The road scene analyses presented here were conducted within Work-Package 1 of the EU-RISER project (http://www.riser-project.com/). Within this workpackage, Task 1.2 consisted of constructing a detailed-reconstruction-database. For that purpose TNO Automotive collected 10 new accidents and TNO Human Factors added a road-scene analysis to each accident to provide more in depth information specifically in relation to the interaction of the driver with the road design and roadside furniture. This database serves as a starting point to include Human Factors principles within the roam of roadside infrastructure design by means of developing guidelines and analysis procedures necessary to select, implement, and operate a safe, efficient and affordable roadside infrastructure in the EU. This report describes the road scene analyses performed by TNO Human Factors of the ten accidents. Two experts visited all ten locations during daytime circumstances. If the accident had taken place during the dark hours of the day the site was also visited at night. For each of the ten accident sites, a video was made of the approach to the accident site to have a clear impression of the road the victim travelled prior to the accident. After an approach-video was made, the road scene analysts returned to the sight to take pictures. Both road scene analysts then filled in a road-scene analysis checklist, independent of each other. The checklist can be found in Appendix A. After filling in the checklist the site was visited once more. The same procedure was followed during day- and nighttime observations. After the on-site analysis as described above, both experts finalised their observations using the video and picture material off-site and discussed each-others conclusion to come to a clear final analysis of each case. Results: Each analysis of each accident site is reported as follows: 1) Short description and background of the accident; 2) Description of the road scene; 3) 3 Road-scene analysis results. For five of the ten locations, the road-scene analysis did not reveal a specific reason based on the road layout why the crash with a tree or road side furniture had occurred. Two locations showed a mismatch of the road design and the road category and the speed limit posted. In both cases the road design invites the road user to drive faster than the local maximum speed limit. This is specifically the case for frequent users who know the road very well. For a third location the road design introduced a specific risk factor: machismo. The road has a multitude of curves that could be appealing to the frequent user with a racing mind. The road layout is congruent with the road category in this case but invites nevertheless to race. Two accidents occurred in a work zone. In this work zone the general principle that yellow markings go before white markings for the general public is reversed for work traffic. Work traffic is directed toward a work-traffic exit by yellow markings that are NOT to be used by the general public. In both cases it seemed that the double meaning of the yellow markings depending on the context was very confusing. For two situations the conclusion is that the road scene itself does not provide an explanation for why the driver left the road. In those cases worth mentioning is the shielding of the obstacles the driver encountered while running off the road. One is a situation with a bus lane that is being separated by a poorly visible barrier. This barrier can easily be passed on the wrong side by the road user. This means that the driver can enter the bus lane by accident very easily. If this is the case the design of the bus lane should take into account that drivers with, in general, higher speeds than the busses, accidentally enter the bus lane. In that case the design should be accordingly. Another situation reveals the hazard that is introduced when one shields specific obstacles locally but leaves space between the guardrails that consecutively shield them. When a driver is so unfortunate to leave the road between the two obstacles he/she can then get behind the guardrail of an obstacle and crash into it anyway. (Author/publisher) For the original report see http://www.erf.be/images/riser/RISER_D01_Accident%20databases.pdf
Samenvatting