Road Infrastructure Safety Management (RISM) refers to a set of procedures that support a road authority in decision-making related to improving the road safety of a road network. This report describes the most consolidated RISM procedures, analyses their use worldwide, identifies possible weaknesses and barriers to their implementation, provides example of good practices and aims to generally contribute to the scientific assessment of RISM procedures. Important parts of this report are based on a survey of road safety authorities in 23 countries on their use of RISM procedures. The report was prepared by a group of 15 experts from Argentina, Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Serbia and South Africa. It was reviewed by experts from Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States. Road authorities are key players for improving road safety. Road Infrastructure Safety Management (RISM) procedures are effective and efficient tools to help road authorities reduce the number of accidents and casualties, because design standards alone cannot guarantee road safety in all conditions. Yet successful implementation of RISM procedures requires an adequate level of investment, supporting regulation, availability of relevant road safety data and adequate institutional management capacity. Making RISM procedures compulsory is preferable, as awareness of RISM alone is rarely sufficient for success. To identify the best ways of making road infrastructure safer, road authorities also need good road accident data. Road safety performance monitoring with appropriate indicators helps to achieve safety targets. Tools to support RISM are already available, including guidelines, manuals and software tools. One of the main tools to help drivers to adopt appropriate behaviour are self-explaining roads. Evidence from pilot projects shows that these can reduce road casualties by 30%. Generally, a more pro-active approach to road infrastructure design and management is desirable, with road safety taken into account in all stages of the road life cycle. As each country has specific needs and barriers around implementing RISM, for instance because of potential liability issues, measures need to be adapted to specific conditions. The exchange of experiences with RISM among countries can be highly useful for finding the best solutions. Road conditions can be the single most lethal contributing factor, ahead of speeding, alcohol or nonuse of seat belts. There are substantial opportunities, programmes and tools to deliver safety improvements to road infrastructure. While there is no “one size fits all” standard for road safety programmes, comparisons with practices elsewhere help to identify opportunities for the prevention of fatalities and severe injuries. Studies show that upgrading road infrastructure to at least a 3-star rating in the Road Assessment Programme (RAP) categorisation can save many lives and generate savings from reduced trauma and fewer injuries. Between 1980 and 2000, infrastructure treatments, combined with speed management measures, reduced the number of deaths of vulnerable road users in Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom by around a third. A number of countries including the Netherlands, Sweden, and Malaysia, have announced proposals to upgrade the safety of roads to 3-star standard or better by either 2020 or 2025. There is strong evidence that Road Safety Infrastructure Management procedures support improvements in road safety and can be highly cost effective. However, it is not always easy to assess the safety benefits of such procedures, and no clear relationship was found between the general use of these procedures and road safety performance. More analysis and research on RISM procedures is needed to quantify safety impacts of planning decisions on different types of networks, road types and traffic volumes to underpin specific uses in specific contexts. Some road engineers insist that road infrastructure will provide the necessary level of safety if design standards are satisfied. Some studies have shown, however, that design standards alone are not a guarantee of safe roads. It is particularly important to consider safety aspects as thoroughly as possible before the full operation of road infrastructure. Awareness of RISM is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for successful implementation of infrastructure-oriented safety measures. It is therefore recommended to make RISM compulsory. The European Commission, for instance, requires that roads of the Trans European Network undergo safety programmes. Procedures that are not obligatory are easily skipped to save time and reduce cost. Better road safety data can help to prevent accidents and reduce their severity. Involving road authorities at an early stage will help make the most of a database’s capabilities. Involving health authorities will help bridge the gap between casualties reported by the police and by health authorities. It will also improve data on serious injuries. Important factors for strong institutional management capacity include political commitment to improve safety, adoption ambitious long-term targets for improving safety, good coordination between various governmental levels and agencies, and well-funded road safety measures. A large number of tools to support the implementation of state-of-the-art RISM procedure are available for use, both on national and international level. Steps can be taken to bring current practice closer to the state of the art where optimal RISM procedures are difficult to implement, for instance because of lack of adequate road safety data or in low or middle-income countries. Countries with different safety levels have different needs. Low and middle-income countries must concentrate on procedures that provide maximum impact for low capital expenditure. They are likely to focus on improving existing roads and prioritise e.g. High-Risk Site (HRS) improvement programmes. Countries with better safety records should consider the implementation of more advanced procedures such as Network Safety Ranking (NSR). Just as road safety measures can be effectively and efficiently transferred from one country to another with the help of Crash Modification Functions, good Road Infrastructure Safety Management procedures can be effective in different countries and regions. Relevant international organisations should promote good programmes worldwide. The monitoring of road infrastructure’s safety performance should be based on relevant indicators and it should be regular. Road authorities should be given full access rights to the data unless this encroaches on personal privacy. Self-explaining roads are roads designed and built to help drivers to adopt appropriate driving behaviour. Empirical evidence indicates that self-explaining roads can significantly reduce the number of casualties from road accidents. In general, planning authorities should adopt a comprehensive, system-wide and pro-active planning approach to road safety. (Author/publisher)
Abstract