INFRASTRUCTURE SAFETY MANAGEMENT. THE ROLE OF ROAD SAFETY AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS

INFRASTRUCTURE SAFETY MANAGEMENT.THE ROLE OF ROAD SAFETY AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS H. Machado Jorge, Ph.D. On behalf of ERF - European Union Road Federation WORKSHOP ON EU TRANSPORT POLICY AND INFRASTRUCTURE Ankara, Turkey 19-20 September 2006 International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 1

1st SEMESTER 2006 EU HALLMARK on INFRASTRUCTURE SAFETY • The EU Council of Ministers Austrian Presidency’s initiative: High Level Expert Meeting on “Infrastructure Safety”, Vienna, 24-25 January 2006 • Factual knowledge of infrastructure safety concepts and practices across the EU. • A clear perception of the limits of common practice in respect of infrastructure safety in the EU. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 2

TOOLS forINFRASTRUCTURE, ROAD and NETWORK SAFETY MANAGEMENT • Road Safety Impact Assessment (RIA) • Road Safety Audit (RSA) • Road Safety Inspection (RSI) • Network Safety Management • High Risk Site (Black Spot) Management International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 3

TOOL DEFINITION (I) ROAD SAFETY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (RIA) Road Safety Impact Assessment designates a comparative scenario analysis of the impact that different variants of alignment or interconnection points of new roads or a substantial modification to the existing network will have on the safety performance of the adjacent road network. It is concluded before the alignment is decided. ROAD SAFETY AUDIT (RSA) Road Safety Audit means a systematic independent safety analysis of the design characteristics of a road project, either new or rehabilitation, at different stages of planning, design and early operation. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 4

TOOL DEFINITION (II) ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION (RSI) Road Safety Inspection designates a periodical review of a road network in operation by trained experts from a safety point of view. It involves visiting the road network. NETWORK SAFETY MANAGEMENT and HIGH RISK (BLACK SPOT) MANAGEMENT Safety development of the road network in operation shall consist of management of high-risk road sections and network safety management. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 5

TOOL DEFINITION (III) Management of high-risk road sections is to reduce future accidents by targeting remedial treatment to parts of the road network where accidents occurred most frequently during previous years. Network safety management is to reduce future accidents targeting remedial treatment to sections of the road network where accidents cost reduction potential is highest. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 6

APPROACHES TOINFRASTRUCTURE AND ROAD SAFETY (I) The Swedish Road Administration’s Vision Zero Approach. A few quotes (with emphasis added) “Systems designers are responsible for the design, operation and the use of the road transport system and are thereby responsible for the level of safety within the entire system.” “Road users are responsible for following the rules for using the road transport system set by the system designers.” “If the users fail to comply with these rules due to a lack of knowledge, acceptance or ability, the system designers are required to take the necessary further steps to counteract people being killed or injured.” International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 7

APPROACHES TOINFRASTRUCTURE AND ROAD SAFETY (II) System designers’ responsibilities versus real life practicalities ‘Going by the book’, i.e. sticking to the engineering standards in force, is a defensive approach for (most? all?) road designers. Actually, road safety is not solely engineering. It cannot be mastered without an insight on road users’ perceptions and attitudes. So it calls for input from other knowledge fields. Moreover, road safety being a modest contributor to overall project cost tends to be dealt with as an end of line incumbency, not seldom assigned to the more junior road design team members. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 8

APPROACHES TOINFRASTRUCTURE AND ROAD SAFETY (III) Limitations of design standards: the Impact Severity Level Class C conundrum Harmonized standards tend to reflect the technical state of the art, though with a delay of typically a few years. Hence, they may be a ‘necessary’ but not ‘sufficient’ condition. Apparently, the EU is currently on the verge of adopting a standard on road restraint systems which some European experts and companies see as going against the assumed goal of reducing road deaths and serious injuries. National road administrations have the responsibility of ensuring that design standards do support the overriding goal of attenuating road accident consequences. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 9

ROAD SAFETY AUDITING (I) The roles The EU countries’ experience points to the fact that 30% of problems identified during a road safety audit will occur within 5 years unless the recommendations are implemented. The auditor, as an independent third party, provides a technical contribution to the judgement process but decisions remain the sole responsibility of the client (road administration, local power authority,…). The client is entitled (or has) to balance safety against other interests, and that will dictate the terms of the decision taken. The client, being always responsible, may be liable for not following the auditor’s recommendations. That, though, depends on national legislation. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 10

ROAD SAFETY AUDITING (II) Auditor certification Road safety audits, as of year 2005, have been implemented in 20 EU countries. EU regulation, when transposed into national legislation, will require road safety auditors to hold a certificate. In turn, this implies having defined, at national level, training curricula as well as having provisions for regularly offering training courses. Some European countries will impose the requirement of periodic retraining of auditors (namely at 3 to 5 years time intervals), for maintaining the certification. Moreover, the certification will only remain valid if the holder is engaged in regular relevant activity, say, carrying out at least one road safety audit per year. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 11

ROAD SAFETY INSPECTIONS (I) Theory and practice There is a vast array of road safety inspection approaches across Europe. Moreover, in most countries there is not even legal basis for conducting road safety inspections. Level of available resources determines the two different approaches to road safety inspections observed in the EU: • Regular examination of the entire road network, • independently of the recorded number of accidents; or • Selection of the inspection sites depending on the actual • number of occurred accidents, priority being given to • sections showing an above average accident rate. It is • reasonable to assume that the entire network is covered • every 2 to 3 years. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 12

ROAD SAFETY INSPECTIONS (II) A few practical hints Road safety inspections are, on the one hand, to be seen as part of the regular maintenance, but going beyond the latter. On the other hand, road safety inspections are to be clearly separated from road safety auditing. In particular, inspections should not be limited to audited road network sections. The planning and carrying out of road safety inspections can be very much aided by the maintenance of appropriate photographic coverage of the road network. Image records (e.g. 1 image every 20 m), if kept reasonably updated (e.g. at every 2 years), can guide the field work, sparing resources (time and manpower deployment). International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 13

FUTURE NEEDS FOR FIGHTING LOSS OF LIVES… The EC commitment of halving road accidents fatalities and serious injuries by 2010 will only be reachable if a serious effort is invested to that end. In favour are factors such as the up-grading of road networks across Europe and continued improvement of vehicle built-in safety features. Against are factors such as the ever increasing car fleets and traffic, as well as the ageing of national populations. A trend to follow closely is that of sustained gains in truck safety, largely due to installed capabilities, namely, control of distance to the preceding vehicle and automatic braking (if early warning is ineffectual) or viewing cameras, for covering usual blind spots. More is coming along, e.g. control of driver sleepiness. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 14

… BUT FUNDAMENTALS CANNOT BE MISSED The critical speed limits Testing shows that: • For people with fastened seat belt, on board of a recently built car, colliding head-on with a similar vehicle or a fixed obstacle, survival probability is quite reasonable up to a cruise speed of 70 km/h. • Above that speed, chance of survival dwindles quite quickly, if not dramatically. • For a side collision, the critical speed is 50 km/h. • For pedestrians and cyclists the critical speed, when hit by a passing car, is just 30 km/h. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 15

BOLDER APPROACHES The EU funded RIPCORD-ISEREST Project (www.ripcord-iserest.com) Secondary road types proposal The project acknowledges that secondary roads in rural areas are responsible for a large proportion of fatalities. One possibility would be to agree on secondary roads design guidelines. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 16

International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 17

CLOSING REMARKS The role of ITS – Intelligent Transport Systems and Services Seeking to bring down loss of life and injuries arising from road accidents, cannot be reduced to a matter of reducing traffic speed. It has to go much further. Better engineered roads, safer vehicles, better trained and more defensive drivers are indispensable, but not just enough. Technology has a role as well, be it C2C (car-to-car) communications or VII (vehicle-infrastructure integration). We may still mostly be in the days of the VMS (variable message systems), but much better technology is already around the corner. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 21

CLOSING REMARKS (cont.) Introducing the new technology is, on the hand, limited by economic reasons. Highway operators, in particular, are reluctant to have to invest more in infrastructure. Therefore, there may be the need of classifying some such developments as public goods and expect some degree of State funding for them. On the other hand, drivers’ attitude got to evolve. In particular, the generalised opposition to more automatic features in car, such as system initiated braking when circumstances do call for it (eminence of collision, for instance). Last but not least , a granted driving license cannot be seen as a sort of an acquiredright. On the contrary, it ought to be dealt with as a right to be earned and maintained according to the personal, safety performance record. International Road Federation – Brussels Programme Centre Page 22

INFRASTRUCTURE SAFETY MANAGEMENT. THE ROLE OF ROAD SAFETY AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS