of guard rail and provision of a flatter
sloped embankment.

13
A recommendation such as: Provide guard rail protection in the vicinity of the embankment,
would be too prescriptive as it doesn‟t describe the objective and it focuses on only one
possible solution.
Recommendations should be as practical as possible and they should also be proportionate to
the overall cost of the project and the severity of the problem.
The IHT (2008) guidelines suggest that the word „consider‟ should be avoided in the
recommendations, because it is open-ended and gives the Design Team the option to accept
or reject the recommendation. The guidelines also suggest that the word „must‟ should be
avoided as it implies an instruction to the Design Team. The most appropriate word/phrase to
use is „should‟ or „it is recommended that‟.
Recommendations to “monitor” should only be made where a need has been specifically
identified in terms of frequency and incidence of particular vehicle manoeuvres or crash
causation factors, and the monitoring task can be specifically allocated.

14
5 Road Safety Audits of Existing Roads (Road Safety Assessments)

5.1 Introduction
Road Safety Audits of existing roads (Road Safety Assessments) are aimed at detecting
safety deficiencies on the existing road network without waiting for the accumulation of
crashes.
It is generally easier to justify implementing Road Safety Audit recommendations for new
Road Projects than it is to remove or mitigate safety deficiencies on existing roads, because
the cost of changing the design is comparatively small (PIARC, 2003).
When there are restrictions on the availability of suitably skilled manpower for correcting
high crash locations, it becomes even more difficult to identify and implement safety
improvements on existing roads, and improvements will require some form of prioritisation
(PIARC, 2003). According to the PIARC (2003) guidelines, the decision should be based on
the probability of the crash occurring, the expected crash severity (together contributing to
the risk) and the treatment cost (or effort).
Safety deficiencies that have a high probability of causing serious casualty crashes and which
can be removed or mitigated at a reasonable cost, should be treated immediately (PIARC,
2003). As the probability or expected crash severity decreases and the treatment cost
increases, the safety improvements will generally be incorporated into future road
improvement projects or maintenance activities (also refer to Section 2.4) (PIARC, 2003).
In instances where crash data is of limited reliability then it will not be possible to use this to
identify crash cluster locations or areas or routes which should be prioritised for
improvement. Incomplete data and/or poor recording of locations are a common limitation
with some crash data and, in such cases, it will be particularly important for DOT to
undertake safety assessments.

5.2 Conducting Road Safety Assessments

Unlike Road Safety Audits of new Road Projects, Road Safety Assessments use any available
as-built drawings as opposed to design drawings (FHWA 2006). However, as these seldom
are kept up to date, there is a greater reliance on the site visits and any available background
information (in particular crash data) to be able to undertake the assessments. The Audit
Team may choose not to examine the crash history until after the site visit has been
completed so that their evaluation is not biased. Wherever possible site visits for Road Safety
Assessments should be undertaken during both the day time and night time. Night time site
visits will help to highlight safety deficiencies not evident during day time site visits, such as
missing reflective road studs, poor reflectivity of signs and road markings and inadequate
illumination.

15
The process used to identify safety deficiencies for Road Safety Assessments is essentially
the same as for Road Safety Audits, but differs from audits in that it requires an assessment
of:
Hazard
Risk reduction or mitigation measure
Risk category of the hazard, which is influenced by:
o Likely frequency of crash
o Crash severity
o Indicative cost of risk reduction or mitigation measure
The cost of each measure can be simplified into a scale, for example: high, medium or low.
The risk category and indicative cost together enables the Road Authority to prioritise risk
reduction or mitigation measures.
Remedial effort can be used as an alternative to cost, and combines cost with estimated
implementation time (which are both influenced by design and construction stages required).
An example of this is included in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Example of categories of remedial effort (Source: GHD, 2009)

Level of Effort Description

Low Small material cost, or can be completed within existing maintenance

budgets. Can usually be implemented quickly. (Examples include
guard rail repairs, replacement signs, repainting of road markings)
Medium Requires some modest material cost, or may be implemented in stages
to spread cost over longer time period. May require investigation.
(Examples include localised modifications or additions to guard rail,
or street lighting)
High Requires funding as a construction project. Will require investigation
and detailed design. (Examples include localised pavement widening,
or significant mass action such as multiple installations of traffic
facilities)
Major Requires substantial funding as a major construction project. Will
require investigation and detailed design. (Examples include highway
realignment, construction of auxiliary lanes, major reconstruction of
an intersection, or extensive installation of traffic facilities over an
entire corridor)

Where the remedial effort required to eliminate a particular risk is not achievable in the short
term, it may be necessary to isolate the associated hazard or reduce the severity of the crash
(GHD, 2009).

16
5.3 Road Safety Assessment Report
Where problems and recommendations for Road Safety Audits typically tend to identify
hazards with high to very high risks, Road Safety Assessments tend to identify all hazards,
irrespective of risk category (refer to Section 2.4).
With the assessment of long routes, it may be more practical to group safety deficiencies as
follows (GHD, 2009):
Features identified at a specific site (for example at an intersection)
Features frequently reoccurring along the route (for example terminal ends of guard
rail)
Features that occur extensively along the whole length of the route (for example lane
markings)
Whilst the locations of the site specific features should be recorded, it may suffice to merely
count those features frequently reoccurring along the route, given they can be easily
identified on site (GHD, 2009). For features occurring extensively along the whole route, it
may be more practical to assess the extent by means of a supplementary site visit (GHD,
2009).

17
6 Road Safety Audits of Development-Led Projects
Guidance in this Section is largely based on advice in the Austroads (1994; 2009) guidelines.

6.1 Introduction
The development of land adjacent to a road can have a significant impact on the safety of that
road or adjacent intersection, as land use activities can cause traffic and pedestrian volumes
to increase. It is therefore essential that strong links between Planning Authorities and road
authorities are established and maintained to ensure that the safety benefits of Road
Authority-led safety initiatives (including Road Safety Audits) are not diminished.

6.2 When Road Safety Audits Should Be Undertaken

Road Safety Audits should ideally be undertaken for applications for:
All strategic developments
Major developments (for example, developments expected to generate more than 500
vehicle trips per day and/or 100 VRU trips per day)
All developments which interact directly with any significant route/road
The majority of these development projects would therefore be subject to the Urban Planning
Council‟s development review procedure. They could include: residential/commercial sub-
divisions, shopping centres, offices, parking lots and recreational facilities.
Planning Authorities will need to establish clear responsibilities and procedures for Road
Safety Audits within the current development review process, and would need to include
procedures for dealing with recommended corrective actions. A number of technical
assessment functions are currently being undertaken by the Department of Transport on
behalf of the Urban Planning Council (as part of the Specialized Agency Review): these
could be expanded to include the administration and assessment of Road Safety Audits.

6.3 Conducting Road Safety Audits of Developments

Road Safety Audits of developments typically focus on:
Safety impact of congestion in peak periods, including changes to turning movements
and the use of adjacent roads
Generation of pedestrian movements across existing roads
Safety provision of public transport
Vehicular and pedestrian access to the development
Adequacy of parking provision (to prevent parking overflow onto nearby roads and
into traffic lanes)
Pedestrian-vehicular conflicts within and adjacent to the development
Type, layout and operation of adjacent intersections
Vehicle speeds within the development and at access/conflict points
Visibility

18
Some major commercial developments which have large areas of internal road network and
parking for the public, such as stand-alone shopping centres, should be audited just as any
other new Road Project.
Consideration should be given to making at least the Feasibility Stage Audit (Stage 0) a
requirement of the concept planning application (i.e. before land is sold or committed for
sale). The proposal could then be approved, approved with conditions, or rejected for
re-submission, according to how the developer has dealt with the audit recommendations (as
the audit‟s client, the developer should have responded to each recommendation in the audit
report in an Exception Report as described in Section 2.7 of „Road Safety Audit Procedures
for Highways Department of Transport Abu Dhabi‟). The decision whether to make other
stages of audit (i.e. Stage 1 or 2 Audits) a requirement for submission of the detailed planning
applications can be undertaken on a project-by-project basis (as described in Section 2.3.1 of
„Road Safety Audit Procedures for Highways Department of Transport Abu Dhabi‟).

Figure 6-1: Development of land adjacent to a road can have a significant impact on the
safety of that road or adjacent intersections

19
7 Principles for Safe Road Design

7.1 Introduction
One of the main requirements of Road Safety Auditors is that they should have appropriate
experience in Road Safety Engineering and knowledge of latest developments in road safety
in order to be able to identify safety deficiencies or potential hazards in a Road Project. It can
therefore be helpful for auditors to be able to back up their comments (i.e. problems and
recommendations) by referring to documented sources in their background reasoning. This
Section provides such a source for background reasoning for auditors, based largely on
Austroad‟s Guide to Road Safety (2009) and PIARC‟s (2003) Road Safety Manual. It is not
meant to be a comprehensive review but provides only an overview of the most important
principles for safe road design that are relevant to the road network within Abu Dhabi.

7.2 General Safety Principles

In the early stages of the project life cycle, the designer should constantly be asking the
following questions to ensure the safest possible design:
Is the speed at which you can drive at unsafe for the users of the road?
Can the design be misunderstood by the road users?
Does it cause confusion?
Does it create ambiguity?
Does it provide insufficient information?
Does it provide too much information?
Does it provide inadequate visibility or obstructions to vision?
Does it contain obstacles or hazards?
If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then the safety of the Road Project could be
compromised and remedial measures may be required to remove this potential or actual
safety deficiency. The source of the problem should be sought by asking a number of
questions such as “how?”, “why?”, “when?”, “where?” etc.
Drivers and other road users have to perceive and process information, make decisions and
react to the information to be able to negotiate the road layout. Comfortable and safe driving
is achieved when road users can do these things at a pace that is well below the stress level
but sufficiently high to be stimulating or to arouse. This is a fundamental condition for
establishing and maintaining a safe road environment.
The designer‟s responsibility is then to provide a safe road environment that should:
Guide the driver through usual sections
Warn the driver of any substandard or unusual features
Inform the driver of conditions ahead
Control the driver‟s passage through conflict points, sections or areas
Allow for driver error and inappropriate behaviour (i.e. provide a forgiving roadside)

20
It is important that similar situations are treated in similar ways, and avoid:
Inadequate treatment (treating the situation but not to an appropriate level)
Inappropriate treatment (using the wrong treatment for the particular situation)
Excessive treatment (over treating a situation such that similar situations that have
already been treated correctly become veiled).
Advance information and warning should be appropriate. Driver overload should be avoided
as it may cause vital information to be overlooked. Overload can be caused by too many
traffic signs, conflicting messages or lack of clarity about the course of the road.
A safe road environment is therefore one that:
Has no surprises in terms of road design or traffic control (i.e. one that lives up to the
expectations of road user)
Provides a controlled stream of relevant information (but not too much at once)
Provides repeated information to emphasise danger.

Figure 7-1: Advance information and warning should be appropriate – this type of sign
is meaningless as it gives no detail of what the approaching warning is or where to
expect it

7.3 Designing for Specific Road User Groups

Often the needs of drivers over-ride the needs of vulnerable road users. Designers should
cater for all road users, the VRUs that should be considered are:
Pedestrians (including people with visual or mobility impairments, young children,
older people)
Motorcyclists
Wheelchair users
Cyclists

21
In addition to vulnerable road users, designers should also pay particular attention to the
needs of heavy vehicles and buses.
It is essential to use local traffic survey data to determine the needs of all road users to shape
the design process and tailor a safer environment (NRA, 2004).
The needs of pedestrians and wheelchair users, as a particular case of vulnerable road users,
are discussed in more detail below.

7.3.1 Pedestrians and Wheelchair Users

It is important that designers (and auditors) are aware of the specific requirements of
pedestrians and wheelchair users. In urban areas, pedestrians are significant users of the road
network and designers should provide footways, safe crossing locations with good visibility
and medians and refuges where required.
Children are shorter than adults and can therefore be easily hidden from approaching drivers
by traffic signs, signal controllers, landscaping and parked vehicles.
Older pedestrians can take longer to cross a road and are often less able to sense the presence
or accurately assess the speed of approaching vehicles. Designers should therefore provide
for adequate walking and/or clearance time for elderly pedestrians at traffic signals.
Roadside furniture such as traffic signs, advertising signs, signals poles, lighting columns,
bins and controller cabinets on footways and at crossing points can be trip hazards for
pedestrians, or obstructions that can force them out onto the roadway, and so should be
avoided.
People with impaired mobility have needs in common, such as difficulties in crossing busy
roads. By providing for the needs of this particular group of vulnerable road users, designers
will be accommodating the needs of most pedestrians. Dropped kerbs should therefore be
provided at all pedestrian crossing points and designed so that they can be easily and safely
mounted by wheelchair users.
Visually impaired people in Abu Dhabi are usually led around by sighted people. Special
provision for visually impaired people should depend on the local prevalence of this group.
Suitable provisions might include tactile paving, rotating tactile cones (at the bottom of
pedestrian push button panels) and audible signals.

22
 Figure 7-2: Mobility impaired people Figure 7-3: Footways and crossing
require dropped kerbs to help them points should provide a clear passage
cross roads - unlike this example they for pedestrians and be unobstructed by
should be match the width of the roadside furniture
crossing, have a mountable upstand and
be free of obstructions

Figure 7-4: Vegetation adjacent to Figure 7-5: Narrow medians and

footways should be regularly maintained refuges offer little protection for groups
to prevent it encroaching into the or pedestrians
footway and cause pedestrians to use the
roadway

23
7.4 Road Design Elements

7.4.1 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

On rural roads, crash frequency increases as curve radii decreases. This is particularly
significant when the radius is less than 400m. The crash frequency is not only influenced by
the characteristics of the curve itself (radius, deflection angle, friction, super elevation etc.)
but also by the characteristics of the road alignment prior to the curve, such as the length of
the tangent (straight section) prior to the curve and the general bendiness of the road. For
example a sharp curve is more hazardous on a fairly straight road than on a winding road.
Marked changes in radius in a curve should be avoided since they may surprise drivers and
increase the risk of crashes. The crash risk is higher when a small radius follows a larger one.
Spiral (transition) curves should be used to allow for a natural increase and decrease in
centrifugal force as a vehicle enters or leaves a circular curve (Figure 7-6). This can also be
achieved through the use of a sequence of several curves with diminishing radii.

Figure 7-6: Possible sequences of curves to achieve safer horizontal alignment (Source:
PIARC, 2003)

Figure 7-7: Marked changes in radii in curves on a bend can increase the risk of crashes
Crash frequency is highest on crest curves and in dips. On downhill grades, braking distance
increases and the possibility of heavy vehicle brakes overheating. Uphill gradients result in
speed differential between cars and heavy vehicles. Crest curves restrict sight distance, and
the ability of drivers to see oncoming vehicles when overtaking.
Horizontal and vertical alignment should not be considered independently as poor
coordination can confuse drivers and lead to increased risk of crashes (Ross, Baguley, Hills,
McDonald and Silcock, 1991). A scenario particularly likely to be misinterpreted by drivers
24
is when horizontal and vertical curves of different lengths occur at the same location. For
example drivers who judge their approach speed and lateral lane position on the expectation
of a single vertical crest curve may be surprised by the later appearance of a short horizontal
curve contained within the vertical curve.

7.4.2 Intersections
The majority of crashes occur at intersections (both in urban and rural areas). The road
network should therefore be ideally planned to limit the number of intersections and/or the
space between them. The choice of type of intersection type will depend on several, and often
competing, factors such as:
Road type and function
Physical constraints
Capacity and delay
Safety
An intersection has a set of conflict points between vehicle paths. A safe design aims at
minimising the severity of potential crashes at these points.

Figure 7-8: Number of conflict points at different types of intersections (Source:

PIARC, 2003)
Safety generally improves with the reduction in the number of conflict points, especially if
there are few gaps in the interacting traffic (i.e. high traffic volumes). Consequently,
roundabouts are typically safer than 3-leg intersections (i.e. T-intersections), which in turn
are typically safer than 4-leg intersections. Intersections with more than 4 legs should either
be avoided or designed as roundabouts. Roundabouts are generally safer than signalised
intersections (where traffic volumes are equal).
Safety also improves with greater distance (i.e. space separation) between conflict points, by
introducing traffic islands and/or auxiliary lanes. For this reason, staggered crossroads tend to
be safer than straight crossroads.
Signalization of intersections (with adequate phase settings) can reduce the potential for
conflict by introducing time separation between conflicting movements.

25
The angles at which these conflicts occur should be properly managed by ensuring:
The angle between paths of converging and diverging manoeuvres are as small as
possible (i.e. less than 5°), and hence the need for speed changing lanes
The angle between paths of crossing manoeuvres are as perpendicular as possible (i.e.
between 75° and 105°), in order to reduce the crossing distance, and improve
visibility and speed evaluation

Figure 7-9: The angle between paths of crossing manoeuvres at junctions should be as
perpendicular as possible, as with this u-turn facility
On dual carriageway roads, gaps in the central reserve should be restricted to places where
left-turns and U-turns can be executed safely.
The layout and type of control should be recognisable to the approaching driver. A driver
usually expects priority straight through the intersection, so modifications of this arrangement
may require visual reinforcement. There may be instances where, although the priority is
straight through, dominant visual clues like lines of trees or lighting columns on the minor leg
can suggest continuation of the road (along the minor road) so strongly that drivers do not
notice the control signs and markings. Plantation or extra signage could help to counter this
problem.
Y-junctions and skewed intersections should be avoided as they restrict forward and side
visibility.
Central refuges for pedestrians and cyclists should be provided wherever possible as it
simplifies their crossing task (i.e. crossing traffic from one direction at a time, rather than
having to judge gaps in both directions at once), and is also safer than having to wait in the
centre of the road.
Large corner radii at intersections can lead to excessive speeds and are consequently
hazardous for pedestrians. Conversely, corner radii that are tighter than the turning radii of
the design vehicle will result in vehicles mounting the kerb or swinging out wide into the
opposing carriageway.

26
 Figure 7-10: Dominant visual clues like lines of lighting columns can suggest
continuation of the road when it actually enters a roundabout
With the design of roundabouts special attention should be paid to:
Entry path curvature (or measure of the amount of deflection to the right imposed on
vehicles at the entry to a roundabout)
Entry angle (or conflict angle between entering and circulating streams of traffic)
Provision of pedestrian and cyclist crossing facilities, particularly in urban areas
The entry path curvature should be limited to 300m to prevent vehicles from speeding
through the roundabout. Entry angles that are too high will result in excessive entry
deflection and sharp braking or loss of control at entries, while entry angles that are too low
will force drivers into merging positions where they must look over their shoulders to the left
or use their mirrors. Provisions for cyclists should be combined with pedestrian crossing
facilities so that movement through the roundabout is avoided.
Signals at intersections with low flows and fixed timings may encourage red light running
and pedestrians to cross on red. Similarly, short cycle times and excessive width of
intersection approaches can also lead to red light running. It should be noted that:
Traffic signals are less appropriate to high speed roads and rural conditions, where
attempting to stop major traffic is potentially hazardous
Separate pedestrian phases should be considered on wide intersections with high
pedestrian flows
Signal heads should be conspicuous in all lighting conditions so that drivers can stop
safely, while signals for competing phases should be located so they are visible only
to the traffic for which they are intended
Turning vehicles should be segregated by lane

27
7.4.3 Cross-Sectional Elements
The impact of lane widths, shoulder widths and median widths on safety is determined by the
volume and character of traffic.
In urban areas lane width is often sacrificed to create additional lanes. Attention needs to be
paid to ensure these lanes are wide enough on horizontal curves where large vehicles need
extra width to track to reduce the risk of encroachment into adjacent lanes. The width will
depend on the curve radius, operation speed, the design vehicle characteristics and
composition of traffic.
Lanes (and roads) that are too wide may lead to excessive speed, particularly in urban areas.
There are safety benefits to providing wide paved shoulders throughout the length of the
road. Shoulders should be continuous and not be reduced in width or discontinued locally
through culverts, bridges, overtaking lanes and intersections.
On highways, paved shoulders should be wide enough for a broken-down vehicle to open its
door clear of the traffic lanes. Where a carriageway has 4 or more lanes consideration should
also be given to the provision of a shoulder against the central reserve to cater for vehicles
who could not safely make it across the full width of the carriageway. However, local
driving practice is to use these shoulders as extra vehicle lanes in areas of congestion or
simply to overtake. This local practice must be taken into consideration if such a shoulder is
provided.

Figure 7-11: Use of shoulders for overtaking need to be taken into consideration
The installation of medians on roads with four or more lanes reduces crashes. Median widths
of less than 2m should be avoided in rural areas. Greater widths are beneficial, although
limited additional benefit is obtained by providing widths greater than 10m (unless required
by turning or crossing vehicles).
Where guard rail is installed on highways, the median width should be at least 4 metres to
allow for errant vehicles to be contained by the guard rail without encroaching into the
opposing carriageway.
In urban areas pedestrians should be provided with medians at least 2m wide, but this can be
reduced down to 1.5m if available space is limited.

28
7.4.4 Access Control
Accesses immediately adjacent to intersections should be avoided as they can interfere with
their safe operation by increasing the complexity of driver decisions.
Uncontrolled accesses to premises fronting major roads can substantially impede traffic flows
and increase the risk of conflict as vehicles attempt to leave, merge with or cross traffic
streams. Attempts should therefore be made to limit or control frontage access on distributor
roads through the use of service roads.

7.4.5 Parked Vehicles

The main safety issues relating to parked vehicles on the roadside are that they may:
Hide or mask pedestrians, in particular small children
Restrict or block visibility at intersections and accesses
Be hazardous to passing cyclists and pedestrians, when drivers or passengers open
their doors
Designers should ideally remove or relocate parking in traffic lanes, particularly close to
intersections where they can adversely affect the operations and safety of the intersection.
Parking control signs will, on their own, not discourage drivers from parking at hazardous
locations unless regular enforcement can be undertaken. Alternative measures should
therefore be considered.

7.4.6 Signs
Traffic signs should not be used as a substitute for appropriate design in order to solve a real
or perceived problem. Designers should be able to justify the need for signs.
Sign messages should be compatible with messages of other devices such as road markings.
Messages should also be credible, otherwise they will be disregarded by drivers.
Signs should be comprehensible. Too much information on a sign can lead to driver overload.

Figure 7-12: An example of sign clutter that can overload the driver

29
It is important that the sign or its supports should not constitute a hazard for road users and
should therefore be located far enough away from the edge of the roadway and footway
(i.e. with sufficient horizontal and vertical clearance). Supports on the outside of curves and
other vulnerable places should be avoided or protected.

Figure 7-13: Distance markers should be located away from the edge of the
roadway or otherwise protected behind guard rail

7.4.7 Crash Barriers

Many crashes on high speed roads involve vehicles leaving the roadway and colliding with
roadside obstacles such as bridge supports and trees, or simply rolling down a high
embankment (Ross et al., 1991). Similarly, vehicles leaving the outside lane of a dual
carriageway run the risk of colliding head-on with oncoming vehicles. The risk of these types
of crashes can be significantly reduced by the use of crash barriers. However, crash barriers
can in themselves constitute a hazard if they are not correctly designed and installed, such as
when crash barriers (Ross et al., 1991):
Are positioned too close a hazard
Are not long enough to fully shield the hazard
Are too low to retain larger vehicles
Are positioned near and just behind kerbs (increasing the possibility of errant vehicles
being launched or vaulted over the crash barriers)
Are positioned too close to the edge of the roadway (which effectively reduces the
road width and increases the risk of crashes between opposing vehicles, particularly
on narrow roads)
Are not maintained regularly (minor scrapes and impacts can result in crash barriers
losing much of their safety benefit)
Have exposed and hazardous terminal ends
Are installed at locations where they are not essential (which may result in additional
crashes)
In summary, only consider the installation of a crash barrier when the severity of a crash with
a hazard it is protecting will be greater than the crash with the barrier itself.

30
 Figure 7-14: Barrier terminals that could potentially launch (left) and spear
(right) errant vehicles
Crash barriers are basically categorised according to the amount of energy they absorb during
a crash and are (in order of decreasing energy absorption):
Flexible barriers (for example wire rope barriers)
Semi-rigid barriers (for example w-beam barriers)
Rigid barriers (for example New Jersey barriers)
Each of these crash barriers has advantages and disadvantages and should be considered for
each case individually.
Flexible barriers are held in tension at both ends but are flexible in between, which allows
energy absorption by the barrier and therefore leads to less serious crashes. This category of
barrier however requires the largest clearance between the barrier and hazard (i.e. the
working zone): up to 2m on high speed roads. Kerb location in relation to the barrier is
important: kerbs need to be positioned behind the barrier (but ideally 3m behind the barrier).
One of the big advantages of wire rope barriers is its ability to allow for free
movement/migration of sand, which can therefore result in less traffic disruption by
maintenance teams to clear accumulation of sand on the roadway. Wire rope barriers do
however require maintenance and repairs albeit less than semi-rigid barriers (in terms of
repair time).
Semi-rigid barriers require a working zone of up to 1m on high speed roads, which ultimately
means they can be positioned closer to hazards. Kerbs also need to be positioned behind the
barrier (but ideally 3m behind the barrier). Importantly, barrier segments have to overlap in
the direction of travel. These types of barrier allow some movement/migration of sand but
they do not permit as much movement as is found with, for example, wire-rope barriers.
Rigid barriers effectively require no working zone and can be placed right up against hazards
(as long as there is adequate horizontal clearance above the barriers). Although these barriers
require the least maintenance, they are very prone to sand accumulation. As these barriers
absorb the least amount of energy, they are more likely to deflect vehicles back into the
roadway. They should also be located at least 4m from the roadway to minimise the angle of
impact.
Regardless of the type of crash barrier chosen it should have sufficient capacity to cope with
the prevailing vehicle speed and vehicle loading for the routes and location where it will be
used. Wherever possible the anticipated deflection and performance of the barrier should be
checked.

31
All categories of crash barrier need protection of terminal ends, and require careful
consideration by designers to select the most appropriate treatment to minimise the severity
of crashes.

Figure 7-15: Sand accumulation as a result of rigid-barriers (left) and semi-

rigid barriers (right)

Figure 7-16: Wire rope barriers have the ability to allow for free
movement/migration of sand, which therefore requires less traffic disruption
by maintenance teams to clear accumulation of sand on the roadway

7.4.8 Temporary Traffic Management (Road Works)

The travelling public must interact with the construction of road projects; therefore they are
potential crash sites due to (FHWA 2006):
Changes in road layout and speed environment (which may occur several times and
can bear no resemblance to permanent arrangements)
Drivers or pedestrians not adjusting their behaviour to match the changed conditions
Conflicting uses of road space between works traffic and the public
Conflicting messages between permanent features and temporary features
Confined road space in which errors of judgement cannot be safely accommodated

32
Despite the existence of traffic management manuals and guidelines, Road Safety Audits are
still necessary because the manuals and guidelines may only be applicable to the most
common situations and therefore be open to interpretation by designers or contractors.
Similarly, a particular layout of a site may make application of the manuals and guidelines
difficult.

7.5 Local Issues

Whenever a safety audit or Road Safety Assessment is undertaken it must ensure that local
conditions and factors are taken into account. The following Sections of the guidelines
outline specific issues that need to be taken into consideration in Abu Dhabi.

7.5.1 Driver Behaviour

One of the main factors that need to be taken into account on the Abu Dhabi road network is
the behaviour of drivers. The driving style is influenced by the wide mixture of nationalities
that live in the Emirate with a mixture of driver training standards and abilities.
There is a significant minority of the driving population that has a very fast and aggressive
driving style. Eighty fifth percentile speeds in the range of 150- 160 km/h are common place
on rural roads and vehicle speeds are higher than desirable in urban areas. Figure 7-21 shows
the results of a speed survey on the E22.

Survey Point 17 Speeds

180
170
160
85th%ile Speed

150
140
130
120
110
100
0

0
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0
01

04

07

10

13

16

19

22

01

04

07

10

13

16

19

22

Time

Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3

Figure 7-17: Measured speeds on the E22

33
The following are other driver behaviour styles that need to be taken into account
Aggressive overtaking on single carriageway roads
Using hard shoulders as additional traffic lanes, especially on single carriageway
roads
Parking in the hard shoulder
Close following
Intimidation of other drivers by use of neon headlights
Extensive lane swapping and swooping
Poor lane discipline – slow moving vehicles not using the right hand lane
Driver fatigue, especially amongst truck drivers

Figure 7-18: Aggressive Driving – close following and overtaking

Figure 7-19: Use of hard shoulder as a driving lane

34
7.5.2 Sand
The issue of drifting sand and the loss of traction caused by sand on the carriageway needs to
be considered. Sand also needs to be taken into consideration in the design of drainage.

Figure 7-20: Drifting sand in the carriageway

7.5.3 Camels
In the rural areas camels cause a problem by wandering onto the roads to sleep, attracted by
their warmth at night. For this reason all roads should be lined with camel fencing.

Figure 7-21: Camel fencing

7.5.4 Weather
There are two main weather issues that need to be taken into account
Sand Storms
Fog
The both have a significant effect on visibility and need to be considered when designing
traffic signs and road markings.

35
7.6 Common Issues - Rural
The following Section details some of the common faults on the rural road network.

Figure 7-22: Roadside objects

There are numerous examples of roadside hazards that are not protected by safety fencing and
could result in a serious injury if they were struck by a vehicle. The roadside objects do not
only include lighting columns, but they also include traffic signs and distance markers. Many
of these objects could be removed or replaced with less substantial alternatives.

Figure 7-23: Crash barriers

There are a number of issues with the crash barriers, restraint systems that are used
throughout the network. Common issues include:
Substandard end treatments
Ramped end on concrete barriers that could launch a vehicle
Inadequate length prior to object
Low height of parapets
Incomplete or inappropriate transition treatments
Barriers with insufficient strength to deal with vehicle speeds or loads

36
 Low barriers behind kerbs

Figure 7-24: Crash barriers behind kerbs

Figure 7-25: Maintenance issues

There are areas on the network where maintenance is an issue. This can be either in relation
to maintenance of the upkeep of the road, i.e. renewing road marking, replacing missing or
damaged traffic signs and removing debris, or the removal of redundant road markings when
alterations or improvements are made. The maintenance of street lighting is also a particular
issue with large sections of street lighting not working at night on some routes.

Figure 7-26: Approach to roundabout

A common design flaw is a lack of deflection on the approach to roundabouts. This leads to
high entry speeds and drivers to overshoot the give way line. At some locations road humps
have been installed to reduce the speed of drivers, often the road humps are poorly signed and
road markings are worn making them difficult to see. This is an inappropriate use of road
humps and could compromise road safety by requiring drivers to undertake sudden and heavy
braking. They also affect the handling and control of a vehicle at the point where drivers are
required to start making changes to the path of the vehicle on the approach to the roundabout.

37
 Figure 7-27: Traffic signs
The use of traffic signs is inconsistent across the network and a number of issues related to
the use of traffic signs are detailed below:
Signs and letter sizes are too small for the actual traffic speeds
Too much (unnecessary) information on traffic signs
Signs inadequately located in relation to hazards
Reduced forward visibility of signs (signs often masked by each other or by trucks)
Poor and inconsistent reflectivity of signs, during the hours of darkness (particularly
when lighting columns are not working)
Confusing and inconsistent signing (i.e. varying types, placement and sizes) and
markings, particularly on approaches to „no overtaking‟ sections and speed limits
The use of several different types of signs with the same meaning, e.g. „give way‟
signs
In addition, direction signing is often not sufficient and inconsistent to allow drivers to
navigate around the network.

Figure 7-28: ‘U’ turns

U turns are a common feature across the road network. They are often provided with no or
limited deceleration lanes and require vehicles to turn across two or more lanes of fast
moving traffic. They can pose a significant threat to road safety and should only be installed
where absolutely necessary and with adequate deceleration lanes and turning facilities on the
opposite carriageway.

38
7.7 Common Issues – Urban
This Section details some of the common issues on the urban road network.
As with the rural network, driver behaviour is a significant issue that needs to be considered.
Driving styles tend to be aggressive, speeds tend to be higher than desirable and lane
discipline is poor. Motorists will often drive to the end of a traffic queue and then force their
way into the front. Incorrect use of traffic lanes is common place and drivers will often turn
right from a lane marked for through traffic only.

Figure 7-29: Typical urban streets

Urban streets in Abu Dhabi tend to be wide and straight and give vehicles precedence over
pedestrians. This tends to encourage high vehicle speeds. The road hierarchy is not apparent
and speed limits are not consistently signed. The leads to situations where drivers are not
aware of the speed limit that may be in force on a road.
Pedestrians are not well catered for in the urban environment. The following common issues
need to be considered:
Pedestrian routes are not continuous
Desire lines are often blocked
The use of dropped kerbs at crossings is limited to major junctions
Side slopes at dropped kerbs are steep and slippery
Central reserve refuge islands are often very narrow and inadequate to deal with the
number of pedestrians wishing to use them
Pedestrian crossing times are limited and pedestrians are required to wait long periods
of time to cross roads
There are no facilities for cyclists and many cyclists adopt the behaviour of travelling
the wrong way down dual carriageways

39
 Figure 7-30: Pedestrian footways
Footways for pedestrians are often blocked or contain trip hazards. They tend not to be
continuous so to complete a journey pedestrian will often be required to walk in the road.

Figure 7-31: Pedestrian footways

Facilities for pedestrians in the middle of the road tend to be narrow and, in the city centre
areas, they fail to cope with the high pedestrian demand. Due to the phasing of the traffic
signals pedestrians can only cross half of the road at a time and are required to wait in the
middle. The standard design of the end of the central reserve obscures the view of
pedestrians when checking to see oncoming traffic.

40
 Figure 7-32: Pedestrian fencing
Pedestrian fencing is commonly used to prevent mid block crossing and direct pedestrians
towards crossing facilities at junctions. It is located in the central reserve rather than at the
side of the road and so pedestrians can be left stranded in the central reserve. The fencing is
often used across pedestrian desire lines and is regularly broken down.

Figure 7-33: Mid block crossing

Mid block crossings tend to be marked out as a crossing location, but no additional assistance
is provided for pedestrians. As a result pedestrians are often required to cross 3 or 4 lanes in
suitable gaps in the traffic. In some locations crossings are provided to unsuitable landing
locations.

Figure 7-34: Dropped kerbs at crossing points

41
The standard kerb height in urban areas is very high. Dropped kerbs are not always provided
at pedestrian crossing points and where they are provided they tend not to extend across the
full width of the crossing.

Figure 7-35: Pedestrian sightline

Pedestrian sight lines are often blocked by roadside advertising or street furniture. Most
junctions have free flow right turning lanes and pedestrians are required to cross these in gaps
in the traffic. Pedestrian visibility is often poor at these locations.

Figure 7-36: Pedestrian behaviour

Pedestrian behaviour needs to be taken into account. Due to the long distances between
crossing points and the length of time waiting at traffic signals, pedestrians will often cross
the road in amongst moving traffic. This issue is particularly acute at night due to higher
pedestrian volumes.

42
 Figure 7-37: Parking
Parking in downtown Abu Dhabi is in very short supply and is often chaotic. Access is
restricted and pedestrians are required to weave through parked vehicles.

Figure 7-38: Traffic signs

Care needs to be taken when placing traffic signs to make sure that they do not obscure one
another.

Figure 7-39: Development

Developments occur at a very rapid pace in Abu Dhabi. As a result the needs of all road
users are not always taken into account. In addition hazardous situations can arise, for
example the photograph on the right in Figure 7-39 shows a power cable laid across a
footway and slip road.

43
 Figure 7-40: Junctions
Some junctions are difficult for drivers to understand and work out who has priority. This is
most common on the smaller internal block roads and in residential areas.

44
References
Austroads (1994). Road safety audit (Publication No. AP-30/94). Sydney, Australia:
Austroads.
Austroads (2009). Guide to road safety - part 6: Road Safety Audit (Publication No.
AGRS06/09). Sydney, Australia: Austroads.
EU Directive 2008/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 November 2008
on road infrastructure safety management, EU, Brussels. Belgium.
Federal Highway Research Institute (FHRI) (2008). Road safety audit, current practice. Road
Infrastructure Safety Protection - Core Research and Development for Road Safety in
Europe; Increasing Safety and Reliability of Secondary Roads for a Sustainable Surface
Transport (RIPCORD – ISEREST project), Final Report, Federal Highway Research
Institute.
FHWA (2006). FHWA Road Safety Audit guidelines (Publication No. FHWA–SA-06-06),
Washington DC, USA: Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation.
Gaardbo, A. and Schelling A. (1997). Manual of Road Safety Audit. Denmark: Road
Directorate, Ministry of Transport.
GHD (2009). Route E30 Truck Road (Abu Dhabi to Al Ain). Road Safety Audit, Department
of Transport, Abu Dhabi.
Highways Agency (2003). HD 19/03 Road Safety Audit, (Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges, Volume 5: Assessment and Preparation of Road Schemes, Section 2: Preparation
and Implementation, Part 2). Dorking, UK: The Highway Agency.
IHT (2008). Road safety audit. London, UK: Institution of Highways and Transportation
(http://www.ciht.org.uk/en/publications/index.cfm).
National Roads Authority (NRA) (2004). Road safety audit guidelines. Dublin, Ireland:
National Roads Authority.
PIARC (2003). Road safety manual. Grande Arche de la Defense, France: PIARC Technical
Committee on Road Safety.
Ross, A., Baguley, C., Hills, B., McDonald, M., and Silcock, D. (1991). Towards safer roads
in developing countries – a guide for planners and engineers, First Edition. Transport
Research Laboratory: Crowthorne, UK.
Treat, J.R., Tumbas, N.S., McDonald, S.T., Shinar, R.D., Mayer, R.E., Sansifer, R.L. and
Castellan, N.J. (1979). Tri-level study of the causes of traffic accidents. Indiana, US:
Indiana University.

45