Austroads - Effectiveness of Road Safety Engineering Treatments PDF

AP-R422-12
AUSTROADS RESEARCH REPORT
Effectiveness of Road Safety

Engineering Treatments
Effectiveness of Road Safety Engineering Treatments
Published November 2012
© Austroads Ltd 2012
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
ISBN 978-1-921991-60-8
Austroads Project No. ST1571
Austroads Publication No. AP-R422-12
Project Manager
Maurice Cammack, Main Roads WA
Prepared by
Blair Turner, Lisa Steinmetz, Adrian Lim, Karen Walsh
ARRB Group
Published by Austroads Ltd

Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept
responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should
rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Sydney 2012
About Austroads
Austroads’ purpose is to:
 promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes
 provide expert technical input to national policy development on road and road transport
issues
 promote improved practice and capability by road agencies.
 promote consistency in road and road agency operations.
Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic
authorities, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Australian Local
Government Association, and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a Board consisting
of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven
member organisations:
 Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
 Roads Corporation Victoria
 Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
 Main Roads Western Australia
 Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia
 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
 Department of Transport Northern Territory
 Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory
 Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport
 Australian Local Government Association
 New Zealand Transport Agency.
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in
the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information, advice
and fostering research in the road transport sector.
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
2 METHOD ............................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Identifying Gaps in Knowledge ............................................................................................... 2
2.2 Filling the Gaps Knowledge ................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Selected Issues ..................................................................................................................... 2
2.4 Determining Treatment Effectiveness .................................................................................... 3
3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON CRASH TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS ........................... 5
4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 14
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 15
APPENDIX A PRIORITISING GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ................................................. 16
APPENDIX B REVISIONS TO TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS FIGURES................... 19
APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FOR PRIORITY TREATMENTS ................. 25
C.1 Guide Posts ......................................................................................................................... 26
C.2 Chevron Alignment Markers................................................................................................. 29
C.3 Pavement Markings ............................................................................................................. 31
C.3.1 Provision of Edge Lines.......................................................................................... 31
C.3.2 Provision of Centrelines ......................................................................................... 33
C.3.3 Provision of Centreline and Edge Line ................................................................... 34
C.4 Profile Line Marking ............................................................................................................. 37
C.4.1 Profile Edge Lining, Edge Line (Shoulder) Rumble Strip, or Shoulder Grooving ..... 37
C.4.2 Profile Centre Lining, Centreline Rumble Strip ....................................................... 40
C.5 Signs – Regulatory .............................................................................................................. 43
C.5.1 General: Regulatory Signs at Intersections ............................................................ 45
C.5.2 Stop Signs at Three-leg Intersections..................................................................... 45
C.5.3 Stop Signs at Four-leg Intersections....................................................................... 46
C.5.4 Four-way Stop Signs .............................................................................................. 46
C.5.5 Give-way Signs ...................................................................................................... 46
C.5.6 Stop Sign to Give-way Sign .................................................................................... 46
C.5.7 Give-way Sign to Stop Sign .................................................................................... 47
C.5.8 U-turn and Right-turn Ban ...................................................................................... 47
C.6 Traffic Signals ...................................................................................................................... 48
C.6.1 New Signals ........................................................................................................... 48
C.6.2 Effect of Turn Phases ............................................................................................. 51
C.7 Signal Visibility ..................................................................................................................... 56
C.8 Channelisation at Intersections – Splitter and Median Islands.............................................. 59
C.8.1 General .................................................................................................................. 60
C.8.2 Splitter Islands........................................................................................................ 60
C.8.3 Median Islands ....................................................................................................... 60
C.9 Grade Separated Intersections ............................................................................................ 62
C.10 Right-turn Lane Provision..................................................................................................... 64
C.10.1 All Locations ........................................................................................................... 69
C.10.2 Signals ................................................................................................................... 69
C.10.3 Unsignalised Intersections ..................................................................................... 69
C.10.4 Rural ...................................................................................................................... 70
Austroads 2012
— i—
C.10.5 Urban ..................................................................................................................... 70

C.10.6 Painted and Physical .............................................................................................. 71
C.10.7 X and T-intersections ............................................................................................. 71
C.11 Extend Right-turn Lane ........................................................................................................ 74
C.12 Left-turn Lane Provision ....................................................................................................... 76
C.13 Lane Width in Tunnels ......................................................................................................... 79
C.14 Overtaking Lanes................................................................................................................. 80
C.15 Superelevation ..................................................................................................................... 83
C.16 Impact Attenuators ............................................................................................................... 86
C.17 Signs – Advisory .................................................................................................................. 89
C.17.1 Curve Warning Signs ............................................................................................. 89
C.17.2 Speed Advisory Signs ............................................................................................ 90
C.18 Pedestrian Treatments......................................................................................................... 92
C.18.1 Pedestrian Fencing and Barriers ............................................................................ 92
C.18.2 Improved Lighting................................................................................................... 92
C.18.3 Marked Crossings .................................................................................................. 93
C.18.4 Pedestrian Overpasses .......................................................................................... 94
C.18.5 Pedestrian Signals ................................................................................................. 95
C.18.6 Refuges.................................................................................................................. 96
C.18.7 Roundabouts .......................................................................................................... 97
C.18.8 Raised Pedestrian/Wombat Crossings ................................................................... 97
C.19 Transverse Rumble Strips.................................................................................................. 101
C.20 Street Closure .................................................................................................................... 103
C.21 Street Lighting.................................................................................................................... 105
C.21.1 New Lighting – All Sites........................................................................................ 109
C.21.2 New Lighting – Intersections ................................................................................ 109
C.21.3 New Lighting – Mid-blocks ................................................................................... 109
C.21.4 New Lighting – Rural ............................................................................................ 109
C.21.5 New Lighting – Rural Intersections ....................................................................... 109
C.21.6 New Lighting – Urban ........................................................................................... 109
C.21.7 New Lighting – Urban Intersections ...................................................................... 109
C.21.8 New Lighting – Motorway Freeway Interchanges ................................................. 109
C.21.9 Railway Crossings................................................................................................ 109
C.21.10 Upgrade Existing Lighting .................................................................................... 110
C.21.11 Effect on Different Crash Types and Severities .................................................... 110
C.21.12 Time of Day.......................................................................................................... 110
Austroads 2012
— ii —
TABLES
Table 3.1: Summary of treatment effectiveness ........................................................................ 6
Austroads 2012
— iii —
SUMMARY
A reliable knowledge base about the effectiveness of different road safety engineering treatments
allows informed decisions for the development of future road safety programs. This information is
used to allocate resources to the most cost-effective projects (i.e. ones that will reduce casualties
the most per dollar spent). Inaccurate information on treatment effect may lead to inefficient use of
limited resources. The current project aims to address this issue and to provide updated advice on
the road safety benefit of engineering treatments, based on literature reviews. Previous Austroads
research has identified that there is a lack of reliable information regarding the effectiveness of
different road safety engineering treatments.
During the first stage of this project, a number of treatments or road safety features for which the
knowledge base was inadequate were identified. The assessment was based on literature reviews
as well as stakeholder priorities. Given the large number of gaps, and the time and budget
available for this project, the knowledge gaps were prioritised.
A summary of the crash reduction effects for each of these treatments is provided, along with an
assessment of the level of confidence in the figure (based on factors such as consistency of results
from various studies and number of studies). Where possible, information on the crash reduction
for different severity outcomes and crash types is provided. However, information on these factors
is relatively scarce.
The project has identified crash effectiveness for 57 treatment types and 126 crash effectiveness
values have been derived for these. Compared to an earlier study on this topic (Austroads 2010a),
there is now more information available on treatment effectiveness (126 values compared to 104).
The project has also led to an increased level of confidence in knowledge about treatments; over
half of the values are now allocated a medium or high level of confidence.
Although this project has improved the reliability of information on the effectiveness of treatments,
a number of knowledge gaps remain that can be filled by further reviews of literature and
experimentation. During the course of this project, links were developed with an OECD initiative to
address crash reduction effectiveness of different treatments. This initiative has led to the
establishment of an international collaboration to improve information on the crash reduction
effectiveness of treatments. There is great merit in Australian and New Zealand road safety
professionals contributing to the international collaboration once key gaps have been identified and
prioritised by the international OECD group.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would also like to acknowledge the input of the project steering group. This group is
made up of representatives from Australian road agencies, the NZ Transport Agency, the Federal
Department of Infrastructure and Transport and AAA/AusRAP. In addition, the authors would also
like to acknowledge the input of the Safety Task Force who provided comments on the document.
Austroads 2012
— iv —
1 INTRODUCTION
Previous Austroads research (Austroads 2010a) identified that there was a lack of reliable
information regarding the effectiveness of different road safety engineering treatments. The
effectiveness relates to the expected reduction in crashes from the use of treatments in different
circumstances. The effectiveness of a treatment can be expressed as a Crash Modification Factor
(CMF). This represents ‘the relative change in crash frequency due to a specific change in the
road or its immediate environment’ (Austroads 2012, p49). Effectiveness in Australia and New
Zealand has traditionally been presented using Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs), which presents
the expected percentage reduction in crashes. The term CMF is now used more widely overseas,
although both terms are used in this current report 1. This information is used to allocate resources
to the most cost-effective projects (i.e. ones that will reduce casualties the most per dollar spent).
Inaccurate information on treatment effect may lead to inefficient use of limited resources.
This work is one component of a large program of research. The Austroads National Risk
Assessment Model project has three main objectives. The first is the development of a risk
assessment model, intended to be used nationally as a way of identifying crash risk. The second
task involves the development of a national program for risk assessment with associated
guidelines. A third task involves improving information on the crash reduction effectiveness of
various road safety treatments. This included the development of a stand-alone report on a
standard approach for evaluation of treatment effectiveness for adoption by road authorities. This
work has been published as An Introductory Guide for Evaluating Effectiveness of Road Safety
Treatments (Austroads 2012). An associated task, and the subject of this report, involves
improving knowledge on the road safety benefit of engineering treatments.
During the first stage of this project, treatments or road safety features were identified for which
there were significant gaps in knowledge in terms of crash reduction effectiveness. The work also
identified a method for prioritising each of these issues. That process is outlined in Section 2 of
this report. Section 3 provides information on local and international literature on each of the
priority issues identified. For completeness, the section also provides information from previous
work on this topic (Austroads 2010a) so that the sum of current knowledge on crash reduction
effectiveness for engineering treatments is provided in this report. The final section (Section 4)
provides concluding comments and recommendations.
1
A Crash Reduction Factor indicates the expected percentage reduction in crashes following the introduction of a
treatment. A Crash Modification Factor ‘is a proportion that represents the relative change in crash frequency due to a
specific change in the road or its immediate environment’ (Austroads 2012).
Austroads 2012
— 1—
2 METHOD
2.1 Identifying Gaps in Knowledge
During the first stage of this project, a number of treatments or road safety features were identified
where knowledge of effectiveness in reducing crashes was not adequate. This assessment was
based on literature reviews (Austroads 2010a, 2010b) as well as stakeholder priorities
(Austroads 2009) 2. For each of these issues it was identified that there was a lack of sufficient
research on the crash reduction effect, or that the research which did exist was not considered of
suitable quality. The identified gaps in knowledge were then prioritised. Appendix A provides the
results of this assessment.
2.2 Filling the Gaps Knowledge

Two main options were identified to address the gaps in knowledge identified above. The most
cost-effective method to address gaps in knowledge is typically through review of previously
published research. Often research will have been conducted somewhere in the world that either
addresses a gap in knowledge, or goes part way in addressing this gap. New studies are
conducted every year, and the knowledge base is continually being updated and expanded.
Although extensive literature reviews have been conducted by Austroads on many issues relating
to the effectiveness of road safety engineering treatments, there is still a need to assess any new
knowledge which has been generated. It was recommended that any future research to fill gaps in
knowledge reassess the available literature before embarking on empirical research.
If a gap in knowledge is deemed important enough to require further research, and adequate
information cannot be obtained from existing literature, then a trial of the treatment will typically be
required. Austroads (2012) provides guidance on methods for evaluating the effectiveness of road
safety treatments.
Given the cost associated with trials of treatments, and the timeframe required (three to five years
of data is typically required after the treatment is installed), this current project focuses on literature
review to fill gaps in knowledge.
2.3 Selected Issues

Based on the existing gaps in knowledge, and the prioritisation of the tasks, the treatments listed
below were assessed:
 In 2010/11:
— grade separation of intersections
— guide posts
— lane width in tunnels
— overtaking lanes
— pavement markings – edge line
— pavement markings – centreline
— pedestrian treatments
2
Engineering research priorities were identified in a previous project (Austroads 2009) via a survey of Austroads Road
Design Review Panel and Traffic Management Review Panel members.
Austroads 2012
— 2—
— signs – advisory
— street lighting
 In 2011/12:
— superelevation
— signs – regulatory
— delineation – continuity lines, marking in wet conditions
— channelisation at intersections – splitter and median islands
— impact attenuators
— intersection – right-turn lane provision
— intersection – extend right-turn lane
— intersection – left-turn lane provision
— intersection – signal visibility
— line marking – profile edge lines
— street closure
— traffic signals.
It should be noted that some other treatments were identified that had a higher priority than the
ones identified above (e.g. clear zones and vegetation). However, since extensive research is
currently being conducted on them within Australasia, these topics were not reviewed as part of
this project. The crash effectiveness for these will be updated once this work is complete.
The treatments assessed as part of this project (listed above) complimented previous work which
summarised research from 2004 to 2009 (Austroads 2010a, Road Safety Engineering Risk
Assessment: Part 6: Crash Reduction Factors).
2.4 Determining Treatment Effectiveness

A literature review was conducted for each of the topics listed above. Given the large number of
topics, and the limited time and budget available for this task, each review was limited in scope and
could not be considered exhaustive. The main focus was on recent research since 1999, and on
research conducted in Australia and New Zealand. However, other key references have also been
assessed and included where relevant. Only research that contained information about the crash
reduction benefit from treatments was included in the review, and this greatly reduced the number
of relevant publications.
Much of the research presented crash reductions for all crash severities (including property
damage only). In many cases, treatment effectiveness for casualty crashes was also available.
Where information was available, effectiveness values were based on casualty crashes.
Often for any one issue, a variety of treatment effectiveness values were identified. In general, an
average crash reduction value was taken across all studies that were considered methodologically
robust. It would have been preferable to use a weighted average based on robustness (such
procedures exist), however due to limited budget a more simplistic approach was taken. Outliers
were often excluded, however they were considered on a case by case basis. In some cases,
logic checks were used to help refine a figure.
Austroads 2012
— 3—
Given the limited budget available for this work, a qualitative indication on the level of confidence
for each of the factors provided was estimated. This was based on the number of studies that
provide crash reduction information, the consistency of the results, methodological robustness, the
age of the research, and the country in which the research was conducted. For instance, where
four or more studies were available, each of which provided reasonably consistent results and had
robust methodologies, a high level of confidence was assumed. This same approach was used in
Austroads (2010a).
Section 3 provides a summary of the results from a review of literature on each of the topics listed
as high priority.
Austroads 2012
— 4—
3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON CRASH TREATMENT

EFFECTIVENESS
Table 3.1 presents a consolidated summary of treatment effectiveness for a range of treatments,
expressed as Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) and Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). Each
factor has been rounded (to the nearest 5%). The results have been collated from previous work
(Austroads 2010a, which summarised research from 2004 to 2009) as well as this current project
(2010/11 and 2011/12). Appendix B provides a summary of treatment effectiveness values that
have been updated since the completion of Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment: Part 6:
Crash Reduction Factors (Austroads 2010a). Details of the research conducted in 2010/11 and
2011/12, including the literature assessed can be found in Appendix C. Details of research from
earlier work (up to 2008/09) can be found in the appendices to Austroads (2010a).
It is recognised that the effectiveness of treatments on different levels of severity is also of interest.
This is particularly relevant in the Safe System context where there is a focus on reduction in fatal
and serious injury crash outcomes. There is also interest in quantifying the effect of treatments on
different crash types (e.g. head-on). Where this information is available, this is also presented in
Appendix C, and in some cases, where the information is robust enough, also in Table 3.1.
However, much of the research does not provide a breakdown by severity or crash type, and
where information does exist it is often based on very small sample sizes and so is quite variable.
In addition, some research (e.g. Hauer 2006 & 2009) indicates that it is not technically possible to
accurately determine changes in severity due to the ‘frequency-severity indeterminacy’. This
states that due to under-reporting of crashes it is not possible to determine whether the frequency
of crashes has reduced, or whether there has been a transference to higher or lower levels of
severity.
Table 3.1 also provides a measure of confidence in the factors provided. As discussed in
Section 2.3, this is a qualitative measure that is based on the number of studies that provide crash
reduction information, the consistency of the results, methodological robustness, the age of the
research, and the country in which the research was conducted.
An indication of the year in which a treatment type was assessed is also provided in Table 3.1.
This is of interest as the amount of research on crash effectiveness has increased in recent years.
In some cases, new research merely validates that of older studies on the same topic. In other
cases, the new research can significantly change the expected crash reduction effectiveness
(especially when there was previously a high degree of uncertainty). This information will also
assist with planning and prioritisation of tasks for investigation in the future.
Note that the crash reduction figures provided for pedestrian treatments are given for changes in
pedestrian casualties only. Little information exists for these treatments on changes to all casualty
crashes. Similarly, reductions for street lighting relate only to changes in night-time casualties.
Some information does exist on the effect of street lighting at all times of the day, but this was not
comprehensive enough to produce a separate factor.
Although this report is primarily concerned with road safety engineering treatments, some
information is provided on the safety implications of changing road design elements (e.g.
superelevation). Further information on the safety implications of road design can be found in a
separate report (Austroads 2010b).
Austroads 2012
— 5—
For a number of treatments that were reviewed, treatment effectiveness was unable to be
determined. These included:
 Delineation treatments: continuity lines, provision of wide edge lines, marking in wet
conditions, provision of word and symbol pavement markings, transverse rumble strips (at
curves, railway level crossings and intersection approaches).
 Intersection treatments: extending right-turn lanes.
 Pedestrian treatments: installation of pedestrian signals, installation of a marked pedestrian
crossing, converting marked pedestrian crossing to signals.
 Traffic management treatments: closing a street.
The review identified some evidence for a number of additional treatments. Although this
information is of interest (and summarised in Appendix C), there was insufficient evidence to
determine the extent of treatment effectiveness (e.g. provision of edge lines at curves, addition of
yellow reflective tape to signal heads, and channelisation in rural environments). In such cases,
the relevant appendix often includes a discussion indicating that safety benefits are likely to be
associated with such treatments, although there was insufficient evidence to gauge treatment
effectiveness during this project.
Table 3.1: Summary of treatment effectiveness

Treatment Environment Crash reduction Crash Confidence Year most Reference
type factor modification recently location
factor assessed
Delineation treatments
Install guide posts All 5% 0.95 Low 2010/11 Appendix C.1
Install Raised All 5% 0.95 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
Reflective
Pavement
Markers (RRPMs)
Install chevron Horizontal curves 25% 0.75 Low 2010/11 Appendix C.2
alignment
markers
Pavement Provide edge line 10% 0.9 Low 2010/11 Appendix C.3.1
markings
Provide centreline 20% 0.8 Low 2010/11 Appendix C.3.2
Provide combined 30% 0.7 Low 2010/11 Appendix C.3.3
edge and
centreline
Provide painted 0% 1.0 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
speed limits
Profile line Provide profile 20% (all) 0.80 (all) Medium 2011/12 Appendix C.4.1
marking edge lines
40% 0.6 (run-off-road) Low
(run-off-road)
Provide profile 15% (all) 0.85 (all) Medium 2011/12 Appendix C.4.2
centreline
30% (head-on) 0.70 (head-on) Low
Austroads 2012
— 6—

factor assessed
Intersection treatments
Signs – regulatory Install stop sign at 15% 0.85 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.5.2
T-intersection
Install stop sign at 30% 0.7 Medium 2011/12 Appendix C.5.3
X-intersection
Install four-way 60% 0.40 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.5.4
stop sign at
X-intersection
Install give-way 25% 0.75 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.5.5
sign – all
intersections
Install right-turn 60% 0.40 Medium 2011/12 Appendix C.5.8
ban, or U-turn
and right-turn ban
Traffic signals Install traffic 30% 0.7 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.6.1
signals
Provision of fully 35% (all casualty) 0.65 Medium 2011/12 Appendix C.6.2
controlled right- 60% (right 0.40 Low
turns through)
45% (adjacent 0.55 Low
direction)
Provision of 10% 0.9 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.6.2
partially controlled
right-turns
Change partial 70% 0.3 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.6.2
control to fully
controlled
right-turns
Linked signals Linking of existing 15% 0.85 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
signals
Signal visibility Replace a 35% 0.65 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.7
pedestal mount
with mast arm
mount signal
Increase lens size 5% 0.95 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.7
to twelve inches
Provide additional 20% 0.8 Medium 2011/12 Appendix C.7
signal head
Roundabouts Install roundabout 70% 0.3 High Austroads 2010a
– rural
Install roundabout 55% 0.45 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
– urban
Install roundabout 70% (all) 0.3 (all) High Austroads 2010a
– all 60% 0.4 (pedestrians) Low 2010/11 Appendix C.18.7
environments (pedestrians)
Austroads 2012
— 7—

factor assessed
Roundabout – All roundabouts – 40% 0.6 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
single versus lower risk for
multilane single lane
compared with
multilane (note
this decision is
usually not made
based on safety,
but rather on
capacity)
Channelisation at Install general 30% 0.70 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.8.1
intersections – channelisation
splitter and Install splitter 30% 0.70 Medium 2011/12 Appendix C.8.2
median islands
islands – general
Install splitter 35% 0.65 Medium 2011/12 Appendix C.8.2
islands – urban
Install mountable 15% 0.85 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.8.3
median
Install 25% 0.75 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.8.3
non-mountable
median
Grade separation X-intersection 55% 0.45 High 2010/11 Appendix C.9
of intersections
Y-intersection 20% 0.8 Medium 2010/11 Appendix C.9
Install right-turn Install right-turn 35% 0.65 Medium 2011/12 Appendix C.10.1
lane lane – general
lane – signalised
intersection
lane –
unsignalised
intersection
Install right-turn 40% 0.6 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.10.4
lane – rural
unsignalised
T-intersections
lane – rural
unsignalised
X-intersections
lane – urban:
general
lane – urban
unsignalised
T-intersections
lane – urban
signalised
T-intersections
Austroads 2012
— 8—

factor assessed
Install right-turn Install right-turn 30% 0.7 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.10.5
lane (continued) lane – urban
unsignalised
X-intersections
lane – urban
signalised
X-intersections
Install right-turn 30% 0.70 High 2011/12 Appendix C.10.6
lane – painted
lane – physical
Install left-turn lane All 20% 0.80 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.12
Staggered With minor road 35% 0.65 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
junctions traffic < 15% of
main road
With minor road 25% 0.75 Low Austroads 2010a
traffic 15–30% of
main road
With minor road 35% 0.65 Low Austroads 2010a
traffic > 30% of
main road
Railway level crossing treatments
From nothing to All 25% 0.75 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
signage
From signage to All 50% 0.5 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
lights and bells
From lights and All 45% 0.55 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
bells to barriers
From signage to All 70% 0.30 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
barriers
Improve sight All 45% 0.55 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
distance
Road geometry and design treatments
Overtaking lanes All 25% 0.75 Medium 2010/11 Appendix C.14
Road resurfacing All 35% 0.65 High 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
to improve skid
resistance
Sight distance Rural 30% 0.7 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
improvements environments and
intersections
Improving/ All Low 2011/12 Appendix C.15
correcting SD* CMFunction
superelevation < 0.01 1.00
≥ 0.01 to (1.00 + 6(SD – 0.01)
< 0.02
≥ 0.02 (1.00 + 3(SD – 0.02)
*SD = Superelevation deficiency
Sealing shoulders All 30% 0.7 High 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
Austroads 2012
— 9—

factor assessed
Roadside treatments
Install impact All 50% (all casualty) 0.5 (all casualty) Medium 2011/12 Appendix C.16
attenuators All 70% (fatal) 0.30 (fatal) High
Install guardrail All 40% 0.6 High 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
Access control Open road 4-lane Relative Risk = 1+(0.02 x Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
(note that this is a residential/km+0.10 x
relative risk that commercial/km+0.20 x minor junctions)
compares with x ({0.45 if median-solid or > 3 m}, 1 if
the level of risk if no median)
there were no Open road 2-lane Relative Risk = 1+(0.01 x Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
access points on residential/km+0.05 x
an undivided commercial/km+0.20 x minor junctions)
road. It does not x ({0.45 if median-solid or >3 m}, 1 if no
provide a CRF or median)
CMF)
Built up 4-lane Relative Risk = 1+(0.01 x Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
residential/km+0.08 x
commercial/km+0.05 x minor junctions)
x ({0.45 if median-solid or > 3 m}, 1 if
no median)
Built up 2-lane Relative Risk = 1+(0.02 x Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
residential/km+0.10 x
commercial/km+0.20 x minor junctions)
x ({0.45 if median-solid or > 3 m}, 1 if
no median)
Signage treatments (Advisory)
Install bridge All 30% 0.7 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
warning signs
Install curve Horizontal curves 25% 0.75 High 2010/11 Appendix C.17.1
warning signs
Guidance signs All 15% 0.85 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
Speed advisory All 40% 0.6 Low 2010/11 Appendix C.17.2
Vehicle activated All 35% 0.65 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
signs
Variable message All 20% 0.8 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
signs
Pedestrian treatments
Install fencing and All 20% 0.8 (pedestrians) Medium 2010/11 Appendix C.18.1
barriers (pedestrians)
Improved lighting All 60% (pedestrians 0.4 Medium 2010/11 Appendix C.18.2
at night) (pedestrians at
night)
Add pedestrian All 50% 0.5 (pedestrians) Low 2010/11 Appendix C.18.5
phase at signals (pedestrians)
Improve signal All 35% 0.65 (pedestrians) Low 2010/11 Appendix C.18.5
timing (pedestrians)
Install pedestrian All 85% 0.15 (pedestrians) Low 2010/11 Appendix C.18.4
overpass (pedestrians)
Raised (wombat) All 20% 0.8 (pedestrians) Low 2010/11 Appendix C.18.8
crossing (pedestrians)
Austroads 2012
— 10 —

factor assessed
Refuge All 45% 0.55 (pedestrians) Medium 2010/11 Appendix C.18.6
(pedestrians)
Rest on red All 50% 0.5 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
(pedestrians)
Speed and enforcement treatments
Speed cameras Mobile overt 40% 0.6 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
Mobile covert 20%(1) 0.8 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
– urban
Mobile covert 20%(1) 0.8 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
– rural
Fixed overt 30% 0.7 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
– urban
Fixed overt – rural 30% 0.7 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
Speed – change Decreases in 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
in speed limit and speed limit
change in speed
From no previous 20% 0.8 Medium Austroads 2010a
restriction to any
speed limit
100 to 80 km/h 15% 0.85 Medium Austroads 2010a
All reductions in 15% 0.85 Medium Austroads 2010a
speed limit
Increases in 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
speed limit
100 to 110 km/h 25% increase 1.25 Medium Austroads 2010a
< 90 to > 90 km/h 15% increase 1.15 Medium Austroads 2010a
Any increase in 15% increase 1.15 Medium Austroads 2010a
speed limit
Change in 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑎 2 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑎 2 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
operating speed 1−� � � �
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑏 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑏
and effect on × 100%
safety
Where Speeda =
speed after, and
Speedb = speed
before
All environments 20% 0.80 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
Install red light Signalised 5% 0.95 High 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
camera intersection
Provide transverse Intersections 25% 0.75 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.19
rumble strips
Austroads 2012
— 11 —

factor assessed
Traffic management treatments
Medians Painted median – 15%(2) 0.85 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
all environments
Built median – 45% 0.55 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
urban
Built median – 55% 0.45 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
rural
Median Convert bi- to 30% 0.70 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
crossovers uni-directional
crossover
Close 55% 0.45 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
bi-directional
crossover
Mid-block turning All environments 35% 0.65 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
provisions
No overtaking All 35% 0.65 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
markings
Parking ban All 20% 0.8 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
Parking – convert All 40% 0.6 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
angle to parallel
Street closure Internal roads 40% 0.6 Medium 2011/12 Appendix C.20
Peripheral roads 5% 0.95 Low 2011/12 Appendix C.20
Street lighting New lighting – all 35% (night) 0.65 (night) Medium 2010/11 Appendix C.21.1
locations
New lighting – 50% (night) 0.5 (night) High 2010/11 Appendix C.21.2
intersections
mid-block
New lighting – 30% (night) 0.7 (night) Medium 2010/11 Appendix C.21.5
rural intersection
New lighting – 30% (night) 0.7 (night) Low 2010/11 Appendix C.21.6
urban
New lighting – 30% (night) 0.7 (night) Low 2010/11 Appendix C.21.7
urban intersection
motorway/ freeway
interchange
railway level
crossing
Upgrade lighting 35% (night) 0.65 (night) Medium 2010/11 Appendix C.21.10
Traffic calming All environments 20% 0.8 Medium 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
Austroads 2012
— 12 —

factor assessed
Work zones Increase crash 30% increase 1.3 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
risk with presence compared with
of road works when no works
present
Minor treatments 15% improvement 0.85 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
at work zones over no treatment
(e.g. pavement
marking)
Major treatments 45% improvement 0.55 Low 2008/09 Austroads 2010a
(e.g. barriers, over no treatment
cones, markings,
advanced
warning signs)
1 Covert speed camera evaluations are typically conducted on an area-wide basis, so cannot be compared to overt evaluations which are conducted at or near
camera sites.
2 Austroads 2010a provided a CRF range of 15–20% for installation of a painted median. This has been rounded down to 15% to provide a single figure.
Notes:
 Crash Reduction/Crash Modification Factors provided in this table have been rounded to the nearest 5%.
 Treatments assessed in 2008/09 were evaluated as part of a previous Austroads project, Road safety engineering risk assessment: Part 6: Crash Reduction
Factors (Austroads 2010a). This summarised research conducted between 2004 and 2009. Details on the studies assessed can be found in the appendices to
Austroads (2010a).
Austroads 2012
— 13 —
4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on an extensive review of the relevant literature, crash reduction estimates have been
developed for 57 treatment types. In total, 126 crash reduction values have been derived for these
issues, as in some cases, information is available for different environment types (e.g. rural and
urban), different crash types (e.g. all crashes and run-off-road) or different crash severities.
Despite the extensive body of research on treatment effectiveness, there is still a lack of reliable
information on many of the safety treatments assessed in this study. However, out of the 126
crash reduction values, 52% had a high or medium level of confidence. The additional work
conducted through this study has increased the level of confidence in the treatment effectiveness
compared to the results obtained in an earlier study on this topic (Austroads 2010a, where 40% of
the results had medium or high levels of confidence).
Further research is recommended for those crash reduction values that have a low level of
confidence, or where there is no existing information. Such research will provide a higher level of
confidence in the crash reduction estimates. As identified in this report, the most cost-effective
approach is to conduct further reviews of literature, although it may be several years before
adequate information exists. Alternatively, experimentation, or analysis from existing data sources
(for instance, crash monitoring databases) will be required. A recommended approach to
conducting evaluations using these approaches is provided in Austroads (2012). This guide also
provides information to help determine the robustness of evaluations already undertaken, and the
methodologies that they employ.
Combinations of treatments are commonly used to address high risk sites. Very little information is
available on the combined benefit from using more than one treatment. Previous Austroads
research has identified the need to assess the benefits of groups of treatments (Austroads 2012).
There is a need to prioritise the most commonly used treatment combinations, and then assess the
effectiveness of these.
In addition, ARRB in association with FHWA in the United States, initiated an international
collaboration on the development of crash reduction values through the OECD Joint Transport
Research Centre. Involvement in the OECD collaboration has provided access to an international
panel of experts with extensive experience in the development of crash reduction values, and
access to the information that they currently hold. In the longer term this will lead to a
strengthened international collaboration on this topic, including the potential for joint projects to fill
existing gaps in knowledge.
Although confidence in some of the crash reductions provided is not high, these are still the best
estimates available for each type of treatment. In the absence of additional information on crash
reduction based on total casualty crashes it is recommended that these figures be considered for
use by jurisdictions when calculating the expected benefits from treatments.
It is important to continue collaboration with local and international research partners, as well as
updating of information when relevant research is complete (such as current research on clear
zones) to develop guidance on the effectiveness of further treatment types, as well as improving
confidence in the values presented in this report.
Austroads 2012
— 14 —
REFERENCES
Austroads 2009, Design, feasibility and application of an instrumented vehicle, AP-T145-09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010a, Road safety engineering risk assessment: Part 6: Crash Reduction Factors, AP-T151-10,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010b, Road safety engineering risk assessment: part 1: relationships between crash risk and the
standards of geometric design elements, AP-T146/10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012, An Introductory Guide for Evaluating Effectiveness of Road Safety Treatments,
AP-R421-12, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
nd
Elvik, R, Høye, A, Vaa, T & Sørensen, M 2009, The handbook of road safety measures, 2 edn, Emerald
Publishing, Bingley, UK.
Hauer, E 2006, ‘The frequency-severity indeterminacy [unreported crashes]’, Accident Analysis and
Prevention, vol. 38, no. 1, pp.78-83.
Hauer, E 2007, ‘Kinds of safety evaluation study’, ‘Issues in road safety evaluation workshop, 28-29 March
2007, Romsey, Victoria’, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Vic.
Hauer, E 2009, ‘Speed and safety’, Transportation Research Record, no. 2103, pp.10-7.
Ogden, KW 1996, Safer roads: a guide to road safety engineering, Avebury Technical, Aldershot, UK.
Austroads 2012
— 15 —
APPENDIX A PRIORITISING GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE

During the first stage of this project, a number of treatments or road safety features were identified
where knowledge of effectiveness in reducing crashes was not adequate. This assessment was
based on literature reviews (Austroads 2010a, 2010b) as well as stakeholder priorities
(Austroads 2009). For each of these issues it was identified that there was a lack of sufficient
research on the crash reduction effect, or that the research which did exist was not considered of
suitable quality.
A simple matrix was developed to help prioritise the identified gaps in knowledge, with each issue
subjectively assessed by the project team against the following criteria:
 Frequency (F) – How often the treatment is likely to be used: When prioritising the identified
gaps in knowledge, common treatments were given a higher priority (for example, signs).
 Cost (C) – The typical cost of the treatment: It was considered that for high cost treatments,
there is generally a greater need to be more certain about the safety benefit compared to a
low cost treatment. In some cases low cost treatments tend to be very widely used, for
example signs. Although the individual cost of this treatment is relatively low, the sheer
number of signs installed and maintained means that there is a high total cost from the use of
this treatment.
 Uncertainty (U) – The level of uncertainty associated with the known crash reduction
effectiveness of the treatment: Hauer (2007) suggests that there are costs associated with
making incorrect assumptions about the treatment effectiveness. The likelihood of this error
can be calculated given the standard error and expected crash reduction.
For each of these factors a one to five scale was adopted, with one indicating a low value, and five
indicating a high value. A qualitative approach was taken in the prioritisation of gaps in knowledge,
based on subjective assessment of each of the above factors. It was noted that a quantitative
approach could have been adopted (involving development of a benefit-cost ratio for each of the
treatment types, allowing direct comparison between them). However, it was decided that such a
quantitative approach would require a number of assumptions, and that therefore the additional
analysis required was unlikely to produce a more robust result than the qualitative approach.
The ratings for each were then multiplied to give a total score 3. Table A 1 provides the results of
this assessment.
Table A 1: Gaps in knowledge priority matrix
Treatment Frequency (F) Cost (C) Uncertainty (U) Comments FxCxU

Channelisation at intersections 2 3 4 Splitter islands mainly from one NZ 24
– splitter and median islands study. Median islands based on one US
study.
Clear zones 5 5 5 Very high priority, but being addressed 125
through ST1427.
Delineation – continuity lines, 4 2 5 No information available. 40
marking in wet conditions
Grade separation of intersections 2 5 5 Based on one study only (Elvik et al. 50
2009). No Australasian figure available.
3
An alternative prioritisation method was also applied whereby frequency and cost are added together before being
multiplied by uncertainty. However, the outcome from this analysis was similar to a straight multiplication of each
element hence the method was not included in this report.
Austroads 2012
— 16 —

Guide posts 5 2 3 Five studies, with one from Australia 30
and one from NZ. Gap relates to
effectiveness on curves versus
straights.
Impact attenuators 3 3 3 Two US studies available, but 27
robustness uncertain. One Australian
figure available, but cannot trace origin
of this, and so therefore cannot use.
Intersection – extend right-turn lane 2 3 4 Based on two US studies. 24
Intersection – left-turn provision 3 3 3 Three studies, one from Australia. 27
Intersection – red light camera 3 3 1 Delete from list – adequate information 9
on this.
Intersection – right-turn lane 3 3 2 Many studies on this topic, and the 18
overall CRF is quite reliable. Gaps in
knowledge regarding different types of
intersection.
Intersection – signal visibility 3 2 4 Only one US study available. 24
Lane width – tunnels 2 4 5 No information on this topic. 40
Line marking – profile edge lines 2 2 4 Gap in knowledge actually relates to 16
centreline markings. Only one Canadian
study available as part of original
review. There is now more recent
literature on this.
No overtaking markings 3 2 2 Four US studies available, no 12
Australasian study. Robustness of US
studies uncertain.
Overtaking lanes 3 4 3 Adequate information regarding 36
overtaking lane provision. Gaps appear
when looking at specific lane types.
Parking ban 2 2 2 Seven studies assessed, but many with 8
low robustness. No studies from
Australasia.
Parking – convert angle to parallel 1 2 3 Three estimates provided (two US, Elvik 6
et al.). Estimates vary substantially
leading to low confidence. No estimates
from Australasia.
Pavement markings – centreline 5 2 3 Based on six studies, but none from 30
Australasia. Also, no information on use
at curves.
Pavement markings – edge line 5 2 3 Gap in knowledge relates to provision at 30
curves.
Pavement markings – words and 1 1 4 Several marking types; no Australasian 4
symbols studies.
Pavement markings – painted 1 1 3 Four studies, two from Australia. 3
speed limits
Pedestrian crossings 5 3 5 75
Pedestrian treatment – rest on red 1 1 4 One Australian study. 4
Railway crossing treatments 2 4 3 Three studies – Elvik et al. and two from 24
Australia. However, Australian studies
do not provide source.
Signs – advisory 5 3 4 Gaps in speed advisory signs, curve 60
warning, chevrons, animal warning.
Austroads 2012
— 17 —

Signs – regulatory 5 3 4 Gaps relating to installation of stop and 60
give-way signs. Although there are a
number of studies, each gives vastly
different results.
Staggered junctions 2 4 2 Currently based on Elvik et al. 16
Australian data has been identified.
Street closure 1 3 5 Ogden (1996) provides an estimate, but 15
basis of this uncertain.
Street lighting 4 4 2 Gap in knowledge only appears when 32
looking at very specific environments.
Superelevation 4 3 5 Several studies found, but none thought 60
to be reliable.
Traffic signals 5 3 2 There are several studies on this topic, 30
two significant ones from Australia. Only
really low confidence because CRFs
are broken down by different types of
signal installations.
U-turn bans 2 1 5 One US study plus the Austroads guide 10
which makes an estimate.
Vegetation 4 4 5 Currently being addressed in clear zone 80
research.
Work zones 3 3 3 Seven studies on increased risk at work 27
zones, and results are consistent. Gap
in knowledge lies in severity outcomes
from different treatments.
Austroads 2012
— 18 —
APPENDIX B REVISIONS TO TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS FIGURES

Table B 1 provides a comparison summary of treatment effectiveness values that have been updated since the completion of Road Safety
Engineering Risk Assessment: Part 6: Crash Reduction Factors (Austroads 2010a). Austroads 2010a followed the same methodology as the current
project, and involved literature reviews of 47 treatment types for which 104 treatment effectiveness values were determined. For these, 40% of the
results had medium or high levels of confidence attributed. (Comparatively, for the current project, 126 crash reduction values were derived for 57
treatment types, for which 52% had a high or medium level of confidence.)
Table B 1: Updated treatment effectiveness values

Original Crash Reduction Factors identified in Road safety engineering risk assessment: Part 6: Revised descriptions or reductions identified in current project
Crash Reduction Factors (Austroads 2010a)
Issue Environment type % Reduction Confidence Treatment type Environment type % Reduction Confidence
Channelisation at Splitter island – all environments 40% Low Channelisation at Install general channelisation 30% Low
intersections intersections – splitter Install splitter islands – general 30% Medium
– splitter and median and median islands
islands Splitter island – rural 35% Low Install splitter islands – urban 35% Medium
Splitter island – urban 40% Low Install mountable median 15% Low
Splitter island – T-intersection 45% Low Install non-mountable median 25% Low
Splitter island – X-intersection 40% Low
Median island – mountable 15% Low
Median island – non-mountable 25% Low
Grade separation of All environments, grade separation 50% (all severities) Low Grade separation of X-intersection 55% High
intersections of intersection intersections
Y-intersection 20% Medium
Guide posts Rural 28% (night) Low Install guide posts All 5% Low
Impact attenuators All 60% Low Install impact attenuators All 50% (all casualty) Medium
All 70% (fatal) High
Austroads 2012
— 19 —
Intersection – right-turn All environments 35% Medium Install right-turn lane Install right-turn lane – general 35% Medium
lane
At signalised intersections 35% Low Install right-turn lane – signalised 30% Medium
intersection
At unsignalised intersections 35% Low Install right-turn lane –unsignalised 35% Medium
intersection
Urban 30% Low Install right-turn lane – rural 40% Low
unsignalised T-intersections
Rural 35% Low Install right-turn lane – rural 30% Medium
unsignalised X-intersections
Painted 30% Low Install right-turn lane – urban 30% Low
general
Protected 35% Low Install right-turn lane – urban 35% Low
unsignalised T-intersections
Install right-turn lane – urban 5% Low
signalised T-intersections
unsignalised X-intersections
signalised X-intersections
Install right-turn lane – painted 30% High
Install right-turn lane – physical 35% Low
Intersection – extend All environments 15% Low Intersection – extend Unknown Unknown n/a
right-turn lane right-turn lane
Intersection – left-turn All environments 30% Low Install left-turn lane All 20% Low
provision
Austroads 2012
— 20 —
Intersection – signal All environments 25% Low Signal visibility Replace a pedestal mount with 35% Low
visibility mast arm mount signal
Increase lens size to twelve inches 5% Low
Provide additional signal head 20% Medium
Line markings – profile Shoulder 23% Medium Profile line marking Provide profile edge lines 20% (all) Medium
edge lines 40% (run-off-road) Low
Centreline 15% Low Provide profile centreline 15% (all) Medium
30% (head-on) Low
Line markings – profile Transverse Unknown n.a. Provide transverse Intersections 25% Low
edge lines rumble strips
Overtaking lanes All environments 23% Medium Overtaking lanes All 25% Medium
Tack-on lane 5% Low
New alignment and passing lane 54% Low
Pavement markings Centreline 30% Low Pavement markings Provide edge line 10% Low
Edge line 20% Low Provide centreline 20% Low
Words and symbols Unknown n.a. Provide combined edge and 30% Low
centreline
Painted speed limits 0% Low Provide painted speed limits 0% Low
Austroads 2012
— 21 —
Pedestrian crossings No reliable reductions determined Unknown n.a. Pedestrian treatments Install fencing and barriers 20% (pedestrians) Medium
for this issue
Improved lighting 60% Medium
(pedestrians at night)
Add pedestrian phase at signals 50% (pedestrians) Low
Improve signal timing 35% (pedestrians) Low
Pedestrian treatment – All 50% Low Install pedestrian overpass 85% (pedestrians) Low
rest on red
Raised (wombat) crossing 20% (pedestrians) Low
Refuge 45% (pedestrians) Medium
Rest on red 50% (pedestrians) Low
Install roundabout – all 60% (pedestrians) Low
environments
Signs – regulatory Install stop sign at T-intersection 20% Medium Signs – regulatory Install stop sign at T-intersection 15% Low
(intersection)
Install stop sign at X-intersection 30% Medium
Install stop sign at X-intersection 35% Medium Install four-way stop sign at 60% Low
X-intersection
Install give-way sign – all 15% Low Install give-way sign – all 25% Low
intersections intersections
U-turn bans No reliable reductions determined Unknown n.a. Install right-turn ban, or U-turn and 60% Medium
for this issue right-turn ban
Signs – regulatory All environments 25% Low Treatment type omitted, as not considered useful
(midblock)
Signs – advisory Chevron warning signs – all 30% Low Delineation treatments – Horizontal curves 25% Low
environments install chevrons
Austroads 2012
— 22 —
Signs – advisory Advisory speed signs – all 25% Low Advisory signage Install curve warning signs 25% High
environments treatments
Curve warning signs – all 25% Low Speed advisory 40% Low
environments
Street closure No reliable reductions determined unknown n.a. Street closure Internal roads 40% Medium
for this issue
Peripheral roads 5% Low
Street lighting Install lighting – midblock 40% (night) Medium Street lighting New lighting – all locations 35% (night) Medium
New lighting – intersections 50% (night) High
Install lighting – rural 30% (night) Low New lighting – mid-block 40% (night) High
New lighting – rural intersection 30% (night) Medium
Install lighting – rural intersection 40% (night) Medium New lighting – urban 30% (night) Low
New lighting – urban intersection 30% (night) Low
Install lighting – urban 30% (night) Low New lighting – motorway/freeway 50% (night) High
interchange
Install lighting – urban intersection 20% (night) Low New lighting – railway level 60% (night) High
crossing
Upgrade lighting 35% (night) Medium
Superelevation No reliable reductions determined Unknown n.a. Improving/correcting All 10% Low
for this issue superelevation
Austroads 2012
— 23 —
Traffic signals New signals, no turn arrows – 45% Low Traffic signals Install traffic signals 30% Low
metro
New signals, with turn arrows – 40% Low Provision of fully controlled right- 35% (all casualty) Medium
metro turns
New signals, no turn arrows – 75% Low 60% (right through) Low
regional
45% (adjacent Low
direction)
New signals, with turn arrows – 35% Low Provision of partially controlled 10% Low
regional right-turns
Change partial control to fully 70% Low
controlled right-turns
Vegetation No reliable reductions determined Unknown n.a. Treatment type omitted (topic is being covered as part of other current research)
for this issue
Weather Dry weather, reduction from crash 20% Low Treatment type omitted (topic is being covered as part of other current research)
risk in wet weather
Austroads 2012
— 24 —
APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FOR PRIORITY

TREATMENTS
This appendix presents details of the research conducted in 2010/11 and 2011/12. Each appendix
includes a tabulated summary of treatment effectiveness (generally reductions) found in the
research. Where available, effectiveness for different levels of severity or crash types were
included. The main focus for the review was on recent research although in some cases older
research is also included. There was also a focus on research conducted in Australia and New
Zealand. However, other key references have also been assessed and included where relevant.
Only research that contained information about the crash reduction benefit from treatments was
included, which greatly reduced the number of relevant publications.
Note that throughout this appendix many of the references assessed did not contribute any
information to the final crash reduction factor. The references are provided for completeness, but
may also provide a useful source of additional information on each treatment type.
A discussion is included for each which presents the rationale for the treatment effectiveness
values presented in Table 3.1. The review identified some evidence for a number of additional
treatments (than those presented in Table 3.1) for which there was insufficient evidence to
determine the extent of treatment effectiveness (e.g. provision of edge lines at curves, addition of
yellow reflective tape to signal heads, and channelisation in rural environments). In such cases,
the relevant appendix generally includes a discussion indicating that safety benefits are likely to be
associated with such treatments, although there was insufficient evidence to gauge treatment
effectiveness during this project.
Austroads 2012
— 25 —
C.1 Guide Posts

Summary of research
Study Year Country Environment/Treatment Reduction
Vincent 1978 Australia Open Corner cube showed 60% reduction in night,
only 21% reduction at control
Bali et al. 1978 USA General (all sites) No treatment: 3.2943
(standard error 0.511)
With centreline: 2.3473
With centreline & post: 1.3285
Bali et al. 1978 USA Straight sites No treatment: 3.7740
(standard error 0)
With centreline: 2.2375
With centreline & post: 1.1323
Bali et al. 1978 USA Curves Centreline and edge line: 2.4925
Centreline and edge line and post: 1.9306
(standard error 0)
Sanderson & Fildes 1984 Australia Open Corner cube 15% decrease at night, but 21%
(Victoria) decrease at control sites
Creasey & Agent 1985 USA Post delineators 20% reduction
LTSA 1992 NZ 32–67% reduction on curves, 15–18% on
whole route
Cairney 1993 Australia Open Corner cube delineators (17 before, 6 after)
(Victoria) 65% reduction
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 USA Recommended 30% reduction in night-time
Jones
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 USA Reported post delineators at curves 23%
Jones reduction in all; 30% at night
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 USA Reported post delineators at tangent
Jones 16–28% reduction in all; 30% reduction in night
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 USA Reported flexible delineator post 40% reduction
Jones in all
Corben et al. 1997 Australia 27% reduction, but only at one site (not
significant). Crash costs reduced by 85%, and
were significant.
Douglas 2000 USA Two-lane roads 30% reduction for delineators on curves
Douglas 2000 UK Undivided roads 67% reduction
Douglas 2000 UK Divided roads 30% reduction
Elvik et al. 2009 International All accidents Injury accidents 7% reduction
(95% CI -22; +12)
Elvik et al. 2009 International All accidents PDO 3% reduction (95% CI -27; +28)
Elvik et al. 2009 International Combined treatment of Injury accident 45% reduction
edge line, centreline and (95% CI -56; -32)
delineator posts
Austroads 2012
— 26 —

AASHTO 2010 USA Installing post-mounted Injury accidents have a CMF of 1.04
delineators on rural (caveat – ‘observed variability suggests this
two-lane undivided roads treatment could result in an increase, decrease
or no change’)
AASHTO 2010 USA Rural two-lane road Combined treatment
Edge lines, centrelines and guide posts
Injury crashes have a CMF of 0.55 (standard
error 0.1)
Results from older studies have not been used given that new guide post designs now exist and
are likely to provide a different benefit. The study by Corben et al. is from Australia, but did not
provide a statistically significant result, although it does provide a useful direction of effect (i.e. a
possible positive benefit). The Vincent review is based on older research and was also excluded.
Elvik et al. and the AASHTO provide more recent results. Elvik et al. suggests a 7% CRF for the
treatment while the AASHTO suggests there is a 4% increase in crashes (although it is observed
that due to variability, this treatment could deliver an increase, decrease, or no change in crashes).
It appears from more recent research that the benefits from using guide posts on their own might
not be substantial (and indeed, the US research indicates a possible increase in crashes, most
likely due to an increase in speed which has been identified in research). However, additional
assessment by Elvik et al. suggests that when used in combination with other delineation
treatments (specifically an edge and centreline) that the benefit is likely to be substantial (a 45%
reduction).
Agent, Stamatiadis and Jones indicate that there is no great difference in the benefit of guide posts
at curves versus straights, although the New Zealand research from LTSA indicates that benefits
are substantially greater at curves when compared to whole routes.
Given the variability of the results from the HSM, the Elvik et al. figure of a 7% reduction is
currently recommended (rounded to 5%). The crash reductions provided by Elvik et al. are
specified as ‘all accidents’. Some of the research indicates that benefits at night are greater than
changes in at all times of day for this treatment type, however there is insufficient information to
provide a figure.
References assessed
AASHTO 2010, Highway safety manual, 1st edn, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC, USA.
Agent, KR, Stamatiadis, N & Jones, S 1996, Development of accident reduction factors, report KTC-96-13,
Kentucky Transportation Centre, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Bali, S, Potts, R, Fee, JA, Taylor, JI & Glennon, J 1978, Cost effectiveness and safety of alternative roadway
delineation treatments for rural two-lane highways: vol II: final report, FHWA/RD-78-51, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Cairney, P 1993, ‘Current issues in delineation’, Road and Transport Research, vol.2, no.2, pp.28-39.
Corben, B, Deery, H, Mullan, N & Dyte, D 1997, The general effectiveness of countermeasures for crashes
into fixed roadside objects, report 111, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Vic.
Austroads 2012
— 27 —
Creasey, T & Agent, KR 1985, Development of accident reduction factors, research report UKTRP-85-6,
Kentucky Transportation Research Program, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Douglas, J 2000, ‘Making the delineation message clear’, Roadmarking Industry Association of Australia and
New Zealand Roadmarkers Federation joint conference, 6th, 2000, Canberra, Australian Capital
Territory, Roadmarking Industry Association of Australia, Rosebud, Vic, 16 pp.
nd
Publishing Group, Bingley, UK.
Land Transport Safety Authority 1992, Guidelines for rural road marking and delineation, RTS 5, New
Zealand Transport Agency, Wellington, NZ, viewed 14 July 2011,
<http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/road-traffic-standards/docs/rts-05.pdf>.
Montella, A 2005, ‘Safety reviews of existing roads: a quantitative safety assessment methodology’,
Transportation Research Record, no. 1922, Transportation Research Board, Washington, pp. 65-72.
Sanderson, JT & Fildes, B 1984, Run-off-the-road accidents in rural areas, report TS84/6, Traffic and Safety
Department, Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV), Melbourne, Vic.
Vincent, EN 1978, ‘A trial installation of corner cube delineators: Calder Highway, Gisborne to Woodend’,
Australian Road Research, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 38-40.
Austroads 2012
— 28 —
C.2 Chevron Alignment Markers

Summary of research
Agent, Stamatiadis and 1996 USA Not specified Warning signs – chevron
Jones 30% average reduction all crashes
(lit review – three papers)
55% average reduction all crashes (state
survey – two states)
Montella 2009 Italy Divided highways, 4 lanes 46.3% (95% CI -171.5; 78.8). Not significant
total
Srinivasan et al. 2009 USA Install chevrons on  all severities, non-intersection CMF 4%
horizontal curves – rural  all severities, non-intersection, head-on,
run-off-road, side swipe CMF 6%
 fatal/serious injury/minor injury,
non-intersection CMF 16%
 all severities, night, non-intersection CMF
25%
 all severities, night, non-intersection,
head-on, run-off-road, side swipe CMF
22%
AASHTO 2010 USA Installing chevron signs ‘… appears to reduce crashes of all types.
on horizontal curves However, the magnitude of the crash effect is
along urban and not certain at this time.’ (p 13–66)
suburban arterials
UK-MoRSE website 2010 UK Rural 35% reduction (95% CI -1.28; 70.87)
Rural but with other 46% reduction (95% CI 21.95; 70.4)

supporting treatments
Any environment, and 50% reduction (95% CI 34.88; 64.46)

when used with other
supporting treatments
A CRF of 25% was selected based on the limited evidence available. This includes a 30%
reduction from Agent, Stamatiadis and Jones, a 4% reduction from Srinivasan et al. and a 35%
reduction from the UK MoRSE database. There were also non-significant findings from Montella
and AASHTO that this treatment has a positive benefit. There is a low level of confidence in this
figure.
References assessed
Agent, KR, Stamatiadis, N & Jones, S 1996, Development of accident reduction factors, research report
KTC-96-13, Kentucky Transportation Centre, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Andreassen, DC 1989, Strategies for safety problems, research report ARR 163, Australian Road Research
Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Andrew O’Brien and Associates 2000, ‘Managing traffic flow on urban freeways: appendix A: literature
review’, Andrew O’Brien and Associates, Melbourne, Vic.
Austroads 2012
— 29 —
Austroads 2009, Guide to road safety: part 8: treatment of crash locations, AGRS08/09, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Bureau of Transport Economics (BTE) 2001, The black spot program 1996-2002: An evaluation of the first
three years, report no. 104, Bureau of Transport Economics (BTE), Canberra, Australia.
Donald, D 1997, Be warned! A review of curve warning signs and curve advisory speeds, research report
304, Vermont South, Vic.
nd
Ewing, R 1999, Traffic calming: state of the practice, report FHWA-RD-99-135, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Kneebone, DC 1964, ‘Advisory speed signs and their effect on traffic’, Australian Road Research Board
conference, 2nd, 1964, Melbourne, Victoria, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic,
vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 524-41.
Kulmala, R 1994, ‘Measuring the safety effect of road measures at junctions’, Accident Analysis and
Prevention, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 781-94.
Lamm, R, Zumkeller, K & Beck, A 2001, ‘Traffic safety: the relative effectiveness of a variety of road
markings and traffic control devices’, Road Safety on Three Continents, 2000, Pretoria, South Africa,
VTI Konferens 15A, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linkoeping, Sweden,
pp. 120-32.
Montella, A 2009, ‘Safety evaluation of curve delineation improvements: empirical Bayes observational
before-and-after study’, Transportation Research Record, no. 2103, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, pp. 69–79.
Moses, P 1987, ‘Combating the road toll’, National Local Government Engineering conference, 4th, 1987,
Perth, Western Australia, Institution of Engineers Australia, Canberra, ACT, pp.70-4.
Srinivasan, R, Baek, J, Carter, D, Persaud, B, Lyon, C, Eccles, K, Gross, F, & Lefler, N 2009, Safety
evaluation of improved curve delineation, report FHWA-HRT-09-045, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC, viewed 13 December 2010,
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09046/>.
UK-MoRSE 2010, UK-MoRSE, Greensafe Foundation, Birmingham, UK, viewed 15 December 2010,
<www.uk-morse.com>.
Winnett, MA & Wheeler, AH 2002, Vehicle-activated signs: a large scale evaluation, report 548, TRL,
Crowthorne, UK.
Austroads 2012
— 30 —
C.3 Pavement Markings

Summary of research
C.3.1 Provision of Edge Lines
Jackson in Ogden 1981 UK 13% to 32% reduction all crashes
(1996) 37% to 42% reduction night crashes
Willis, Scott and Barnes 1984 UK Rural roads Inconclusive
in Ogden (1996)
Creasey & Agent 1985 USA Not specified 15% reduction total crashes
Moses in in Ogden 1986 Australia Rural highways Wide edge lining:
(1996) 8% reduction all crashes
34% reduction out-of-control single vehicle
Nairn in Ogden (1996) 1987 Australia Straight roads 15% reduction straight roads
45% reduction curves
Cottrell 1987 USA Not specified 0% – no effect for run-off-road crashes
County Surveyor’s 1989 UK Only effective at sites that experience loss of
Society in Ogden (1996) control type crashes
Moses 1990 Australia Curves 25% reduction night time crashes
5% reduction day time crashes for ‘failing to
make the bend’ crashes through addition of
RRPMs and edge lining on lower speed
curves
VicRoads 1990 Australia Curves 10% reduction delineation
(does not specify type)
Miller in in Ogden (1996) 1992 USA 20% reduction (average) all crashes
Tignor in in Ogden 1993 USA 2% reduction all crashes
(1996) 25% reduction run-off-road
Miller 1993 USA and others Not specified 20–21% reduction average for delineation
Edge lines:
8% reduction USA nationwide
16.5% reduction Kansas
14.5% reduction Kansas
19% reduction Ohio
21% reduction Illinois
16% reduction Idaho
38% reduction Utah
60% reduction Arizona
3% reduction Michigan
18% reduction East Sussex
30% reduction South Yorkshire
26% reduction Cornwall
12% reduction Northamptonshire
22% reduction Hertfordshire
27% reduction Lorraine
20% reduction Hesse
25% reduction Lower Saxony
36% reduction Centreline and edge line
(where previously none)
8% reduction add edge line where already
centreline
Austroads 2012
— 31 —

Moses 1994 Australia Not specified 25% reduction fatal out-of-control crashes with
(Western provision of 150 mm edge lines
Australia)
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 USA Not specified 20% reduction state survey
Jones 15% reduction lit review
15% reduction all crashes recommended
30% reduction off-road crashes recommended
Corben et al. 1997 Australia Not specified 1.4% reduction edge line (not statistically
significant)
Lamm, Zumkeller & 2001 South Africa Curves 2 crashes per 106 VKT for varying curve radius
Beck Varies between 0.75 crashes per 106 VKT
(25 gon/km change in curve rate) to 2.25
crashes per 106 VKT
(450 gon/km change in curve rate)
Lamm, Zumkeller & 2001 South Africa Rural Varies between 14 crashes per 106 VKT
Beck (5 m pavement) to 2 crashes per 106 VKT
(7 m pavement)
Council et al. 2002 USA Two-lane roads 10% to 15% reduction for run-off-road crashes
at high crash sites
Roadway Safety 2007 UK Rural roads Edge lines onto rural roads – East Sussex
Markings Association treatment vs. control
18% reduction in all crashes
no change in daylight crashes
43% reduction in night-time crashes
Roadway Safety 2007 UK Rural roads Edge lines onto rural roads – South Yorkshire
Markings Association treatment vs. control
30% reduction in all crashes
No change in daylight crashes
68% reduction in night-time crashes (there
was 38% reduction at treatment sites and 29%
increase at control sites)
Elvik et al. 2009 Intl Normal edge line [note – no indication if
straight or curve]
Injury crashes reduced by 3% (95% CI -7; +1)
Elvik et al. 2009 Intl Wide edge line (20 cm instead of 10 cm)
[note – no indication if straight or curve]
Injury crashes increased by 5%
(95% CI -4; +14)
AASHTO 2010 US On rural 2 lane road – edge lines [note – no
indication if straight or curve]
Injury crash CMF is 0.97 (standard error 0.04)
AASHTO 2010 US On rural 2 lane road – wide edge lines
(8 inches or 20.3 cm) [note – no indication if
straight or curve]
Injury crashes CMF of 1.05
Austroads 2012
— 32 —
A crash reduction of 10% for all casualty crashes was based on the results from Creasy and Agent
(15%), County Surveyor’s Society (only effective for loss of control type crashes), Willis et al. (0%),
Agent et al. (15%), Jackson (average of 22.5%), Moses (8%), Miller (20%), Tignor (2%), Corben et
al. (1.4%), Elvik et al. (3%), RSMA (18%, 30%). Given the range of results, and indications for
more recent research that there is minimal effect on safety, there is low confidence in this figure.
There are indications that the installation of edge lines has a minimal effect on safety, with the
results from the Roadway Safety Markings Association showing no benefit during daytime.
Benefits for night-time crashes are therefore likely to be higher than the 10% average provided
above.
There is some information on the crash reduction benefit of edge lines for run-off-road crashes.
The mean reduction was 15%, based on the average of Cottrell (0%), Council et al. (10% to 15%),
Agent, Stamatiadis and Jones (30%) and Tignor (25%). Low confidence is placed in this CRF as
there are few studies and the range is wide.
The crash reduction for wide edge lines is unable to be determined as there are only two studies
which have different outcomes: Moses (in Douglas 2000) study had an 8% reduction, whereas
Elvik et al. had a 5% increase.
There is some indication of a greater benefit of edge lines at curves, but the information is not
reliable enough to provide a figure.
C.3.2 Provision of Centrelines

Bali et al. 1978 USA All Note – this is accident rate (per million vehicle
miles) and not just injury crashes
General sites – no treatment
(mean: 3.29, standard error: 0.511) vs. painted
centreline
(mean: 2.35, standard error: 0.114)
Not significant
Bali et al. 1978 USA Straight roads Note – this is accident rate (per million vehicle
Straights – no treatment
(mean: 3.77, standard error – not reported) vs.
painted centreline (mean: 2.24, standard error:
0.152). Significant at 0.05 level
Bali et al. 1978 USA Curves Note – this is accident rate (per million vehicle
Curves – centre and edge line (mean: 2.49,
standard error: 0.261) vs. centre and edge line
and guide posts (mean: 1.96, standard error:
not reported)
Significant at 0.05 level
Creasey & Agent 1985 USA Not specified 30% reduction centreline
40% reduction no passing striping
VicRoads 1990 Australia Curves 10% reduction delineation overall
65% reduction barrier line
Austroads 2012
— 33 —

Miller 1993 USA and others Not specified 20–21% reduction average for delineation
Centrelines:
29% reduction for USA
10% reduction for Bavaria
36% reduction centreline and edge line (where
previously none)
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 USA Not specified 36% reduction state survey
Jones 24% reduction lit review
35% reduction recommended
Lamm, Zumkeller & 2001 South Africa Rural, straight Varies between 14 crashes per 106 VKT (5 m
Beck pavement) to 2 crashes per 106 VKT (7 m
pavement)
Lamm, Zumkeller & 2001 South Africa Rural, curves Essentially 2 crashes per 106 VKT for varying
Beck curve radius)
Varies between 0.75 crashes per 106 VKT (25
gon/km change in curve rate) to 2.25 crashes
per 106 VKT (450 gon/km change in curve rate)
Elvik et al. 2009 International Centreline (note – no Injury crashes reduced by 1%
indication if straight or (95% CI -8; +6)
curve)
AASHTO 2010 USA On rural 2 lane road – Injury crashes have a CMF of 0.99 (standard
centrelines (note – no error 0.06)
indication if straight or
curve)
There is a mean crash reduction of 20% based on the average reduction of Miller (29%, 10%),
Creasy and Agent (30%), Agent et al. (35%) and Elvik et al. (1%). There is a low level of
confidence in this estimate due to the discrepancy between the figure given by Elvik et al. and the
other three studies.
C.3.3 Provision of Centreline and Edge Line

Bali et al. 1978 USA Curves Note – this is accident rate (per million vehicle
Centre and edge line Mean: 2.49, standard error – 0.261
Centre and edge line and Mean: 1.96, standard error – not reported
guide posts Significant at 0.05 level
Miller 1993 USA and others Not specified 36% reduction centreline and edge line (where
previously none)
Elvik et al. 2009 International Combined treatment of Injury accident 45% reduction (95% CI -56 -32)
edge line, centreline and
delineator posts
Elvik et al. 2009 International Combined treatment of Injury accident 24% reduction (95% CI -35 -11)
edge line and centreline
AASHTO 2010 US On rural 2 lane road – Injury crashes have a CMF of 0.76
edge and centrelines (standard error 0.1)
AASHTO 2010 US On rural 2 lane road – injury crashes have a CMF of 0.55
edge line centrelines and (standard error 0.1)
guide posts
Austroads 2012
— 34 —
There is a mean crash reduction of 30%, based on Miller (36%) and Elvik et al. (24%). Note that
the AASHTO repeats the information from Elvik et al. so it has not been included here. Low
confidence is placed in this estimate as it uses only two studies.
Elvik et al. notes that there is an even higher benefit when guide posts are also included.
References assessed
st
AASHTO 2010, Highway safety manual, 1 edn, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Austroads 2001, Economic evaluation of road investment proposals: improved prediction models for road
crash savings, AP–R184/01, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
NSW.
Bali, S, Potts, R, Fee, JA, Taylor, JI & Glennon, J 1978, Cost effectiveness and safety of alternative roadway
delineation treatments for rural two-lane highways: vol II: final report, FHWA/RD-78-51, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Council, F & Stewart JR 1999, ‘Safety effects of the conversion of rural two-lane to four-lane roadways based
on cross-sectional models’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1665, pp. 35-43.
Council, F, McGee, HW, Prothe, L & Eccles, KA 2002, ‘Run-off-road crash prevention in AASHTO’s Strategic
nd
Highway Safety Plan’, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Annual Meeting, 72 , 2002,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, USA.
nd
Ermer, DJ, Fricker, JD & Sinha,KC 1991, Accident reduction factors for Indiana, JHRP-91-11, Purdue
University, School of Civil Engineering, Lafayette, IN, USA.
Harwood, DW, Council, FM, Hauer, E, Hughes, WE & Vogt, A 2000, Prediction of the expected safety
performance of rural two-lane highways, report FHWA-RD-99-207, Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), McLean, VA, USA.
Hemion, RH 1969, A preliminary cost-benefit study of headlight glare reduction, report AR-683, Southwest
Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Koorey, G, Farrelly, P, Mitchell, T & Nicholson, C 1999, Assessing passing opportunities: stage 2, research
report 146, Transfund New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
Larsson, M, Candappa, N & Corben, B 2003, Flexible barrier systems along high speed roads: a lifesaving
opportunity, report 210, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Vic.
Austroads 2012
— 35 —
McLean, J 1996, Review of accidents and rural cross section elements including roadsides, research report
ARR 297, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Miller, TR 1993, ‘Benefit-cost analysis of lane marking’, Public Roads, vol.56, no.4, pp.153-63.
Moses, P 1990, ‘Safety improved on rural road curves’, Western Roads, vol.15, no.2, pp.2-3.
Mutabazi, MI, Russell, ER & Stokes, RW 1999, Review of the effectiveness, location, design, and safety of
passing lanes in Kansas, report K-TRAN:KSU-97-1, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka,
KS, USA, viewed 25 October 2010, <http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/7000/7500/7576/784476.pdf>.
Ogden, KW 1992, Benefit/cost analysis of road trauma countermeasures: rural road and traffic engineering
programs, report 34, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Vic.
Parker, MR, Flak, MA, Tsuchiyama, KH, Wadenstorer, SC & Hutcherson, F 1983, Geometric treatments for
reducing passing accidents at rural intersections on two lane highways: volumes 1 and 2, FHWA/RD-
83-074/75, Office of Safety and Traffic Operations, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,
USA.
Road Safety Markings Association (RSMA) 2007, Road markings, road safety and efficient road utilisation in
21st century Britain, RSMA, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, viewed 17 November 2010,
<http://www.rsma.co.uk/files/whitelinessaveslives.pdf>.
Slop, M & Catshoek, JWD 1995, Recommended safety measures for application on interurban roads in the
short term, report R-95-18, Institute for Road Safety Research, Leidschendam, Netherlands.
Thrush, M 1996, Assessing passing opportunities: literature review, research report 60, Transit New
Zealand, Wellington.
VicRoads 1990, Guidelines for the selection of projects under the road conditions sub-program (incorporating
accident blackspot projects, mass action projects, railway level crossing projects), Road Safety
Division, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Austroads 2012
— 36 —
C.4 Profile Line Marking

Summary of research
C.4.1 Profile Edge Lining, Edge Line (Shoulder) Rumble Strip, or Shoulder Grooving
FHWA in Ogden (1996) 1982 United States Installation of profile edge 61% (run-off-road)
lines on rural highway
Creasy and Agent 1985 United States Installation of rumble 25% (total crashes)
strips on various State
roads (edge line or
centreline not specified)
UK Department of 1988 UK Motorway – left-hand 76% (run-off-road)
Highways and Planning bends
in Cairney (1993)
Anon in Ogden (1996) 1988 United States Installation of profile edge 49% (run-off-road),19% (total crashes)
lines on rural highway
Harwood in Ogden 1993 United States Installation of profile edge 20% or more (run-off-road)
(1996) lines on rural highway
County Surveyor’s 1989 UK Installation of shoulder 37% (total crashes, not significant)
Society in Ogden (1996) rumble strips motorway 76% (run-off-road, statistically significant)
Wood 1994 United States Shoulder rumble strips 70% (run-off-road)
Harwood 1995 United States Rumble strips 50% (run-off-road)
RTA 1995 Australia Installation of Single vehicle crashes
audio-tactile edge line 20% (permanent obstruction in carriageway)
30% (off carriageway on straight)
30% (off carriageway on straight into object)
30% (off carriageway on curve)
30% (off carriageway on curve into object)
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 United States Installation of rumble 25%
Jones strips on various State
roads (edge line or
centreline not specified)
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 United States Installation of shoulder 25%
Jones grooving on various State
roads
Corben et al. 1996 Australia Installation of 9% (total crashes)
audio-tactile edge line
Cairney 1996 Australia Installation of audible 33% (total crashes)
tactile edge lines
Hickey 1997 United States Pennsylvania turnpike. 64% (run-off-road)
Treatment includes
RRPMs however authors
did not expect large
contribution from
recessed reflective PMs
Austroads 2012
— 37 —
Perrillo 1998 United States Installation of shoulder 72% (run-off-road)

rumble strips on New
York thruway
Baas, Charlton & de 2001 New Zealand Installation of shoulder 27% (total crashes)
Jong rumble strips 32% (run-off-road)
42% (fatal crashes)
Shen et al. 2004 United States The report identifies this 40% for all crashes
treatment as rumble 76% for head-on crashes
strips, however this could 50% for rear-end crashes
be transverse lines on 54% for right-angle crashes
approach to intersection 100% for side-swipe crashes
considering crash mix 33% for left-turn crashes
51% for run-off-road crashes
Shen et al. 2004 United States Installation of shoulder 22% (total crashes)
grooving 27% (run-off-road)
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 United States Unknown road Average 32% (all)
environment (edge line or Average 80% (head-on)
centreline not specified) Average 51% (run-off-road)
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 United States Pavement shoulder 22% (all)
grooving/strip 27% (run-off-road)
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 United States Groove shoulder 25% (all)
18% (injury)
17% (PDO)
27% (run-off-road)
Griffith in Bahar et al. 1999 United States Installing edge line Run-off-road type crashes
(2007) rumble strips 13% (injury, all freeways) std error: 12%
21% (all types, rural, freeway) std error: 10%
18% (all types, all freeways) std error: 7%
Smith et al. in Bahar et 2005 United States Installing edge line Run-off-road type crashes
al. (2007) rumble strips 34% (all types, rural, all roads)
16% (all types, rural, arterial roads)
34% (all types, rural, between ramps)
38% (all types, rural, highways)
36% (all types, rural, 3-lane roads)
32% (all types, rural, 2-lane roads)
NYSDPOT 2009 United States Intra-state before and 14% (all crashes)
after evaluation of 47% (night/wet pavement crashes)
shoulder rumble strips
installed on the shoulder
of high volume roads
Elvik et al. 2009 Various Summary of various 10% (total crashes)
studies regarding the 25% (single vehicle crashes)
effect of installing 16% (run-off-road, all severities – controlled for
shoulder rumble strips on publication bias)
roads 52% (run-off-road, injury crashes)
44% (run-off-road, all severities – not controlled
for publication bias)
Austroads 2012
— 38 —
ADOT 2009 United States Before and after All crash types:
evaluation of roadside 53% (all casualties), 83% (fatalities),
countermeasures 65% (injuries)
including the installation Run-off-road crashes:
of rumble strips in the 54% (all casualties), 75% (fatalities),
State of Arizona 56% (injuries)
(edge line or centreline Side-swipe crashes and head-on crashes:
not specified) 80% (all casualties)
ADOT 2009 United States Shoulder grooving All crash types:
18% (all casualties), 15% (fatalities),
18% (injuries)
run-off-road crashes:
27% (all casualties), 12% (fatalities),
27% (injuries)
AASHTO 2010 United States Unknown study on milled- Rural multi-lane divided
in shoulder rumble strips 16% (all types, all severities) std error: 10%
on rural multilane divided 17% (all types, injury crashes) std error: 20%
highways and installing 10% (run-off-road, all severities) std error: 30%
continuous rumble strips 12% (run-off-road, injury crashes) std error: 30%
on freeway shoulders Freeways
79% (run-off-road, urban/rural freeway, all
crash severities) std error: 7% – specific subset
of run-off-road crashes)
crash severities) std error: 10%
injury crashes) std error: 20%
21% (run-off-road, rural freeway, all severities)
std error: 20%
7% (run-off-road, rural freeway, injury crashes)
std error: 30%
Austroads 2010 Australia Profile edge lining, or 23% (all crash types)
shoulder grooving
Thirteen studies provided crash reduction factors associated with profile edge lines for all crashes.
Injury crashes were used where available. The average reduction in casualty crashes identified as
a result of the installation of profile edge lines (or shoulder grooving/rumble strips) was 21%
(rounded to 20%). There is a medium level of confidence, as while there was a range in the
reductions, many of the studies identified reductions that were similar to the estimated value.
Nineteen studies provided crash reductions for run-off-road type crashes; the average of these was
39% (rounded to 40%). This figure was assessed as of a low level of confidence due to the wide
spread of crash reduction factors. It was also noted that a number of studies provided crash
reductions for a number of road environments (Bahar et al. 2007 & AASHTO 2010).
Austroads 2012
— 39 —
C.4.2 Profile Centre Lining, Centreline Rumble Strip

Delaware State 1995 United States Installation of centreline 39% (head-on crashes)
(in AASHTO n.d.) rumble strips on two-lane 100% (fatal head-on crashes)
rural highways 14% (injury head-on crashes)
68% (PDO crashes)
RTA 1995 Australia Installation of 10% (off carriageway on curve)
audio-tactile centreline 10% (off carriageway on curve into object)
Fitzpatrick et al. 2000 United States Installation of centreline 58% (head-on crashes)
rumble strips
Outcalt 2001 United States Installation of centre 34% (head-on crashes)
rumble strips on two-lane 36% (side-swipe crashes)
mountain highways
Baas, Charlton & de 2001 New Zealand Installation of centreline 21–37% (head-on and side-swipe crashes)
Jong rumble strips
Persaud, Retting, & Lyon 2003 Canada Installation of centreline 14% (total crashes)
rumble strips on 25% (head-on and side-swipe crashes)
undivided two-lane roads
Carrasco et al. in Bahar 2004 United States Installing centreline 22% (injury, rural, multi-lane divided)
et al. (2007) rumble strips before/After study)
10% (all types, rural, multi-lane divided)
before/After study)
Patel et al. in Bahar et al. 2007 United States Installing centreline 18% (fatal/injury, rural, 2-lane roads) standard
(2007) rumble strips error: 12%
13% (all types, rural, 2-lane roads) standard
error: 8%
Elvik et al. 2009 Various Summary of various 4% (total crashes) (CI:19%, –13%)
studies regarding the 24% (head-on, injury crashes) (33%, 13%)
effect of installing
centreline rumble strips
on roads
AASHTO 2010 United States Centreline rumble strips 14% (all types, all severities) std error: 5%
for rural two-lane roads 15% (all types, injury crashes) std error: 8%
21% (head-on & opposing direction side-swipe,
all severities) std error: 10%
25% (head-on & opposing direction side-swipe,
injury crashes) std error: 20%
Five studies provided general crash reductions for the provision of profile centrelines. Injury
crashes were used where available. The effectiveness of profile centrelines in reducing crashes of
all types was found to be 15% (medium level of confidence).
Austroads 2012
— 40 —
Six studies provided crash reductions for head-on type crashes. The average reduction was 30%,
which is within the effectiveness range identified by Baas, Charlton and de Jong (2001). The figure
was assessed as having a low level of confidence due to the wide spread of crash reduction
factors in the literature reviewed. Note that the Persaud, Retting and Lyon (2003) crash reduction
factor for ‘head-on and side-swipe crashes’ was considered a ‘head-on’ crash type for this study
because other studies from North America discuss ‘head-on and opposing direction side-swipe’
which is ‘head-on’ in the Australian context. Further, inclusion of this figure did not change the
identified crash reduction figure.
References assessed
AASHTO n.d., Head on collisions: description of strategies, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA, viewed 7 February 2006,
<http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/HOcrashes/description_of_strat.htm>
st
ADOT 2009, ‘Benefit/cost ratio economic analysis, section 231’, in Traffic engineering policies, guides and
procedures (PGP), Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ. viewed 25 July 2011, <
http://www.azdot.gov/highways/Traffic/standards/PGP/TM231.pdf>.
Austroads 2010, Road safety engineering risk assessment: part 6: crash reduction rates, AP-T151-10,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Baas, P, Charlton, S & de Jong D 2001, Review of lane delineation, Transport Engineering Research NZ,
Maukau City, New Zealand.
Bahar, G, Masliah, M, Wolff, R & Park, P 2007, Desktop reference for crash reduction factors, report FHWA-
SA-07-015, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, USA.
Cairney, P 1993, ‘Current issues in delineation’, Road and Transport Research, vol.2, no.2, pp.28-39.
Cairney, P 1996, ‘Evaluation of audible edge lines’, contract report CR C5567, ARRB Transport Research
Ltd, Vermont South, Victoria, Australia.
Corben, B Newstead, S Diamantopoulou, K & Cameron, M 1996, Results of an evaluation of TAC funded
accident black spot treatments. Combined 18th ARRB Transport Research Conference and Transit
New Zealand Land Transport Symposium, 1996, Christchurch, New Zealand. ARRB Transport
Research Ltd, Vermont South, Victoria, Australia.
nd
Fitzpatrick, K, Balke, K Harwood DW & Anderson, IB 2000, Accident mitigation guide for congested rural
two-lane highways. NCHRP report 440, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C.
Austroads 2012
— 41 —
Gan, A, Shen, J & Rodriguez, A 2005, Update of Florida crash reduction factors and countermeasures to
improve the development of district safety improvement projects, Lehman Centre for Transportation
Research, Miami, Florida, USA.
Harwood, D W 1995, ‘Enhancing highway safety with rumble strips’, TR News, 178, pp. 12-16.
Hickey, JJ 1997, ‘Shoulder rumble strip effectiveness: drift-off-road accident reductions on the Pennsylvania
Turnpike’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1573, pp.105-9.
New York State Department of Transport 2009, PIES: reduction factor report, NYSDOT, Albany, New York.
Outcalt, W 2001, Centerline Rumble Strips, report CDOT-DTD-R-2001-8, Colorado Department of

Transportation, Denver, Colorado.
Perrillo, K 1998, The effectiveness and use of continuous shoulder rumble strips, Federal Highway
Administration, Albany, New York.
Persaud, BN, Retting, RA & Lyon, C 2003, Crash reduction following installation of centerline rumble strips
on rural two-lane roads, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada.
RTA NSW 1995, Accident investigation and prevention: policy and guidelines; version 1.0, no: 95.090,
Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.
Shen, J Rodriguez, A Gan, A & Brady, P 2004, ‘Development and application of crash reduction factors: A
state-of-the-practice survey of State Departments of Transportation’, Transportation Research Board
annual meeting, 83rd, Washington DC, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Wood, NE 1994 Shoulder rumble strips: a method to alert ‘drifting’ drivers, Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Austroads 2012
— 42 —
C.5 Signs – Regulatory

Summary of research
General
Creasey and Agent 1985 US All regulatory signs at 50%
intersections
Moses 1982 Australia Regulatory signs at 38%
intersections
Mountain, Jarret & 1995 UK Install mandatory signs 55%
Fawaz
Ermer, Fricker & Sinha 1991 Indiana, US Sign installation CRF 0.15
(regulatory signs not
specified)
Install stop sign
Andreassen 1989, but based Australia Stop sign 60%
on 1962 study
Ewing 1999 US Stop 70%
Shen et al. 2004 US Stop sign 35%
Elvik et al. 2009 Various Stop at three-leg 19% injury crashes
intersection
Stop – two-way at four- 35% injury crashes
leg intersection
Kulmala, R 1994 Finland Stop sign:
Three-leg intersection 46% all crashes, 9% injury crashes
Four-leg intersection 2% all crashes, 12% injury crashes

Agent et al. 1996 US Two-way stop 35% all crashes
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Two-way stop 35%
El-Basyouny & Sayed 2010 Canada Stop – two-way at four- 51%
leg intersection
Guyano-Cardona, 2002 Australia Four-way stop in 83%
Sylvester & Jenkins Australia
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 US Four -way stop 55% all crashes
Jones
Bahar et al. 2007 Various Double stop sign All 11%
(mainly US) (presume two-way stop) Right angle 36–55%
Elvik et al. 2009 Various Four -way stop 45%
Bahar et al. 2007 Various Two-way to four-way stop All: 47–64%
(mainly US) Urban injury 71%
Urban right-turn 20%
Pedestrians 39%
Rear-end 13%
Right angle 15–47%
Austroads 2012
— 43 —

Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Two-way to four-way stop All: 53%
Rear-end: 13%
Right angle 72%
Right-turn 20%
Pedestrians 39%
Harkey et al. 2008 US Combination to four-way All crashes: 0.53 CMF
stop Angle: 0.28 CMF
Rear-end: 0.87
Right-turn: 0.8
Pedestrian: 0.61
Injury: 0.29 CMF
AASHTO 2010 US Two-way to four-way stop CMF 0.3 (urban)
CMF 0.52 (rural) but all severities
Install Give-way sign
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 US Give way sign 45% all crashes
Jones
Elvik et al. 2009 Various Give Way sign 3% injury crashes
3% property damage only crashes
Shen et al. 2004 US Give way sign 29%
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Give way sign 31%
Right angle 43%
Stop sign to Give way sign
Pegrum, Lloyd & Willett 1972 Australia Stop sign to give way 11% increase
– undivided
Bahar et al. 2007 Various Stop sign to give way All: 137% increase
(mainly US) sign Urban: 127% increase
Harkey et al. 2008 US Stop sign to give way All: 2.37 CMF
sign
Elvik et al. 2009 Various Replace stop with give 39% increase
way sign
Give way sign to Stop sign
Bahar et al. 2007 Various Replace give way with All 29%
(mainly US) stop sign Right angle 9% (left angle Australia)
Right-turn and U-turn ban
Brich & Cottrell 1995 US No U-turn, ban right-turn 66%
at signalised intersections
Austroads 2009 Australia Ban right-turn 50% reduction in opposing turns, parallel lanes
(based on the revised turning and loss of control crashes
tables for FORS, 1996 –
prepared by Dr David Ban left-turn 50% reduction in rear-end, parallel lanes
Andreassen for the turning and loss of control crashes
Australian Transport
Safety Bureau) 50% reduction in U-turn, rear-end, parallel
Ban U-turn
lanes turning and loss of control crashes
Austroads 2012
— 44 —

Bahar et al. 2007 Various No U-turn & ban right-turn All: 62%
(mainly US) Right or U-turn: 59%
Right-turn ban All: 45%

Right-turn: 90%
Pedestrian: 10%
Rear-end: 30%
AASHTO 2010 US Right-turn ban at stop & CMF 0.32 (all intersection crashes, all
signalised intersections, severities), right-turn CMF 0.36
and median crossovers
No U-turn & ban right-turn CMF 0.28 (all intersection crashes, all
severities), right-turn CMF 0.23
Neuman et al. 2003 US Turn restriction or Dependent on effect diverted traffic will have
prohibition on other routes
C.5.1 General: Regulatory Signs at Intersections

Three studies provided a general crash reduction for the installation of regulatory signs at
intersections:
 Creasy and Agent: 50%
 Moses: 38%
 Mountain, Jarret and Fawaz: 55%.
It is recommended that a general reduction not be used, as there is generally sufficient information
on stop and give way signs to provide separate figures for each of these, which would be more
useful for practitioners. These figures also seem high compared to reductions associated with stop
and give way signs individually.
Note, the Andreassan (1989) figure for installation of a stop sign has not been included due to the
age of the study (based on 1962 data). Ewing (1999) and Shen et al. (2004) provide general
reductions for installation of a stop sign. These figures have not been included as there is a large
variation in results for these studies, and there is generally sufficient information on stop signs at
three and four-leg intersections to provide separate figures for each of these.
Haleem, Abdel-Aty and Mackie (2010) note that stop signs (rather than give way signs) tend to be
installed at locations where crashes are more likely to happen.
It should be noted that selection of stop or give way signs for a given location is generally dictated
by relevant warrants, which relate to sight distance, rather than selecting them based on potential
crash reductions. It is important that regulatory signs are installed in accordance with the relevant
warrants, in order to provide a consistent approach to intersection management for drivers.
C.5.2 Stop Signs at Three-leg Intersections

Only two studies were found that provided figures for provision of stop signs at three-leg
intersections (Elvik et al. 2009 19% injury; Kulmala 1994 9% injury). Based on these, a reduction
of 14% is proposed (rounded to 15%). Low confidence is placed in this estimate as it uses only
two studies and there is quite a large variation in results from those studies.
Austroads 2012
— 45 —
C.5.3 Stop Signs at Four-leg Intersections

Six studies provided crash reductions for installation of stop signs at four-leg intersections:
 Kulmala: 12% injury (2% all)
 Elvik et al.: 35%
 Agent, Stamatiadis and Jones: 35%
 Gan, Shen and Rodriguez: 35%
 El-Basyouny: 51.5%
 Bahar et al.: 11% (angle crashes 36–55%).
Based on these, an average crash reduction of 30% is proposed. There is medium confidence in
this figure, as it is based a number of studies, although there is quite a large variation in some
results.
C.5.4 Four-way Stop Signs

Three studies provided crash reductions for installation of four-way stop signs (Guyano-Cardona
83%, Agent, Stamatiadis & Jones 55%, Elvik et al. 45%) which provided an average crash
reduction of 61% (rounded to 60%, low confidence). Similar results were found for conversion of
two-way to four-way stops. Interestingly, AASHTO reported larger crash reductions for urban
environments.
C.5.5 Give-way Signs

Four studies provided crash reductions for installation of give-way signs:
 Elvik et al.: 3%
 Shen et al.: 29%
 Gan, Shen and Rodriguez: 31%.
The reductions from these studies vary considerably. The average of these is 27% (rounded to
25%). However, it is unclear whether this figure applies to three-leg or four-leg intersections or
both. It is noted that for the installation of stop signs, the crash reduction is considerably lower at
three-leg compared to four-leg intersections. There is low confidence in this figure.
C.5.6 Stop Sign to Give-way Sign

Four studies provided figures for conversion of stop to give-way control:
 Pegrum, Lloyd and Willett: 11% increase
 Bahar et al.: 137% increase
 Harkey et al.: same as Bahar et al.
 Elvik et al.: 39% increase.
The figures in each of the studies were very different, and therefore the information is not
considered reliable enough to provide a recommended crash reduction.
Austroads 2012
— 46 —
C.5.7 Give-way Sign to Stop Sign

One study provided a crash reduction for the situation of replacing a give-way sign with a stop sign.
Due to lack of data, an associated crash reduction is not recommended.
C.5.8 U-turn and Right-turn Ban

A number of studies provide crash reductions for right-turn bans, or U-turn and right-turn bans, with
crash reductions ranging from 45% to 72%. Given the limited studies available, and uncertainty in
crash reductions, an overall figure of 61% is recommended (rounded to 60%, medium confidence).
As observed by Neuman et al. (2003), the actual crash reduction experienced will be dependent on
the effect that diverted traffic has on nearby routes and intersections, and therefore consideration
needs to be given to the potential for crash migration.
References assessed
st
NSW.
Brich, SC & Cottrell, BH Jnr 1995, Guidelines for the use of no u-turn and no left-turn signs, report VTRC
95-R5, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Cairney, P 1984, ‘Casualty accidents in the vicinity of traffic control devices’, Ergonomics society conference,
1984, Exeter, UK, Taylor and Francis, pp. 210-215.
El-Basyouny, K & Sayed, T 2010, ‘A full bayes approach to before-after safety evaluation with matched
th
comparison’, 89 annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.
nd
Ermer, DJ, Fricker, JD & Sinha, KC 1991, Accident reduction factors for Indiana, JHRP-91-11, Purdue
Austroads 2012
— 47 —
Guyano-Cardona, J, Sylvester, P & Jenkins, I 2002, ‘Four-way stop signs: the Newcastle experience,’
Travelator, Proceedings of the 2002 AITPM National Conference, AITPM, Thornleigh, NSW.
Haleem, K, Abdel-Aty, M & Mackie, K 2010, ‘Using a reliability process to reduce uncertainty in predicting
crashes at unsignalized intersections’, Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 42, no.2, pp. 654-66.
Harkey, DL, Srinivasan, R, Baek, J, Council, FM, Eccles, K, Lefler, N, Gross, F, Persaud, B, Lyon, C,
Hauer, E & Bonneson, JA 2008, Accident Modification Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS
Improvements, NCHRP report 617, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Moses, P 1982, ‘Traffic signs evaluated’, Western Roads, Main Roads Western Australia, vol.7, no.3, 7pp.
Mountain, L, Jarret, D & Fawaz, B 1995, ‘The safety effects of highway engineering schemes,’ Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Transport, vol.111, no.4, pp.298-309.
Neuman TR, Pfefer R, Slack KL, Kennedy Hardy K, Harwood DW, Potts IB, Torbic DJ, Kohlman Rabbani ER
2003, Guidance for implementation of the AASHTO strategic highway safety plan: volume 5: A guide
for addressing unsignalized intersection collisions, NCHRP report 500, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Pegrum, BV, Lloyd, ER & Willett, P 1972, ‘Experience with priority roads in the Perth metropolitan area’,
th
Australian Road Research Board conference, 6 , Canberra, Australian Road Research Board,
Vermont South, Vic, vol.6, no.3, pp.363-383.
C.6 Traffic Signals

Summary of research
Due to the volume of information on this topic, the summary tables have been split into ‘provision
of new signals’, and the ‘effect of turn phases’.
C.6.1 New Signals

Corben, Ambrose & 1990 Australia Blackspots 53%
Chee Wai
Austroads 2012
— 48 —

Ogden 1996 Australia, UK, New signals 15 – 53% (overall) (1 instance with site with low
(referenced 5 studies US crash numbers resulted in 5.3% increase)
including Corben 1990) Angle crashes: 52 – 84%
Rear-end: 31% reduction to 65%
Turn opposing direction: 52% – 75%
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 US Safety improvement General: 25%
Jones programs Angle crashes: 65%
Newstead & Corben 2001 Australia Blackspots 32%
BTE 2001 Australia Blackspots
New signals, no arrows 47.1%
(urban)
New signals, with arrows 42.9%
(urban)
New signals, no arrows 76.0%
(rural)
New signals, with arrows 37.3%
(rural)
Thomas & Smith 2001 US New traffic signals 27%
New signals + turn lane 20%
Persaud et al. 2003 US Urban – three-leg All crashes: 14%
intersections Right-angle crashes: 34%
Rear-end crashes: 50% increase
Urban – four-leg All crashes: 27%

intersections Right-angle crashes: 67%
Rear-end crashes: 38% increase
Pernia et al. 2004 US Rural and urban All crashes: 0.58% increase in crashes
Rear-end: 81.81% increase
Angle: 29.02% reduction
Left-turn: 28.24% reduction
Right-turn: 50.2% reduction
Side-swipe: 28.57% increase
Pedestrian: 17.4% reduction
All other: 131.7% increase
Fatal: 38% reduction

Injury: 5% reduction
No injury: 14.8% increase
Rural: 35.03% reduction
Urban: 16.6% increase
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US New signals All: 22%
Rear-end: 21%
Left angle: 58%
Overturn: 21%
New signals from two-way All:36%

stop Injury: 53%
Rear-end: 8%
Left angle: 74%
Scully et al. 2006 Australia All signal treatments 35.0%
New signals 49.9%
Fully controlled right turn 26.6%
Mast arm 33.1%
Austroads 2012
— 49 —

DIER 2007 Australia Blackspots (only 2 sites) 71% reduction in casualty crashes
Adjacent approaches: 100%
Rear-end: 22%
Pedestrian: 22%
Bahar et al. 2007 US Not given <5000 veh/lane/day: 38%
>5000 veh/lane/day: 20
Rural: 15%
Urban: 17%
FHWA (includes 2009 US Install signals All severities: 20–38%
references to a number Fatal crashes: 38%
of others already Urban casualty three-leg: 14%
referenced)
Urban casualty four-leg: 23%
Rural: 15%
Harkey et al. 2008 US Install signals Urban three-leg: all crashes: 0.86 CMF, angle
0.66 CMF, rear-end 1.5 CMF
Urban four-leg: all crashes: 0.77 CMF, angle
0.33 CMF, rear-end 1.38 CMF
Rural: all crashes: 0.56 CMF, angle 0.23 CMF,

rear-end 1.58 CMF, right-turn 0.4 CMF
Meuleners et al. 2008 Australia Install signals 21.2%
Elvik et al. 2009 International Not given signalising a three-leg intersection: 15% (95%
Cl: 25; 5)
signalising a four-leg intersection: 30%
(95% Cl: 35; 25)
AASHTO 2010 US Urban, speed limit at least Install signals
40 mph, four-leg All crash types, all severities CMF 0.95
intersections (standard error 0.09)
Right-angle crashes, all severities CMF 0.33

Rear-end crashes, all severities 2.43 (standard

error 0.4)
AASHTO 2010 US Rural, three and four-leg Install signal
intersections All crash types, all severities CMF 0.56
Right angle crashes, all severities CMF 0.23

Left-turn crashes, all severities CMF 0.40

Rear-end crashes, all severities 1.58

In relation to all crashes, seven studies provided general crash reductions for installation of traffic
signals. However, the figure from Tasmania was based on only two sites, and appeared to be an
outlier. Therefore it was omitted. Based on the remaining six studies, a reduction of 30% is
recommended. Due to the variability in results, there is a low level of confidence in this figure.
Austroads 2012
— 50 —
In relation to crash types, three studies provided figures for reductions in angle crashes and two
studies provided results for rear-end crashes. Studies showed mixed results for rear-end crashes,
with many showing increases in this crash type. Based on these results a general reduction of
50% for angle crashes, and a 30% increase in rear-end crashes are recommended.
Installation of signals is likely to result in an increase in rear-end crashes, but reduce angle and
pedestrian-type crashes, which are often higher severity.
A number of studies provided figures for installing signals at three and four-leg intersections.
There appears to be greater benefit for signalisation of four-leg intersections, which is not
surprising as movements at four-leg intersections are generally more complicated than at three-leg
intersections.
A number of studies also provided figures for the provision of signals at urban and rural
intersections. Based on these, there are some mixed results, however there appears to be great
improvement for rural installations.
C.6.2 Effect of Turn Phases

Corben, Ambrose & 1990 Australia Blackspots Right-turn phase installation 44%
Chee Wai
Hall in Wilke & Appleton 1993 New Zealand Lag right-turn (filter right- 30%
(2005) turns, followed by right-
turn arrow)
Lead right-turn (right-turn 68%
arrow, followed by filter
right-turns)
Fully controlled right-turn 90%
(no filtering)
Bui, Cameron & Foong 1991 Australia None to partially All: no significant effect (casualty)
controlled right-turn Right through: 18% increase
Cross traffic, pedestrian, rear-end & left rear: no
significant effect
Right rear: 85% reduction
Other: 32% reduction
Bui, Cameron & Foong 1991 Australia None to fully controlled All: 45% reduction (casualty)
right-turn Right through: 82% reduction
Cross traffic: 48% reduction
Pedestrian: 35% reduction
Right rear: no significant effect
Rear-end & left rear: 72% increase
Other: 33% reduction
Bui, Cameron & Foong 1991 Australia Partially controlled to fully All: 65% reduction (casualty)
controlled right-turn Right through: 93% reduction
Cross traffic: 51% reduction
Pedestrian, right rear, rear-end & left rear,
other: no significant effect
Ogden 1996 Australia, UK Fully controlled right-turn 33–73% (general)
(referenced 3 studies) 82% turn opposite direction
48% right angle
35% pedestrian
72% increase rear-end
Austroads 2012
— 51 —

Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 US Safety improvement General: 25%
Jones programs Exclusive right-turn phase; 25% (70% of
right-turn crashes)
Protected/permissive right-turn phase: 10%
(40% of right-turn crashes)
Newstead & Corben 2001 Australia Blackspots
Fully controlled right-turn 32%
Thomas & Smith 2001 US Add phasing to existing 36%
signals
Add phasing + turn 58%
lane(s)
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Exclusive right-turn All crashes: 27%, rear-end 31%, left angle 68%,
right-turn 48%, overturn 31%
Protected/permissive All crashes: 10%, right-turn 40%

right-turn
Lyon et al. 2005 US Urban Protected right-turn phase:
(in Bahar et al. 2007) 16% right-turn
19% angle
Bahar et al. 2007 US Urban Protected/permissive right-turn phase: 16% of
right-turn crashes, 12% left-angle crashes
(casualty crashes)
Leading green arrow: 17% of right-turn crashes,
25% left-angle crashes (casualty crashes)
FHWA (includes 2009 US Protected right-turn Urban casualties: 16% right-turn, 19% left-angle
references to a number
of others already All severities: 27–36%
referenced) Right-turn: 41–48%
Left angle: 54–63%
Rear-end: 27–35%
Elvik et al. 2009 International Right-turn crashes Establishing right-turn phase
No severity info:
CRF 10% (95% CI -15;-5)
Elvik text = ‘many of the results given are very
uncertain and should be treated with
scepticism’
Elvik et al. 2009 International Right-turn crashes Separate right-turn phase
(Fully controlled right turn)
No severity info:
CRF 58% (95% CI -64;-50)
scepticism’
Elvik et al. 2009 International Conflict-free phase changes
Injuries CRF 75% (95% CI -90;-35)
scepticism’
AASHTO 2010 US Urban three and four-leg Left-turn crashes – all severities:
signalised intersections CMF 0.01 (standard error 0.01)
Change to protected All types of crashes – all severities:

(controlled) phasing CMF 0.94 (standard error 0.1)
Austroads 2012
— 52 —

AASHTO 2010 US Urban four-leg signalised Change from filtered to semi-controlled
(major road 3000 to For left-turn injuries CMF 0.84 (standard error
77 000 v/p/d and minor 0.02)
road 1 to 45 500)
AASHTO 2010 US Urban four-leg signalised Change from filtered to semi-controlled
– unspecified AADT For all crash types and all severities CMF 0.99
(standard error unknown)
One study considered the provision of fully controlled right-turns, provision of partial control and
changing partial to full control (Bui et al. 1991). The study (p.25) observed that ‘full control of
right-turns yields poorer intersection performance than partial control under virtually all conditions.
The differences in performance, particularly between partial and full control, were slight and are
unlikely to negate the safety advantages’.
Ten studies provided figures for the provision of fully controlled right-turns.
Five studies provided general reductions for the provision of fully controlled right-turns
(Corben et al. 1990, Bui, Cameron & Foong 1991, Agent, Stamatiadis & Jones 1996, Newstead &
Corben 2001 and Gan, Shen J & Rodriguez 2005). Based on these, a reduction of 35% is
recommended (with a medium level of confidence). A number of studies also provided guidance
for different crash types. Based on these, a reduction of 60% for right through crashes (low
confidence) and 45% for adjacent direction crashes (low confidence) is recommended. There is
mixed information regarding the effect on rear-end crashes, and so a recommended crash
reduction has not been provided.
Five studies provided figures for the provision of partially controlled right-turns. However, only one
study provided a general figure of 10% (Agent, Stamatiadis & Jones 1996). There is low
confidence in this figure as it is only based on one study.
Two studies provided figures for changing partial to full control (Bui, Cameron & Foong 1991 and
Elvik et al. 2009). Based on these, a general crash reduction of 70% is suggested.
References assessed
st
Bhesania, RP 1991, ‘Impact of mast-mounted signal heads on accident reduction’, ITE Journal, vol.61,
no.10, pp.25-9.
Bui, B, Cameron M & Foong, C 1991, Effect of right turn phases at signalised intersections: part 1: safety
performance, report 20, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Vic.
Austroads 2012
— 53 —
Corben, BF, Ambrose, C & Chee Wai, F 1990, Evaluation of accident black spot treatments, report 11,
Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Vic.
DIER 2007, An evaluation of the national blackspot programme in Tasmania, Traffic Standards Branch,
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Hobart, Tasmania.
nd
Felipe, E, Mitic, D & Zein, SR 1998, Safety benefits of additional primary signal heads, Insurance
Corporation Of British Columbia, Canada.
FHWA & Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003, Making intersections safer : a toolbox of engineering
countermeasures to reduce red-light running : an informational report, IR-115, Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, USA.
FHWA Office of Safety 2009a, Traffic signals, Intersection safety issue briefs, issue brief 5, FHWA-SA-10-
005 Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety, Washington, DC.
FHWA Office of Safety 2009b, Retroreflective borders on traffic signal backplate: a South Carolina success
story, FHWA-SA-09-011, Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety, Washington, DC.
Lyon, C, Haq, A, Persaud, BN & Kodama, ST 2005, ‘Development of safety performance functions for
signalized intersections in a large urban area and application to evaluation of left-turn priority
treatment’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1908, pp. 65-71.
Meuleners, L, Hendrie, D, Legge, M & Cercarelli, LR 2005, An evaluation of the effectiveness of the black
spot programs in Western Australia, 2000-2002, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA.
Meuleners, L, Hendrie, D, Lee, AH & Legge, M 2008, ‘Effectiveness of the black spot programs in Western
Australia’, Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol 40, no. 3, pp.1211-6.
Newstead, S & Corben, B 2001, Evaluation of the 1992-1996 Transport Accident Commission funded
accident black spot treatment program in Victoria, report 182, Monash University Accident Research
Centre, Clayton, Vic.
Pernia, J, Lu, JJ, Zhuo, Y & Snyder, D 2004, ‘Effects of traffic signal installation on intersection crashes’,
Advances in Transportation Studies, vol. 2, pp.83-96.
Persaud, B, McGee, H, Lyon, C & Lord, D 2003, ‘Development of a procedure for estimating expected safety
effects of a contemplated traffic signal installation’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1840, pp.96-
103.
Austroads 2012
— 54 —
Rodegerdts, LA, Nevers, B & Robinson, B 2004, Signalized intersections: informational guide, FHWA-HRT-
04-091, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC, USA.
Sayed, T, Leur, P & Pump, J 2005, ‘Safety impact of increased traffic signal backboards conspicuity’
Transportation Research Board annual meeting, 84th, 2005, Washington, DC, USA, TRB,
Washington, DC, USA.
Scully J, Newstead S, Corben B, & Candappa N, 2006, Evaluation of the effectiveness of the $240M
statewide blackspot program – Accident blackspot component, Monash University Accident Research
Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
Srinivasan, R, Council, FM, Lyon, C, Gross, F, Lefler, NX & Persaud, BN 2008, ‘Safety effectiveness of
selected treatments at urban signalized intersections’, Transportation Research Record, no. 2056,
pp.70-6.
Thomas, GB & Smith, DJ 2001, Effectiveness of roadway safety improvements, final report, Center for
Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University, USA.
Turner, S, Turner, B & Wood, G 2008, ‘Accident prediction models for traffic signals’, ARRB conference,
23rd, 2008, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, ARRB Group Ltd, Vermont South, Vic, 20pp.
Wilke, A & Appleton, I 2005, ‘Audit of signalised intersections in New Zealand: recommendations for
practitioners’, Road and Transport Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp.72-77.
Austroads 2012
— 55 —
C.7 Signal Visibility

Summary of research
Bhesania 1991 US Replace pedestal with All crashes: 25%
mast arms Angle: 63%
Rear-end: 19%
Left-turn: 35% increase
Felipe, Mitic & Zein 1998 Possibly Canada Additional primary head All crashes: 28%
Injury crashes: 17%
Rear-end: 28%
Angle: 35%
PDO: 31%
Thomas & Smith 2001 US Replace pedestal with 35%
mast arms
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US 12-inch lens All crashes: 10%
Sayed, Leur & Pump 2005 US Improve visibility of signal All crashes: 7%
heads (increase signal Injury crashes: 3%
lens size, install new PDO: 9%
backboards, add
reflective tape to existing
backboards, and/or install
additional signal heads)
FHWA (includes 2009 US Yellow reflective tape All crashes: 15%
references to a number added to backplate
of others already
referenced) Add additional primary All crashes: 28%
head Angle: 35%
Rear-end: 28%
Fatal/injury: 17%
PDO: 31%
Pedestal to mast arm All crashes: 49

Fatal/injury: 44%
PDO: 51%
Right-turn: 12%
Angle: 74%
Rear-end: 41%
Improve visibility All crashes: 7%

Injury crashes: 3%
PDO: 9%
Rodegerdts, Nevers & 2005 US Pedestal to mast arm All crashes: 49
Robinson Fatal/injury: 44%
PDO: 51%
Right-turn: 12%
Angle: 74%
Rear-end: 41%
Srinivasan et al. 2008 US 12-inch lens All crashes: 3%
Angle: 42%
Harkey et al. 2008 US 12-inch lens All crashes: 97 CMF
Angle: 0.58 CMF
Elvik et al. 2009 International Secondary signal 25% (95% CI -50; +5)
Improving sight 40% (95% CI -45; -35)
conditions, signal heads &
signal posts
Austroads 2012
— 56 —
A number of studies provided figures for improving signal visibility.
Three studies provided reductions for replacing a pedestal mount with a mast arm mount signal
(Bhesania, Thomas & Smith, Rodegerdts, Nevers & Robinson). Based on these, a reduction of
35% is recommended (low confidence).
Two studies provided reductions for the increasing lens size to 12 inches (Gan, Shen & Rodriguez
and Srinivasan et al.). Based on these, a reduction of 6% (rounded to 5%) is recommended (low
confidence).
Two studies provided reductions for the provision of an additional signal head (Felipe, Mitic & Zein
and Elvik et al.). Based on these, a reduction of 20% is recommended (medium confidence).
Studies have also considered general improvements (Sayed, Leur & Pump) and addition of yellow
reflective tape (FHWA). However, as there is generally only one study for each of these, a
recommended crash reduction has not been provided.
References assessed
Bhesania, RP 1991, ‘Impact of mast-mounted signal heads on accident reduction’, ITE Journal, vol.61,
no.10, pp.25-9.
nd
Felipe, E, Mitic, D & Zein, SR 1998, Safety benefits of additional primary signal heads, Insurance
Corporation Of British Columbia, Canada.
FHWA Office of Safety 2009a, Traffic signals, Intersection safety issue briefs, issue brief 5, FHWA-SA-10-
005 Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety, Washington, DC.
FHWA Office of Safety 2009b, Retroreflective borders on traffic signal backplate: a South Carolina success
story, FHWA-SA-09-011, Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety, Washington, DC.
Gan, A, Shen, J & Rodriguez, A 2005, ‘Update of Florida crash reduction factors and countermeasures to
improve the development of district safety improvement projects’, Lehman Centre for Transportation
Research, Miami, Florida.
Rodegerdts, LA, Nevers, B & Robinson, B 2005, Signalized intersections: informational guide, report FHWA-
HRT-04-091, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), McLean, VA, USA.
Sayed, T, Leur, P & Pump, J 2005, ‘Safety impact of increased traffic signal backboards conspicuity’
Transportation Research Board annual meeting, 84th, 2005, Washington, DC, USA, TRB,
Washington, DC, USA.
Austroads 2012
— 57 —
Srinivasan, R, Council, FM, Lyon, C, Gross, F, Lefler, NX & Persaud, BN 2008, ‘Safety effectiveness of
selected treatments at urban signalized intersections’, Transportation Research Record, no. 2056,
pp.70-6.
Thomas, GB & Smith, DJ 2001, Effectiveness of roadway safety improvements, final report, Center for
Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University, USA.
Austroads 2012
— 58 —
C.8 Channelisation at Intersections – Splitter and Median Islands

Summary of research
Teal in Ogden (1996) 1984 Australia Signalised intersections 26%
Unsignalised intersections 54%
County Surveyors’ 1989 US Rural painted 50%
Society in Ogden (1996)
Brude in Arndt (2004) 1991 Unknown Splitter island on 10%
secondary road
Ward in Ogden (1996) 1992 UK Rural painted 35%
LTSA 1997 NZ Splitter all sites 44%
LTSA 1997 NZ Rural intersections 38%
LTSA 1997 NZ Urban intersections 45%
LTSA 1997 NZ T-intersections 48%
LTSA 1997 NZ X-intersections 43%
BTE 2001 Australia Traffic island on approach 20% (not significant)
– rural
BTE 2001 Australia Traffic island on approach 36%
– urban
Newstead & Corben 2001 Australia Channelisation 36.4%
Splitter islands 26.6%
Gorell & Tootill 2001 UK Splitter islands (urban) 29%
Shen et al. 2004 US Mountable median at 15%
intersection
Shen et al. 2004 US Non-mountable median at 25%
intersections
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Channelisation at All: 22%
intersections
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Mountable medians All: 15%
Fatal: 90%
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Non-mountable medians All: 25%
Pedestrian: 25%
Meuleners et al. 2005 Australia Traffic island on approach All: 18.7%,cas: 30.9%
Seagull island All: 5.7% increase, cas: 2.1% increase
Left-turn slip All: 11.1%, cas: 21.2%
Indented right island All: 49.6%, cas: 61.8%
Freeman et al. 2008 NZ and France Splitter island on minor 30%
(quoted other approach
work)
Elvik et al. 2009 Various T-intersection full 24% increase
channalisation (physical)
Elvik et al. 2009 Various T-intersection side road 18% increase
Austroads 2012
— 59 —

Elvik et al. 2009 Various X-intersection full
channalisation
– physical 32%
– marked 57%
Elvik et al. 2009 Various X-intersection side road 20%
C.8.1 General
Three studies provided general figures for channelisation at intersections (channelisation refers to
situations where the island type is unclear; it may be a splitter, median island or both): Teal (1984),
Gan, Shen and Rodriguez (2005), and Corben and Newstead (2001). The Teal (1984) figure has
not been used, due to the age of the study. Therefore based on Gan et al. (2005) (22%), and
Corben and Newstead (2001) (36.4%) a reduction of 29% may be assumed (rounded to 30%).
There is low confidence in this figure.
C.8.2 Splitter Islands

There were five studies that provided overall (general) reductions for the installation of splitter
islands:
 LTSA: 44%
 Corben and Newstead: 26.6%
 Brude: 10%
 Meuleners et al.: 30.9%
 Freeman et al.: 30%.
The average of these is 28% (rounded to 30%). There is medium confidence in this figure, as it is
based on a number of studies, although there is quite a large variation in results from those
studies. However, this reduction is in line with the general result for channelisation.
When considering urban and rural environments:

 Urban: Gorell and Tootill (2006), LTSA (1997) and BTE (2001) indicate reductions for urban
environments (29%, 45% and 36% respectively). The average of these is 36% (rounded to
35%). There is medium confidence in this figure.
 Rural: LTSA (1997) and BTE (2001) also provided figures for rural intersections (38% and
20% respectively). As there are only two studies, and there is quite a large variation in the
results, no conclusion is drawn. However, based on these two studies, it is likely that lower
crash reductions would be achieved in rural environments than in urban environments.
Considering T-intersections versus cross-intersections, LTSA (1997) and Elvik et al. (2009)
provided figures for splitter islands at T-intersections and cross-intersections. Due to mixed
results, no conclusions are drawn.
C.8.3 Median Islands

Only two studies considered median islands (islands on through roads at intersections). It was
assumed that the benefit would be lower for median islands than for splitter islands, as other crash
types not influenced by islands occur more regularly on through roads. It was not possible to
Austroads 2012
— 60 —
distinguish between median and splitter islands from the BTE (2001) study, although this acted as
a guide. The figures based on Shen et al. (2004) were therefore used as follows:
 Install mountable median at intersection – 15% reduction.
 Install non-mountable median at intersection – 25% reduction.
There is low confidence in these figures as they are not based on any Australian or NZ research,
and they are based on a single study in which the source of the figures is not known.
References assessed
Arndt, O 2004, ‘Relationship between unsignalised intersection geometry and accident rates’, Doctor of
Philosophy Thesis, Queensland University of Technology and Queensland Department of Main
Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
nd
Freeman, JR, Bansen, JA, Wemple, B & Spinks, R 2008, Innovative Operational Safety Improvements at
Unsignalized Intersections, Kittelson & Associates for Florida Department of Transportation,
Tallahassee, Florida, US.
Gan, A, Shen, J & Rodriguez, A 2005, ‘Update of Florida crash reduction factors and countermeasures to
improve the development of district safety improvement projects’, Lehman Centre for Transportation
Gorell, RSJ & Tootill, W 2001, Monitoring local authority road safety schemes using MOLASSES, report TRL
512, TRL, Crowthorne, UK.
Land Transport Safety Authority 1997, Installation of throat & fishtail islands at intersections, Land Transport
Safety Authority, New Zealand.
spot programs in Western Australia, 2000-2002, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA.
Newstead, S & Corben, B 2001, Evaluation of the 1992-1996 Transport Accident Commission funded
accident black spot treatment program in Victoria, report 182, Monash University Accident Research
Centre, Clayton, Vic.
Austroads 2012
— 61 —
C.9 Grade Separated Intersections

Summary of research
Hedman in Ogden 1990 Sweden Cross intersections 50% – severity unknown
(1996)
Hedman in Ogden 1990 Sweden T-intersections 10% – severity unknown
(1996)
Walker & Lines in Ogden 1991 UK Not given 57% – severity unknown
(1996)
Amundsen & Elvik 2004 Sweden Sinsen-Storo – Oslo Injury accident reductions of 51%
before and after study – (95% CI -68; -27)
controlled for regression For Trondheim: 52% reduction
to the mean. Also (95% CI -71;-19)
compared results with These figures take into account
those for Oslo – in 1994 increase/decrease in traffic and regression to
new interchange opened the mean
– widened road from 4 to
6 lanes, moved tramline
off road, grade separated
(from signalised junction
and roundabout). Speed
went from 50 km/h
(mostly) to 70 or 80 km/h.
Minor access roads were
also removed.
Elvik et al. 2009 Europe T-junction instead of at- Unspecified severity: 16% reduction (95% CI
grade -33; +4)
Injury crashes: 24% reduction (95% CI -57 +33)
Elvik et al. 2009 Europe X-junction instead of Unspecified severity: 42% reduction (95% CI
at-grade -52; -30)
Injury crashes: 57% reduction (95% CI -62; -51)
PDO: 36% reduction
(95% CI -50; -19)
Elvik et al. 2009 Europe Signalised junction – Unspecified severity: 27% reduction
grade separated instead (95% CI -36; -18)
of at-grade Injury crashes: 28% reduction (95% CI -40; -15)
Elvik et al. 2009 Europe Grade separated instead Unspecified severity: 15% reduction
of partly at-grade (95% CI -24; -5)
Elvik et al. 2009 Europe Partly grade separated Unspecified severity: 115% increase
instead of at-grade (95% CI +52; +205)
X-junction with speed
camera
Elvik et al. 2009 Europe Partly grade separated Unspecified severity: 22% reduction
instead of signalised (95% CI -41; +3)
junction
Elvik et al. 2009 Europe Crossroad above instead Unspecified severity: 4% reduction
of below main road (95% CI -17; +10)
Elvik et al. 2009 Europe Diamond instead of Unspecified severity: 38% reduction
trumpet (95% CI -59; -7)
junction with direct (95% CI -59; +40)
access ramps
clover-leaf (95% CI -19; +18)
Austroads 2012
— 62 —

Elvik et al. 2009 Europe Diamond instead of loop Unspecified severity: 9% reduction
(95% CI -25; +10)
Elvik et al. 2009 Europe Diamond instead of other Unspecified severity: 7% reduction
(95% CI -17; +4)
AASHTO 2010 Unknown Convert at-grade to grade All severities – CMF 0.58 (standard error 0.1)
separated: Injury – CMF 0.43 (standard error 0.05)
Setting unspecified Non-injury – CMF 0.64 (standard error 0.1)
(four-leg intersection,
traffic control unspecified)
Traffic volume
unspecified
AASHTO 2010 Unknown Convert at-grade to grade All severities – CMF 0.84 (standard error 0.2).
separated: Less reliable CMF due to standard error
Setting unspecified All severities – CMF 0.73 (standard error 0.08)
(three-leg intersection, Injury – CMF 0.72 (standard error 0.1)
traffic control unspecified)
Traffic volume
unspecified
AASHTO 2010 Unknown Convert at-grade to grade All severities – CMF 0.96 (standard error 0.1)
separated: Notation = observed variability suggests this
Design = diamond, treatment could result in an increase, decrease
trumpet or cloverleaf with or no change in crashes
crossroad above freeway
Setting unspecified
Traffic volume
unspecified
The crash reduction factor (CRF) for grade separation of cross intersections is 55%. This
percentage is derived using the average of CRF data from Walker and Lines (57%), Hedman
(50%), Elvik et al. (57%), Amundsen and Elvik (51% and 52%), and the AASHTO (57%). This
CRF estimate is considered robust (i.e. high confidence) given the frequency of studies with similar
CRF values.
The CRF for T-intersections is 20%. This percentage is derived by taking the average of the
Hedman (10%), Elvik et al. (24%) and AASHTO (28%) studies. This result is considered less
reliable (medium confidence), as there are only three studies, and more variability in the results.
References assessed
st
Amundsen, AH & Elvik, R 2004, ‘Effects on road safety of new urban arterial roads’, Accident Analysis &
Prevention, vol. 36, no.1, pp.115-23.
nd
Elvik, R, Hoye, A, Vaa, T & Sorensen, M 2009, The handbook of road safety measures, 2 edn, Emerald
Austroads 2012
— 63 —
C.10 Right-turn Lane Provision

Summary of research
Creasey and Agent 1985 US Non signalised right-turn 60%
with kerb
Creasey and Agent 1985 US Non-signalised right-turn 30%
painted
Creasey and Agent 1985 US Right-turn lane without 25%
signals
Creasey and Agent 1985 US Right-turn lane with 30%
signals
Creasey and Agent 1985 US Signalised right-turn 15%
channelisation (no
right-turn phase)
VicRoads 1990 Australia Right-turn lane 40%
Ermer, Fricker & Sinha 1991 US Turn-lane construction 20%
Neuman in Ogden (1996) 1993 US Right-turn lane at 18–40%
signalised intersection
Harwood 1995 US Urban painted right-turn 35%
lane at intersection
LTSA 1994 NZ Right-turn lane – painted 33%
or installed
Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg rural All crashes:
unsignalised 28% at intersections
55% on approach
Casualty crashes:
35% at intersections
61% on approach
Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg rural signalised All crashes:
18%
Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg rural newly All crashes:
signalised 35% at intersections
44% on approach
Casualty crashes:
42% on approach
Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg urban All crashes:
20% on approach
Casualty crashes:
55% on approach
Austroads 2012
— 64 —

Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg urban signalised All crashes:
34% on approach
Casualty crashes:
9% at intersections
35% on approach
Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg urban newly All crashes:
signalised 24% at intersections
28% on approach
Casualty crashes:
43% on approach
Harwood et al. 2002 US Three-leg rural All crashes:
45% on approach
Casualty crashes:
44% on approach
Harwood et al. 2002 US Three-leg rural signalised All crashes: 15%
Harwood et al. 2002 US Three-leg urban newly All crashes: 68% on approach
signalised
Harwood et al. 2002 US Three-leg urban All crashes: 33% at intersections
unsignalised 32% on approach
Harwood et al. 2002 US Three-leg urban All crashes: 7%
signalised
Harwood et al. 2002 US Three-leg rural 49% (all crashes)
unsignalised kerbed
Harwood et al. 2002 US Three-leg rural 43% (all crashes)
unsignalised painted
Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg urban signalised 10% (all crashes)
kerbed
Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg urban signalised 9% (all crashes)
painted
Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg rural 57% (all crashes)
unsignalised curbed
Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg rural 23% (all crashes)
unsignalised painted
Harwood et al. 2000 Various, but Three-leg rural un- 22%
mainly US signalised
Harwood et al. 2000 Various, but Four-leg rural un- 24% (one approach on main road)
Harwood et al. 2000 Various, but Four-leg rural un- 42% (both approaches on main road)
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 US Right-turn lane with signal 25%
Jones
Austroads 2012
— 65 —

Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 US Right-turn lane without 35%
Jones signal
LTSA 1994 NZ Painted right-turn lanes 33%
BTE 2001 Australia Indented turn lane (left or 32%
right) urban
BTE 2001 Australia Indented turn lane (left or 28% (not signalised)
right) rural
Shen et al. 2004 US Right-turn lane without 32%
signals
Gluck et al. 1999 US Right-turn – signalised 41%
Gluck et al. 1999 US Right-turn – unsignalised 63%
Gluck et al. 1999 US Right-turn – unsignalised 65%
physical separation 24% casualty
Gluck, Levinson & Stover 1999 US Right-turn – unsignalised 28.5%
painted separation
Gluck, Levinson & Stover 1999 US Right-turn – signalised 40%
physical separation
Gluck, Levinson & Stover 1999 US Right-turn – signalised 15%
painted separation
Gluck, Levinson & Stover 1999 US Right-turn – signalised Rear-end: 17% increase and 59% reduction for
(4-lane arterials) entering vehicles – due to greatly different
results, these have not been averaged
Angle: 19.5% (from 9 and 38) for entering
vehicles
Right-turn: 55% (from 56, 43, 54 and 66), study
results for variety of scenarios: entering
vehicles, per leg, and turning vehicles)
Other: 51.5% (from 29 and 74) for entering
vehicles
Gluck, Levinson & Stover Right-turn – unsignalised Rear-end: 79% (from 87, 62 and 88) for
(4-lane arterials) entering vehicles
Angle: 17% increase (from 50% increase, 65%
reduction and 68% increase) for entering
vehicles
Right-turn: 72.5% (from 37, 90, 77 and 86),
study results for variety of scenarios: entering
vehicles, per leg, and turning vehicles)
Other: 49% (from 45 and 53) for entering
vehicles
Arndt 2004 Australia (Vogt 1999 study in 38%
four-leg intersections
based in US)
Arndt 2004 Australia Channelised right-turn Rear-end major: 98% lower than basic right-turn
lane (unsignalised) treatment
Rear-end major: 97% lower than auxiliary
right-turn treatment
Austroads 2012
— 66 —

Arndt 2004 Australia Auxiliary Right-turn lane Rear-end major: 42% lower than basic right-turn
(unsignalised) treatment
Meuleners et al. 2005 Australia Indented right island 49.6%
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Right-turn lane (signalised All: 28%
intersection) Right-turn: 40%
Overturn: 28%
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Right-turn lane All: 34%
(unsignalised intersection) Right-turn: 55%
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Painted lane (left/right not All: 32%
specified) Rear-end: 75%
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Provide Right-turn lane All: 25%
Rear-end: 65%
Angle: 50%
Side swipe: 20%
Right-turn: 53%
Elvik et al. 2009 Various Three-leg intersection:
Physical/marked Injury: 17%
Physical All crashes: 27%
Marked All crashes: 19%
Elvik et al. 2009 Various X-intersection:
Physical/marked Injury: 24%
Physical Injury: 4%
Marked Injury: 14% increase
AASHTO 2010 US Three-leg intersection:
right-turn lane on 1 major
approach:
Rural unsignalised All crashes: 0.56 CMF
Injury: 0.45 CMF
Urban unsignalised All crashes: 0.67 CMF

Injury: 0.65 CMF
Rural signalised All crashes: 0.85 CMF
Urban signalised All crashes: 0.93 CMF

Injury: 0.94 CMF
Austroads 2012
— 67 —

AASHTO 2010 US Four-leg intersection:
approach:
Injury: 0.65 CMF

Injury: 0.71 CMF

Injury: 0.91 CMF
Urban newly signalised All crashes: 0.76 CMF

Injury: 0.72 CMF
approaches:
Injury: 0.42 CMF

Injury: 0.50 CMF

Injury: 0.83 CMF
Urban newly signalised All crashes: 0.58 CMF

Injury: 0.52 CMF
right-turn lane on 4
approaches:
Rural Injury: 0.73 CMF
approaches:
right-turn lane on major
approaches:
Austroads 2012
— 68 —

right-turn lane on all
approaches (major &
minor):
C.10.1 All Locations

Five studies gave an overall figure for the installation of right-turn lanes (Ermer, Fricker & Sinha,
Meuleners et al., VicRoads, Gan, Shen & Rodriguez, and LTSA). These figures were 20% 49.6%,
40%, 25% and 33%. The average of these values is 34% (rounded to 35%, medium confidence).
It is noted that Arndt (2004) reviewed the effectiveness of different types of right-turn lane
installations (basic, auxiliary and channelised). Arndt found that channelised treatments
experienced considerably lower crashes than basic and auxiliary treatments.
C.10.2 Signals
Four studies provided general reductions for installation of right-turn lanes at signalised
intersections. Creasy and Agent 30%, Agent, Stamatiadis and Jones 25%, Gluck, Levinson and
Stover 41% and Gan, Shen and Rodriguez 28%. Based on these, a reduction of 30% is
recommended (medium confidence).
Harwood et al. (2002) provided figures for three and four-leg intersections, as well as for
intersection approach crashes.
It is noted that Gluck, Levinson and Stover provided crash effectiveness according to a number of
crash types (rear-end, angle, right-turn and other). An increase in rear-end type crashes was
noted, with reductions in angle, right-turn and other crash types.
While AASHTO provided some results for rural signalised intersections, these figures are not
considered applicable in the Australian context.
C.10.3 Unsignalised Intersections

Five studies provided general reductions for installation of right-turn lanes at unsignalised
intersections. Creasy and Agent 25%, Agent, Stamatiadis and Jones 35%, Shen et al. 32%,
Gluck, Levinson and Stover 63% and Gan, Shen and Rodriguez 34%. The average of these
figures was a 38% reduction, but given that the figure from Gluck et al. appeared to be an outlier,
this was rounded down to 35% (medium confidence). It was noted that the benefit identified in a
number of studies (e.g. Gluck, Levinson & Stover and Gan, Shen & Rodriguez) was generally
greater for sites that were not signalised.
The reductions derived for unsignalised and signalised is in line with the findings from Gluck,
Levinson and Stover (1999) and Harwood et al. (2002), who also indicated that it appears that
provision of a right-turn lane (painted or constructed) at unsignalised intersections may provide
greater reductions than at signalised.
It is noted that Gluck, Levinson and Stover provided crash reductions according to a number of
crash types (rear-end, angle, right-turn and other).
Austroads 2012
— 69 —
C.10.4 Rural
Four studies identified reductions in rural areas. The BTE identified a 28% reduction in casualty
crashes.
For unsignalised T-intersections, Harwood et al. (2000) identified a 22% reduction, Harwood et al.
(2002) identified a 44% reduction for all crashes (55% for casualty crashes), and AASHTO
identified a 44% reduction for all crashes (55% for casualty crashes). The average of these figures
(using casualty figures where available) was a 44% reduction, although a more conservative
reduction of 40% is recommended (low confidence).
For unsignalised X-intersections, Harwood et al. (2000) identified a 24% reduction (1 approach),
Harwood et al. (2002) identified a 28% reduction for all crashes (35% for casualty crashes), and
AASHTO (2010) identified a 28% reduction for all crashes (35% for casualty crashes). The
average of these figures (using casualty figures where available) was a 31% reduction, rounded to
30% (medium confidence).
Where reductions were available for 1 and 2 approaches, the reduction associated with the 1
approach treatment was selected, as this provides a more conservative estimate.
Harwood et al. (2002) also provided reductions for intersection approach crashes (as well as the
total intersection crashes).
While AASHTO provided some results for rural signalised intersections, these figures are not
considered applicable in the Australian and New Zealand context, as we tend not to have signals in
rural environments.
C.10.5 Urban
Four studies identified reductions in urban areas.
Harwood (1995) identified a 35% reduction of painted right-turn lanes at intersections in urban
areas, while the BTE identified a 32% reduction for the provision of turn lanes, however this was
for both right and left. Due to the limited information, a reduction has not been provided for this
treatment type.
For unsignalised T-intersections, Harwood et al. (2002) identified a 33% reduction for all crashes,
and AASHTO identified a 33% reduction for all crashes (35% for casualty crashes). Based on
these, a reduction of 35% is recommended. Given there are just two studies, there is a low level of
confidence.
For signalised T-intersections, Harwood et al. (2002) identified a 7% reduction for all crashes, and
AASHTO identified a 7% reduction for all crashes (6% for casualty crashes). Based on these, a
reduction of 5% is recommended. Given there are just two studies, and it is likely that these
reductions are based on the same data, there is a low level of confidence.
For unsignalised X-intersections, Harwood et al. (2002) identified a 27% reduction for all crashes
(29% for casualty crashes), and AASHTO identified a 27% reduction for all crashes (29% for
casualty crashes). Based on these, a reduction of 30% is suggested. Given there are just two
studies, and it is likely that these reductions are based on the same data, there is a low level of
confidence.
Austroads 2012
— 70 —
For signalised X-intersections, Harwood et al. (2002) identified a 10% reduction for all crashes (9%
for casualty crashes), and AASHTO (2010) identified a 10% reduction for all crashes (9% for
casualty crashes). Based on these, a reduction of 10% is suggested. Given there are just two
studies, and it is likely that these reductions are based on the same data, there is a low level of
confidence.
For newly signalised urban X-intersections, Harwood et al. (2002) identified a 24% reduction for all
crashes (28% for casualty crashes). These reductions were also noted in AASHTO.
Based on other evidence, it appears that reductions in rural areas were generally higher than in
urban areas from the installation of right-turn lanes (see especially Harwood). Therefore, a figure
of a 30% reduction in urban areas was selected as appropriate (low confidence).
C.10.6 Painted and Physical

A number of studies provided reductions for painted and/or physical right-turn lanes, summarised
in the table below:
Study Painted Physical
Creasy & Agent (1985) 30% 60%
Ermer (1991) 20%
LTSA (1994) 33%
Harwood (1995) 35% (Urban)
Gluck, Levinson & Stover. Unsignalised 28.5%, signalised 15% Unsignalised 65% (24% casualty), signalised 40%
(1999)
Harwood et al. (2002) Unsignalised three-leg rural 43%, four-leg rural Unsignalised three-leg rural 49%, four-leg rural
Unsignalised 23% and signalised 9% Unsignalised 57% and urban signalised 10%
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez (2005) 32%
Elvik et al. (2009) Three-leg 19% (all) and 14% increase for Three-leg 27% (all) and for X-intersections 4%
X-intersections (injury crashes) (injury)
Studies indicate that physical right-turn islands provide greater crash reductions than painted
islands. Crash reductions for X-intersections appear to be higher than for T-intersection (Harwood
et al. 2002 and Elvik et al.). For painted right-turn lanes, a mean of 32% was selected (based on
the general figures from Creasy and Agent, LTSA, Harwood and Gan, Shen & Rodriguez), rounded
to 30% (high confidence). Given this result, a reduction of 35% is recommended for the use of
physical right-turn islands (low confidence).
C.10.7 X and T-intersections

A number of studies provided reductions for T and X-intersections, summarised in the table below:
Study T-intersection X-intersection
Harwood et al. 2000 22% 24% 1 approach, 42% two approaches
Harwood et al. 2002 55% rural unsignalised (casualty) 35% rural unsignalised (casualty)
15% rural signalised (all crashes) 18% rural signalised (all crashes)
33% urban unsignalised (casualty) 29% urban unsignalised (casualty) (27% all)
7% urban signalised 9% urban signalised (10% all)
49% rural unsignalised kerbed 57% rural unsignalised kerbed
43% rural unsignalised painted 23% rural unsignalised painted
Austroads 2012
— 71 —
Study T-intersection X-intersection

Elvik et al. 2009 17% 24%
AASHTO 2010 27% (major approaches) 4% (major approaches)
16% increase (all approaches) 27% (all approaches)
More effective unsignalised than X 2 approaches better than T
(1 approach) More effective signalised than T (1 approach)
There is some information on the difference between installing right-turn lanes at X versus
T-intersections, with a slight trend for a greater crash reduction benefit at unsignalised
T-intersections, while for signalised intersections a greater benefit exists at X-intersections.
However, given the lack of reliable information on this issue, no figure has been provided. This
issue requires further research.
References assessed
Arndt, O & Troutbeck, R, 2004, ‘Relationship between unsignalised intersection geometry and accident rates:
final results, Road system and engineering forum 2004, Queensland Department of Main Roads,
Brisbane, Qld, 32pp.
Arndt, O & Troutbeck, R, 2006, ‘New warrants for unsignalised intersection turn treatments’, ARRB
conference, 22nd, 2006, Canberra, ACT, Australia, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic, 19pp.
nd
Ermer, DJ, Fricker, JD & Sinha, KC 1991, Accident reduction factors for Indiana, JHRP-91-11, Purdue
Gluck, J, Levinson, HS & Stover, V 1999, Impacts of access management techniques, NCHRP report 420,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Harwood, DW 1995, ‘Relationships between operational and safety considerations in geometric design
improvements’, Transportation Research Record, no.1512, pp.1-6.
Austroads 2012
— 72 —
Harwood D.W., Council F.M., Hauer E., Hughes W.E. & Vogt A. 2000, Prediction of the expected safety
Harwood, DW, Bauer, KM, Potts, IB, Torbic, DJ, Richard, KR, Kohlman Rabbani, ER, Hauer, E &
Elefteriadou, L 2002, Safety effectiveness of intersection left- and right-turn lanes, report FHWA-RD-
02-89, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), McLean, VA, USA.
Land Transport Safety Authority 1994, Right-turn treatment, Land Transport Safety Authority, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Lyon, C, Persaud, B, Lefler, N, Carter, D & Eccles, K 2008, ’Safety evaluation of installing center two-way
left-turn lanes on two-lane roads’, Transportation Research Record, no. 2075, pp. 34-41.
spot programs in Western Australia, 2000-2002, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA,
Australia.
Persaud, B, McGee, H, Lyon, C & Lord, D 2003, ‘Development of a procedure for estimating expected safety
effects of a contemplated traffic signal installation’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1840, pp.96-
103.
Yu, L, Qi, Y, Azimi, M, Gui, C & Guo, L 2007, Left-turn lane design and operation, for Texas Department of
Transport, Department of Transport Studies, Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas, USA.
Austroads 2012
— 73 —
C.11 Extend Right-turn Lane

Summary of research
Harwood et al. 2002 US Urban signalised right-turn 29.7% increase
(NZ/Australia)
Harwood et al. 2002 US Rural unsignalised 43% approach crashes
right-turn (NZ/Australia)
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 US 15%
Jones
Neuman et al. 2003 US Increase left-turn lane Reduction in rear-end crashes (extent
length (right for Australia) unknown)
Shen et al. 2004 US 25%
Arndt 2004 Australia Unsignalised intersections Rear-end-major vehicle accident rates on the
short length right-turn slots were not
significantly higher than that for the longer
turn slots. This indicates that use of short turn
slots may be an appropriate treatment to
provide at sites with lower turning volumes
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Increase turn-lane length 28%
(left/right not specified)
Yu et al 2007 US Increase left-turn lane Significant decrease in rear-end crashes
length (right for Australia)
The Harwood study showed an increase in crashes where right-turn lanes were extended at urban
signalised intersections, and a 43% reduction at rural unsignalised intersections. While these were
statistically significant results, they were based on very small sample sizes (3 and 4 respectively).
Three other studies gave results for extending right-turn lanes (Agent, Stamatiadis & Jones 15%,
Shen et al. 25% and Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 28%), all based on US research.
Neuman et al. noted that extending turn lanes will reduce rear-end collisions, although the study
did not provide an estimated reduction. They suggested that the reduction would likely be a
function of a number of site characteristics including existing lane length, traffic volume and sight
distance. However, Arndt (2004) observed that on major roads, ‘rear-end crash rates were not
significantly higher on the short turn lanes compared to the longer turn lane slots’. Based on this it
was decided not to provide an estimate of effectiveness.
References assessed
Austroads 2012
— 74 —
Yu, L, Qi, Y, Azimi, M, Gui, C & Guo, L 2007, Left-turn lane design and operation, for Texas Department of
Transport, Department of Transport Studies, Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas, USA.
Austroads 2012
— 75 —
C.12 Left-turn Lane Provision

Summary of research
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 US Left-turn lane 25%
Jones
Harwood et al. 2000 US Unsignalised three and One approach: 5%
four-leg Both major approaches: 10%
Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg rural 14% at intersections
unsignalised 27% on approaches
Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg urban 40% at intersections
unsignalised
Harwood et al. 2002 US Four-leg urban signalised 4% at signalised intersections
18% on approaches
Harwood et al. 2002 US Three-leg urban 45% on approaches
signalised
Shen et al. 2004 US Left-turn lane 32%
BTE 2001 Australia Indented right and 32%
left-turn – urban
BTE 2001 Australia Indented right and 28% (not signalised)
left-turn – rural
Arndt 2004 Australia Left-turn lane Channelised and auxiliary turn lanes – similar
safety benefits
Arndt 2004 Australia Auxiliary left-turn lane Rear-end major: 47% lower than basic left-turn
(unslgnalised) treatment
Meuleners et al. 2005 Australia Left-turn slip 11.1%
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Painted lane All: 32%
Rear-end: 75%
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Provide left-turn lane All: 25%
Rear-end: 65%
Angle: 50%
Side swipe: 20%
Left-turn: 53%
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 US Increase turn land length 28%
(left/right not specified)
Elvik et al. 2009 Various Left-turn lane on:
T or X-junction 7% reduction
T-junction 12% increase
X-intersection 19% reduction
AASHTO 2010 US Left-turn lane on 1 major
road approach:
three or four-leg All crashes: 0.86 CMF
unsignalised Injury: 0.77 CMF

signalised Injury: 0.91 CMF
Austroads 2012
— 76 —

AASHTO 2010 US Left-turn lane on 2 major
road approaches:
unsignalised Injury: 0.59 CMF

signalised Injury: 0.83 CMF
As a logic check, it was assumed that the benefit from a left-turn lane should be less than that for a
right-turn lane (which produced an overall reduction of 34%). There were seven studies that
provided an overall figure for the provision of a left-turn lane, as follows:
 Shen et al.: 32%
 BTE: 32% (urban) and 38% (rural)
 Meuleners et al.: 11.1%
 Gan, Shen and Rodriguez: 25%
 AASHTO: 23% (unsignalised) and 9% (signalised)
 Harwood et al. (2000): 5%.
The average of these is 22% (rounded to 20%). There is low confidence in this figure, as although
it is based on a number of studies, there is quite a large variation in results (and therefore CRFs)
from these studies. Where reductions were provided for the installation of a left-turn lane on one
and two approaches (i.e. Harwood et al. 2000, AASHTO), the figure for one approach was used as
this provides a more conservative estimate.
The Harwood et al. (2002) and BTE studies provided reductions for rural and urban areas. BTE
found a higher casualty crash reduction for urban areas (32%) than for rural (28%). Harwood et al.
(2002) found mixed results with the highest crash reduction (all crashes) for urban unsignalised
intersections (40%), followed by rural unsignalised (14%) and then urban signalised (4%). This
study provided casualty crash reductions for rural unsignalised (23%) and urban signalised (9%).
Note that the Harwood et al. results only applied to four-leg intersections.
There are limited and mixed results regarding provision of left-turn lanes at T-intersections versus
cross-intersections. Harwood et al. (2002) indicated a higher reduction for urban signalised
three-leg intersections (45% on approach) compared to four-leg intersections (18% on approach),
while Elvik et al. indicated a 12% increase for three-leg intersections compared to a 19% reduction
for four-leg intersections.
There are some indications that left-turns at rural T-intersections (at least in the US context) were
associated with increased crash risk. It has been suggested that this might be a result of a higher
proportion of turning movements rather than the provision of the turning lane itself.
Gan, Shen and Rodriguez provided indicative crash reductions by crash type, however as only one
study is available, it is not useful for this work.
Austroads 2012
— 77 —
References assessed
st
Arndt, O & Troutbeck, R, 2006, ‘New warrants for unsignalised intersection turn treatments’, ARRB
Conference, 22nd, 2006, Canberra, ACT, Australia, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic, 19pp.
NSW.
nd
spot programs in Western Australia, 2000-2002, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA,
Australia.
Neuman, TR, Pfefer, R, Slack, KL, Kennedy, Hardy, K, Harwood, DW, Potts, IB, Torbic, DJ, Kohlman
Rabbani ER 2003, Guidance for implementation of the AASHTO strategic highway safety plan –
volume 5: a guide for addressing unsignalized intersection collisions, NCHRP report 500,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Vogt, V & Bared, J 1998, ‘Accident models for two-lane rural segments and intersections’, Transportation
Research Record, no. 1635, pp.18-29.
Austroads 2012
— 78 —
C.13 Lane Width in Tunnels

Summary of research
Elvik et al. 2009 Unknown Unknown 40% reduction in injury crashes when
increasing tunnel width from less than 6 m to
more than 6 m.
No information was found on the effectiveness of changing lane widths in tunnels. Only one study
was identified that appeared to be related to this issue, which found a 40% reduction for an
increase in tunnel width. While this may be assumed to be linked with an increase in lane width,
other factors may also vary with increasing tunnel width. Given the lack of guidance on this topic,
additional information may be sought from literature on safety associated with lane widths
generally.
References assessed
nd
Austroads 2012
— 79 —
C.14 Overtaking Lanes

Summary of research
Parker et al. 1983 Rural 25% reduction when passing lanes installed
Parker et al. 1983 Rural 38% less crashes where overtaking lanes are
provided
Parker et al. 1983 USA Rural 25–27% reduction in crashes
Parker et al. 1983 25% reduction
Parker et al. 1983 20% reduction from no passing zone
Parker et al. 1983 10% reduction from no passing sign
Creasey & Agent 1985 USA Add passing lane results in 20% reduction
Creasey & Agent 1985 USA Add climbing lane results in 10% reduction
Ermer, Fricker & Sinha 1991 USA Construct passing blister = 20% reduction
Ermer, Fricker & Sinha 1991 USA Construct travel lane = 10% reduction
Ermer, Fricker & Sinha 1991 USA Upgrade no-passing zone = 30% reduction
VicRoads 1990 Australia Install overtaking lane = 25% reduction
Ogden 1992 Rural No statistically significant difference with
installation of overtaking lanes
Slop & Catshoek 1995 Europe Inter-urban roads Prevention of all dangerous overtaking
manoeuvres results in a 20% reduction
McLean 1996 US 25–38% reduction when overtaking lane
constructed on 2 lane highways
Thrush 1996 NZ 38% less crashes in sites with overtaking lanes
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 US Recommend 20% reduction with installation of
Jones a passing or climbing lane, and 40% reduction
in passing accidents with no passing zones
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 US Reported on mean reduction from literature of
Jones 48% for no passing zones, and 42% from state
surveys
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 US Reported on mean reduction from lit of 28%
Jones from literature for use of passing / climbing
lane, and 22% from State surveys
Council & Stewart 1999 US Undivided 20% reduction when converting 2 lane to 4
lane (undivided)
Koorey et al. 1999 NZ 13% reduction after construction of overtaking
lane
Koorey et al. 1999 NZ 54% reduction with full realignment
Koorey et al. 1999 NZ 5% reduction with ‘tack-on’ lane
Harwood et al. 2000 US Passing lane = 25% reduction
Harwood et al. 2000 US Short 4 lane section = 35% reduction
Austroads 2001 Australia Rural Sections with overtaking lanes have 13–38%
lower crash rates
Austroads 2001 Australia (NSW) Sections with overtaking lanes have 25% lower
crash rates. 2.5% reduction in advance (3 km)
of overtaking lane, and for 5 km section
following the overtaking lane
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 United States Passing or climbing lanes Two-lane sections: 25%
in one direction Four-lane sections: 35%
Austroads 2012
— 80 —

Elvik et al. 2009 Various 13% reduction in injury for one direction only
40% reduction in injury crashes for both
directions
Report that benefit is greatest for higher
volume roads
The mean of the reductions is 25%. There is a medium level of confidence in this figure, as
although it is quite consistent across studies, it includes a range of different applications.
Other figures indicate that the benefit of tack-on lanes is less than for new alignments and passing
lanes (5% reduction versus a 54% reduction, although there is low confidence in these values).
Benefits appear to be greater when passing lanes are used in two directions (i.e. four lanes with
one through and one passing lane in each direction) than for one direction only (40% versus 13%).
References assessed
Austroads 2001, Economic evaluation of road investment proposals: improved prediction models for road
crash savings, AP–R184/01, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
NSW.
Council, F & Stewart JR 1999, ‘Safety effects of the conversion of rural two-lane to four-lane roadways based
on cross-sectional models’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1665, pp. 35-43.
nd
Ermer, DJ, Fricker, JD & Sinha,KC 1991, Accident reduction factors for Indiana, JHRP-91-11, Purdue
Hemion, RH 1969, A preliminary cost-benefit study of headlight glare reduction, report AR-683, Southwest
Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Austroads 2012
— 81 —
Koorey, G, Farrelly, P, Mitchell, T & Nicholson, C 1999, Assessing passing opportunities: stage 2, research
report 146, Transfund New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
Larsson, M, Candappa, N & Corben, B 2003, Flexible barrier systems along high speed roads: a lifesaving
opportunity, report 210, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Vic.
McLean, J 1996, Review of accidents and rural cross section elements including roadsides, research report
ARR 297, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Mutabazi, MI, Russell, ER & Stokes, RW 1999, Review of the effectiveness, location, design, and safety of
passing lanes in Kansas, report K-TRAN:KSU-97-1, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka,
KS, USA, viewed 25 October 2010, <http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/7000/7500/7576/784476.pdf>.
Ogden, KW 1992, Benefit/cost analysis of road trauma countermeasures: rural road and traffic engineering
programs, report 34, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Vic.
Parker, MR, Flak, MA, Tsuchiyama, KH, Wadenstorer, SC & Hutcherson, F 1983, Geometric treatments for
reducing passing accidents at rural intersections on two lane highways: volumes 1 and 2, FHWA/RD-
83-074/75, Office of Safety and Traffic Operations, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,
USA.
Slop, M & Catshoek, JWD 1995, Recommended safety measures for application on interurban roads in the
short term, report R-95-18, Institute for Road Safety Research, Leidschendam, Netherlands.
Thrush, M 1996, Assessing passing opportunities: literature review, research report 60, Transit New
Zealand, Wellington.
Austroads 2012
— 82 —
C.15 Superelevation
Summary of research
Creasy and Agent 1985 United States Correcting/improving 40%
superelevation on all
highway environments
Zegeer et al. 1992 United States Correcting superelevation 10%
deviation on rural 2-lane
rural highways
Corben et al. 1996 United States Improving crossfall on a 38% (not significant)
number of unknown road
environments
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 United States Modifying superelevation 40%
Jones on all highway
environments
Ogden 1996 International Correcting superelevation 40% to 60% (head-on, overtaking, off-road on
at intersections/ curve and out-of-control on curve)
mid-blocks with
high-speed traffic
Harwood et al. 2000 United States Superelevation deficiency
(SD) correction for 2-lane Superelevation AMF
rural highways deficiency (SD)
< 0.01 1.00
≥ 0.01 to < 0.02 (1.00 + 6(SD – 0.01)
≥ 0.02 (1.00 + 3(SD – 0.02)
Hanley, Gibby & Ferrara 2000 United States Superelevation Hanley (1996) study 12% to 13% (all crash types)
modification and shoulder Caltrans (1994) study 50%
widening in unknown road ITE (1992) study 75%
environments 33% (run-off-road crashes)
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 United States Unknown road State survey 40% (all crash types)
environment, relating to State survey 45% (all crash types)
several treatments: State survey 28% (all crash types)
superelevation correction,
provide proper
superelevation and
resurfacing/superelevation
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 United States Correcting superelevation Likely to be based on Harwood, as Harwood also
deficiency for all types of includes this table, in addition to the CMFunction
crashes formulas
Superelevation deficiency AMF
0.02 1.06
0.03 1.09
0.04 1.12
0.05 1.15
Monsere et al. 2006 United States Correcting superelevation The following reductions are calculated using
deficiency for 2-lane rural Harwood et al.’s functions
highways 15% (all crashes, correcting from 0.02 to 0.08)
11% (all crashes, correcting from 0.04 to 0.08)
6% (all crashes, correcting from 0.06 to 0.08)
Austroads 2012
— 83 —

Austroads 2009 Australia Correcting superelevation 50% (head-on crashes)
in an unknown road
environment
NSDOT 2009 United States Superelevation correction 61% (all crash types)
at blackspot sites
Of the research reviewed, Harwood et al. (2000) and Zegeer et al. (1992) were considered to be
the most comprehensive and robust. The Crash Modification Functions (CMFunctions) derived by
Harwood et al (2000) were based on the work by Zeger et al (1992). Gan, Shen and
Rodriguez (2005) and Monsere et al. (2006) both provided reductions based on the CMFunctions
derived by Harwood et al (2000). Logically, the effect of improving superelevation deficiency would
be a function, dependant on the original deficiency level. Therefore, these CMFunctions are
recommended. Given that these functions are primarily based on one piece of work, and not
based Australian or New Zealand findings there is a low level of confidence. Note that,
superelevation, speed and curvature are all closely linked in terms of safety outcomes. Therefore
a Crash Modification Function drawing these elements together would be more desirable.
References assessed
NSW.
Corben, B, Newstead, S, Diamantopoulou, K & Cameron, M 1996, ‘Results of an evaluation of TAC funded
accident black spot treatments’, Combined 18th ARRB Transport Research conference and Transit
New Zealand Land Transport symposium, 1996, Christchurch, New Zealand. ARRB Transport
Research Ltd, Vermont South, Victoria, Australia.
University of Kentucky, Kentucky Transportation Research Program, Lexington, KY.
Hanley, K, Gibby, R. & Ferrara, T 2000, Analysis of accident-reduction factors on California State Highways,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, United States.
Illinois Department of Transport 2006, Crash reduction factors for HSIP program projects, Illinois Department
of Transport, Illinois, USA.
Monsere, C, Bertini, R, Breakstone, A, Bonner, C, Bosa, P, de la Houssaye, D, Horowitz, Z, Hunter-

Zaworski, K, 2006, Update and enhancement of ODOT’s crash reduction factors, report no. FHWA-
OR-DR-06-11, Portland State University and Oregon State University, Oregon, USA.
New York State Department of Transport 2009, PIES: reduction factor report, NYSDOT, Albany, New York.
Austroads 2012
— 84 —
Zegeer, C, Stewart, J, Council, F, Reinfurt, D, Hamilton, E 1992, ‘Safety effects of geometric improvements
on horizontal curves’, Transportation Research Record, no.1356., pp.11-9.
Austroads 2012
— 85 —
C.16 Impact Attenuators

Summary of research
Creasy and Agent 1985 United States Recommended CRFs for 60% (fatal crashes)
impact attenuators based 10% (injury crashes)
on a range of speed and
road environments
Griffin 1986 United States Effectiveness of crash 78% (fatal crashes)
cushions in both rural and 27% (injury crashes)
urban highway
environment. CRF
determined for
interpolation of historical
crash rates and
comparing them to the
observed crash rates after
treatment
Ogden 1996 United States Installation of impact 75% (fatal and serious injury crashes)
attenuators in unknown
highway environments.
No further information
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 United States Study of the effectiveness State survey
Jones of impact attenuators in Average 29% (all crashes)
unknown highway Average 75% (fatal crashes)
environments Average 50% (injury crashes)
Review of literature
Average 31% (all crashes)
Average 65% (fatal crashes)
Average 36% (injury crashes)
Agent et al. in Bahar et 1996 United States Study of the effectiveness Average 5% (all crash types)
al. (2007) of impact attenuators in Average 75% (fatal crashes)
unknown highway Average 50% (injury crashes)
environments
Gan et al. in Bahar et al. 2005 United States Study of the effectiveness Average 29% (all severities)
(2007) of impact attenuators in Average 82% (fatal crashes)
unknown highway Average 50% (injury crashes)
environments
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 United States Installation of impact Average 29% (all crashes)
attenuators on a range of Average 83% (fatal crashes)
highway environments
across the United States
FHWA 2008 United States Study of the effectiveness 29% for all crash types (all crash severities)
of impact attenuators in a 75% for all crash types (fatal crashes)
range of speed and road 50% for all crash types (injury crashes)
environments 45% reduction in run-off-road crashes (all crash
severities)
69% in run-off-road into fixed objects (fatal
crashes)
69% in run-off-road into fixed objects (injury
crashes)
46% in run-off-road into fixed objects (PDO
crashes)
ADOT 2009 United States Study of the effectiveness 41% (all crashes)
of impact attenuators in 45% (run-off-road crashes)
unknown highway
environments
Austroads 2012
— 86 —

Elvik et al. 2009 Various Installation of impact 69% (fatal crashes, 95% level of significance,
attenuators CI: -83, -46)
69% (injury crashes, 95% level of significance,
Cl: -75, -62)
46% (PDO, 95% level of significance, CI: -63,
-23)
AASHTO 2010 United States Describes the 69% (fatal crashes, standard error 0.3)
effectiveness of various 69% (injury crashes, standard error 0.1)
impact attenuators on: 46% (PDO crashes, standard error 0.3)
rural two-lane roads, rural
multilane highways,
freeways, expressways
and urban/suburban
arterials
It should be noted that provision of impact attenuators may not reduce the incidence of crashes,
but rather influences the severity outcomes when a crash does occur (i.e. injury crash types are
likely to transfer to non-injury crashes).
The average casualty crash reduction was determined to be 40%. However, due to changes in
vehicle and barrier technology, this figure was deemed to be too conservative and some of the
older studies such as Creasey and Agent (1985) and Griffin (1983) were excluded. Therefore, a
50% crash reduction was chosen, and this was considered to have a medium level of confidence.
For fatal crashes, the average CRF amongst all the studies was 72% (rounded to 70%) and this
figure was deemed to have high confidence.
References assessed
st
ADOT 2009, ‘Benefit/cost ratio economic analysis, section 231’, in Traffic engineering policies, guides and
procedures (PGP), Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ. viewed 25 July 2011, <
http://www.azdot.gov/highways/Traffic/standards/PGP/TM231.pdf>.
nd
Federal Highway Administration 2008, Toolbox of countermeasures and their potential effectiveness for
roadway departure crashes, report no. FHWA-SA-07-013, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington DC, viewed 22 July 2011,
<http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/resources/briefs/rdwydepartissue.pdf>.
Austroads 2012
— 87 —
Gan A, Shen J & Rodriguez A 2005, Update of Florida Crash Reduction Factors and Countermeasures to
improve the Development of District Safety Improvement Projects, Lehman Centre for Transportation
Research, Miami, Florida, viewed 25 March 2008.
Griffin, L 1983, ‘How effective are attenuation devices (crash cushions) in reducing deaths and injuries?’
Texas Transportation Researcher, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 6-7.
Austroads 2012
— 88 —
C.17 Signs – Advisory

Summary of research
C.17.1 Curve Warning Signs
Creasey & Agent 1985 USA Curves 30% reduction all crashes
Sanderson et. in Donald 1985 Not known, Two-way highways 30% reduction from advance warning signs
quoted in
Australian study
Moses 1987 Australia Introduction of small 17% reduction in rear-end crashes
advance 15% reduction in total crashes
direction/warning signs
Agent, Stamatiadis and 1996 USA Warning signs – curve 37% average reduction all crashes (lit review –
Jones warning 11 papers)
32% average reduction all crashes
(state survey – 16 states)
30% reduction run-off-road crashes (from
recommended reduction factors table)
Federal Office of Road 1996 Australia Non-intersection 30% reduction in head-on crashes
Safety, in Austroads
2004
Elvik et al. 2009 International Unknown Injury accident reduction of 30%
(95% CI -73;+84)
No study had significant results
Srinivasan et al. 2009 USA Install new fluorescent curve signs or upgrade
existing to fluorescent – rural
All severities, non-intersection CRF 18%
All severities, non-intersection, head on,
run-off-road, side swipe CRF 18%
Fatal/serious injury/minor injury,
non-intersection CRF 25%
All severities, night, non-intersection CRF 35%
All severities, night, non-intersection, head-on,
run –off-road, side swipe CRF 34%
A mean crash reduction factor of 25% was derived by taking the average of Elvik et al. (30%),
Creasy and Agent (30%), Moses (15%), Sanderson et al. (30%), Srinivasan et al. (18%) and
Agent, Stamatiadis and Jones (37%). Given the consistency between the studies, a high level of
confidence can be placed in this CRF.
Additional crash type specific CRFs were given by Moses (17% for rear-end crashes), Agent,
Stamatiadis and Jones (30% for run-off-road crashes) and FORS (30% for head-on crashes).
Austroads 2012
— 89 —
C.17.2 Speed Advisory Signs

Kneebone 1964 Australia NSW Speed advisory signs 1st study – 62% reduction
in casualty crashes, 56% reduction in all
crashes (Hume Highway) – had bad crash
history
Speed advisory signs 2nd study – highly
significant 70% reduction in number of
casualties, 25% reduction in all crashes
Speed advisory signs 3rd study: 21% reduction
in all crashes
Agent, Stamatiadis and 1996 USA Not specified Warning signs – advisory speed
Jones 30% average reduction all crashes
(lit review – two papers)
26% average reduction all crashes (state
survey – two states)
Elvik et al. 2009 International Unknown Injury accidents reduced by 13%
(95% CI -22 -2)
results based on three studies from 1972 or
earlier
AASHTO 2010 USA Unknown Reduction factor is based on no signage vs.
speed advisory sign
CMF is 0.87 reduction with 0.09 standard error
Note – two of the studies used here are a
double-up with Elvik
An average CRF of 40% was derived from Elvik et al. (13%), Kneebone (62% casualties, 70%
casualties, 21% all crashes) and Agent, Stamatiadis and Jones (30%). Due to the inconsistency of
results there is a low level of confidence in this figure.
References assessed
NSW.
Austroads 2012
— 90 —
Donald, D 1997, Be warned! A review of curve warning signs and curve advisory speeds, research report
304, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
nd
Kneebone, DC 1964, ‘Advisory speed signs and their effect on traffic’, Australian Road Research Board
conference, 2nd, 1964, Melbourne, Victoria, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic,
vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 524-41.
Lamm, R, Zumkeller, K & Beck, A 2001, ‘Traffic safety: the relative effectiveness of a variety of road
markings and traffic control devices’, Road Safety on Three Continents, 2000, Pretoria, South Africa,
VTI Konferens 15A, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linkoeping, Sweden,
pp. 120-32.
Montella, A 2009, ‘Safety evaluation of curve delineation improvements: empirical Bayes observational
before-and-after study’, Transportation Research Record, no. 2103, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, pp. 69–79.
Moses, P 1987, ‘Combating the road toll’, National Local Government Engineering conference, 4th, 1987,
Perth, Western Australia, Institution of Engineers Australia, Canberra, ACT, pp.70-4.
Srinivasan, R, Baek, J, Carter, D, Persaud, B, Lyon, C, Eccles, K, Gross, F, & Lefler, N 2009, Safety
evaluation of improved curve delineation, report FHWA-HRT-09-045, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DCUK-MoRSE 2010, UK-MoRSE, Greensafe Foundation, Birmingham, UK, viewed 15
December 2010, <www.uk-morse.com>.
<www.uk-morse.com>.
Winnett, MA & Wheeler, AH 2002, Vehicle-activated signs: a large scale evaluation, report 548, TRL,
Crowthorne, UK.
Austroads 2012
— 91 —
C.18 Pedestrian Treatments

Summary of research
C.18.1 Pedestrian Fencing and Barriers
Teale 1984 Australia ’Safety bars’ (Pedestrian 14% reduction in crashes (90% confidence
fencing to separate interval 4% to 24%)
vehicles and pedestrians)
Stewart 1988 England 20% reduction in pedestrian crashes for fences
which obscure the driver’s view of pedestrians
48% reduction in pedestrian crashes for fences
that obstructed the motorist’s view to a lesser
extent
Retting, Ferguson & 2003 UK UK – before and after with control. Number of
McCartt locations not known
Ordinary fences obscuring driver’s view of
pedestrians associated with 20% reduction in
pedestrian crashes
Fences obscuring driver’s view to lesser extent
associated with a 48% reduction in pedestrian
crashes. Was especially good for children as
they are shorter
Campbell et al. 2004 Japan Unknown Installed barrier fences along 18 sections of
road in 1969. Pedestrian crossing crashes
reduced by nearly 20%
Elvik et al. 2009 International Unknown 29% reduction (95% CI -52 to -5) in pedestrian
crashes
Information sources used were Teale (14% reduction), Stewart (20% for low visible fencing),
Campbell et al. (20%) and Elvik et al. (29%). Retting, Ferguson and McCartt was excluded
because it reports the result from Stewart. The average CRF based on these figures was 21%
(rounded to 20%) with a medium level of confidence. The CRF is likely to be higher if fencing that
does not obscure visibility to pedestrians is used.
C.18.2 Improved Lighting

Pegrum, in Campbell et 1972 Australia Urban 62% decrease in night-time pedestrian crashes
al.
Retting, Ferguson & 2003 Israel Urban Night-time pedestrian crashes decreased by
McCartt 57%. Also non-significant decrease in daytime
pedestrian crashes of 21%. At control sites
there was a non-significant decrease in
night-time pedestrian crashes of 60%
Austroads 2004 Australia Non-intersection 60% reduction in vehicle hits pedestrian
crashes
Elvik et al. 2009 International Unknown Improved lighting at pedestrian crossings.
Based on 2 studies that used a control group.
Neither controlled for exposure
CRF 63% reduction in pedestrian accidents at
night (95% CI -79;-36)
Austroads 2012
— 92 —
Relevant information sources used: Elvik et al. 63%, Pegrum 62%, Austroads 60%, Retting,
Ferguson and McCartt 57%. Average CRF based on these four sources is 60%. Medium
confidence is placed in this CRF. All the CRFs are closely aligned and the average CRF is close
to Elvik’s figure.
C.18.3 Marked Crossings

Teale 1984 Australia Zebra crossing 66% increase in crashes
(90% CI -175%; +43%)
Teale 1984 Australia Zebra crossing with 10% reduction (90% CI -97%; +100%)
channelisation
Moses 1987 USA Not specified Ratio of pedestrian crashes for marked and
unmarked crossings was 6:1
Zeeger et al. cited in 2001 USA Not specified On 2 lane roads, marked crosswalk was
Campbell et al. associated with no difference in pedestrian
crash rate
Koespell et al. in Retting, 2002 USA Six cities Crash risk was 2.1 times greater at sites with a
Ferguson & McCartt marked crosswalk, almost all of the excess risk
2003 was due to 3.6 fold higher risk associated with
marked crosswalks at sites with no traffic signal
or stop sign
Retting, Ferguson & 2003 Israel, USA Unknown Marked crosswalk with in-pavement lights
McCartt alerting to pedestrian presence
Israel – 4 urban uncontrolled pedestrian
crossings. Before and after with no controls.
Rate of vehicle – pedestrian conflict reduced to
<1%, from 1% to 7%
USA – one urban uncontrolled crossing. Before
and after with no controls. No CRF given –
percentage of drivers not yielding to
pedestrians dropped from 31% to 8%
crashes
Shen et al. 2004 USA Unknown Adding or improving a crosswalk was
associated with a CRF of 25% in three states
Bahar et al. 2007 Unknown Urban Remove marked unprotected crosswalks from
arterial intersections. One study. CRF of 73%
Elvik et al. 2009 Elvik et al. only used studies that controlled for
pedestrian and vehicle volume with the
following results:
Pedestrian crashes on 2 CRF 8% (95% CI -43+51). Non-significant
lane roads
Pedestrian crashes on CRF +88% (95% CI -32+424). Stat significant
multi-lane roads increase
Pedestrian crashes on all CRF +44% (95% CI -6+121)
roads
AASHTO 2010 2 lane and multilane Marked vs. unmarked crosswalk has no
roads with AADT <12 000 statistically significant effect on pedestrian
crashes
UK-MoRSE website 2010 UK 24% decrease (95% CI -36.65; 83.99)
Austroads 2012
— 93 —
The CRF falls into three categories for marked crossings: 2 lane roads, multi-lane roads and the
overall CRF. Studies of impact when used on 2 lane roads were Elvik et al. (8% reduction, but not
significant), AASHTO (no effect) and Zegeer et al. (no change). The multi-lane road study found
an 88% increase (Elvik et al.) and a statistically significant increase (Zegeer et al.) but no effect if
AADT was under 12 000 (AASHTO). The overall studies were performed by Elvik et al. (44%
increase), Shen et al. (25% decrease) Moses (increase), Zegeer (increase), Koespell (increase),
Austroads (40% decrease in pedestrian crashes), Teale (66% increase, although not significant),
Bahar et al. (10% decrease with channelization), UK-MoRSE (17% decrease) and Retting,
Ferguson and McCartt (increase).
None of the studies provided information about whether exposure effects had been factored into
their calculations (particularly issues relating to increased pedestrian exposure at the location
where crossings are installed). There is too little data to come to a conclusion about two-lane
roads, and marked crossings are not used on multilane roads in Australia. There is a lot of
variation in the overall studies but these indicate that there may be an increase in pedestrian
crashes when marked crossings are installed. However, this increase may be due to increased
exposure resulting from pedestrians choosing to use the crossing rather than cross nearby.
C.18.4 Pedestrian Overpasses

Creasey & Agent 1985 USA Not specified 95% reduction in pedestrian crashes from
construction of pedestrian crossover
VicRoads 1990 Australia Not specified 10% reduction in total crashes from an
overpass
Retting, Ferguson & 2003 Japan Urban Pedestrian – vehicle crashes decreased by
McCartt 91% within 100 m of the overpasses and 85%
within 200 m, crashes unrelated to pedestrians
crossing the road increased 14% within 100 m
of the overpasses and 23% within 200 m
crashes from an overpass
Shen et al. 2004 USA Unknown CRF ranged from 67% to 100% (data from four
states)
Shen typically only based on surveys of states
Bahar et al. 2007 Reviewed US Unknown Reviewed 3 studies
studies CRF ranged from 5% to 100% – based on
Shen et al. (2004)
Elvik et al. 2009 International Unknown Reduction of 82%
meta-analysis
Relevant information sources used: Creasey and Agent 95%, VicRoads 10% of all crash types (not
just pedestrian), Austroads 90%, Bahar et al. 90%, Elvik et al. 82% and Retting, Ferguson and
McCartt 91%. Average CRF 90%. As a low level of confidence can be placed in this CRF due to
the work, other than Elvik et al. lacking detail this CRF is rounded down to 85%.
Austroads 2012
— 94 —
C.18.5 Pedestrian Signals

Teale 1984 Australia New pedestrian signals: 39% reduction (90%
CI +32, + 46)
Creasey & Agent 1985 USA Unknown After adding a pedestrian signal phase there
was a 60% reduction in pedestrian crashes
Austin, Martin & Fox 1996 Sussex Two sites with signalised Signal timing was altered for shorter delay
pedestrian crossings times
44% for one site and 24% for the other
Retting in Bahar et al. 2002 USA Urban intersections 37% reduction in pedestrian and bicycle
(2007) crashes
Retting, Ferguson & 2003 USA USA – 1297 intersections Two studies on exclusive pedestrian signal
McCartt Sweden in 15 cities phase
Sweden – one USA – comparative analysis showed risk of
intersection in small town; pedestrian/vehicle crashes halved at exclusive
one intersection in timing intersections when compared with
Stockholm standard pedestrian signals
Sweden – small town intersection had 24%
reduction in conflicts. Stockholm intersection
had 10% reduction (not significant)
Austroads 2004 Reduction of pedestrian crashes of 70%
Bahar et al. 2007 USA Unknown Add exclusive pedestrian phase – one US
study: 34% reduction – range was 7% to 60%
Bahar et al. 2007 USA and Unknown 0% to 55% (two studies)
Canada
Elvik et al. 2009 Unknown Going from no crosswalk
to signalised pedestrian
crossing:
Mid-block 49% (not significant, CI -81 +35)
Intersection 2% (CI -48 +84. Most studies did not use

comparison group
Elvik et al. 2009 Unknown Going from marked 27% reduction
crosswalk to signalised (confidence interval -59 +29).
pedestrian crossing
Pedestrian signal treatments fell into four categories: improve/change signal timing, exclusive
pedestrian phase, new signal installation and changing from a marked to a signalised crossing.
Austin, Martin and Fox found CRFs of 24% and 44% with improved signal timing whereas Retting
(cited in Bahar et al.) found a 37% reduction by changing signal timing (note – includes pedestrians
and cyclists).
When a pedestrian phase was added Bahar et al. found a 34% reduction (range 7 to 60%), Creasy
and Agent a 60% reduction, Austroads a 70% reduction and Retting, Ferguson and McCartt a 50%
reduction.
Installation of new signals resulted in a 39% reduction in pedestrian crashes (Teale), a

non-significant 49% reduction (Elvik et al. mid-block) and a 2% reduction (Elvik et al. intersection).
Changing a marked crossing into a signalised crossing resulted in a 27% reduction (Elvik et al.).
Improved signal timing: CRF 35%, low confidence as this is based on few studies (one of which
gave a combined CRF for pedestrians and cyclists.
Austroads 2012
— 95 —
Pedestrian phase: CRF 50% (the average was 53.5% and was rounded down); low confidence due
to the large range in Bahar et al. study and the source of the Austroads data is unclear.
New signals: CRF cannot be calculated as there are too few studies at this time. Additionally the
three included are not able to be compared as Teale’s installation point is unknown and the other
two are installed at mid-blocks and intersections and different effects may be experienced
depending on the installation point.
Marked crossing to signalised: CRF cannot be calculated as there is only one study.
C.18.6 Refuges
Teale 1984 Australia 38% reduction (confidence interval +28 +48)
Moses 1987 Australia Refuge replacing zebra 80.7%
crossing
Garder, in Retting, 1989 Sweden Urban intersections Risk of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts decreased
Fergison and McCartt by roughly two thirds
VicRoads 1990 Australia Not specified 30% reduction in total crashes from
refuges/channelisation/kerb extension
LTSA 1995 New Zealand Not specified 33% reduction in pedestrian crashes where
either or both pedestrian refuges and bulbous
kerbs (kerb extension) were used
18% reduction for sites with only pedestrian
refuges
37% reduction for sites with only bulbous kerbs
Ewing 1999 USA Not specified, summary of 57% crash reduction
numerous studies
BTE 2001 Australia Urban Pedestrian facilities/refuge 5.8% reduction in
casualty crashes (not significant)
BTE 2001 Australia Regional Pedestrian facilities/refuge 30.1% reduction in
casualty crashes (not significant)
Retting, Ferguson and 2003 Sweden, USA Unknown 50% to 60%
McCartt
crashes
Bahar et al. 2007 Various Unknown 25% to 69%
Elvik et al. 2009 Worldwide Worldwide 43% reduction
Doherty, Poole and 2010 USA/New York Metropolitan 34% reduction – refuge, repainted markings,
Mintz-Roth city from 2 lanes to one lane
A total of nine studies were considered when deciding on the CRF for pedestrian refuges: 50%,
60%, 38%, 43%, 18%, 30%, 57%, 50%, 66%. The average CRF was 45.7%. A further refinement
was trialled where the less robust study CRFs were removed. These were 38%, 30% and 50%.
This gave a CRF of 49%. It was decided to adopt the CRF of 45% as a more conservative figure
as many of the studies were not from Australasia.
Austroads 2012
— 96 —
C.18.7 Roundabouts
Brilon et al. in Retting, 1993 Germany Intersections converted 75% reduction in pedestrian crashes
Ferguson and McCartt from traffic signals or stop
(2003) signs
Schoon & van Minnen in 1994 Netherlands Intersections converted 73% reduction in pedestrian – vehicle crashes
Retting, Ferguson and from traffic signals or stop
McCartt (2003) signs
Midson 2009 Australia Tasmanian shopping strip 75% reduction in pedestrian crashes
Bahar et al. 2007 Flanders Unsignalised intersection 27%
to roundabout
A CRF of 60% was selected based on the average of Midson (75% reduction), Bahar et al. (27%
reduction), Brilon et al. (75% reduction) and Schoon and van Minnen (73% reduction). There is
low confidence in this CRF given the variance, and only one study being from Australia. Note, as
this treatments relates to the provision of roundabouts (and not a specific pedestrian treatment)
this has been included under ‘Intersection treatments – roundabouts’ in Table 3.1.
C.18.8 Raised Pedestrian/Wombat Crossings

Geoplan 1994 in 2000 Australia Not specified 8% reduction in pedestrian crashes
Austroads 2000
Bahar et al. 2007 USA Unknown 8% reduction in pedestrian crashes and 30%
reduction in all crashes
Elvik et al. 2009 International Unknown When a raised crosswalk goes in where no
crosswalk previously existed: 65% reduction in
all accidents (no information on pedestrian
reduction)
Elvik et al. 2009 International Unknown When a raised crosswalk goes in where a
marked crosswalk had been a 42% (95% CI
-70 to +11) reduction in pedestrian crashes
There is a mean CRF of 20% for pedestrian crashes based on the average of Bahar et al. (8%),
Geoplan (8%) and Elvik et al. (42%). Crashes of all types could be expected to reduce from this
measure. There is low confidence in this figure given the range of results.
References assessed
Officials Washington, DC, USA.
Archer, J, Candappa, N, & Corben, B, 2008, ‘Effectiveness of the dwell-on-red signal treatment to improve
pedestrian safety during high-alcohol hours’, Australasian road safety research policing and education
conference, 2008, Adelaide, South Australia, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton,
Vic, pp. 232-45.
Austin, K, Martin, B & Fox, H 1996, ‘Improving pedestrian priority in UTC systems’, European transport
th
forum, 24 , seminar H, Brunel University, United Kingdom, PTRC Education and Research Services
Ltd, London, UK, vol. P407, 12pp.
Austroads 2000, Pedestrian and cyclist safety: recent developments, report AP-R155/00, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2012
— 97 —
NSW.
Brindle, R & Morrisy, Z 1998, ‘Local area traffic management: review and survey of effectiveness’, ARRB
contract report CR RC6047-1, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Campbell, BJ, Zegeer, CV, Huang, HH & Cynecki, MJ 2004, A review of pedestrian safety research in the
United States and abroad, report FHWA-RD-03-042, Federal Highway Administration Virginia, USA,
viewed on 26 April 2004, <http://www.walkinginfo.org/pdf/PedSynth/Ped_Synthesis_Report.pdf>.
Candappa, N, Fotheringham, N, Lenné, M, Corben, B, Johansson, C & Smith, P 2005, ‘Evaluation of an

alternative pedestrian treatment at a roundabout’, Australasian road safety research policing education
conference, Wellington, New Zealand, Ministry of Transport, Wellington, NZ, 10 pp.
Catchpole, J & Cairney, PT 1990, ‘Accidents at major/minor intersections: a challenge for the traffic
engineering profession’, Local Government Engineers Association of Western Australia state
th
conference, 7 , Perth, Western Australia, Local Government Engineers Association of Western
Australia, Perth, WA, technical papers, vol. 2, 12 pp.
Cleaver, S, Jurisich, I & Dunn, R 2007, Safety implications of flush medians in Auckland City: further
analyses, report 312, Land Transport New Zealand Research, Wellington, NZ, 86pp.
Corben, BF & Cunningham, JA 1989, ‘Traffic engineering treatment of hazardous locations’, in KW Ogden &
th
DW Bennett (eds), Traffic engineering practice, 4 edn, Monash University, Clayton, Vic, pp.271-88.
Corben, BF, Ambrose, C & Chee Wai, F 1990, Evaluation of accident black spot treatments, report 11,
Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Vic.
University of Kentucky, Kentucky Transportation Research Program, Lexington, USA.
Davies, H & Winnett, M 1993, ‘Why do pedestrian accidents happen?’ European summer annual meeting,
st
21 , traffic management and road safety, 13-17 September, University of Manchester Institute of
Science and Technology, PTRC, London, vol. P 365, pp.315–24.
Doherty, AM, Poole, H & Mintz-Roth, J 2010, ‘Designing safe streets for seniors in New York City’, ITE
st
Technical conference and exhibit: Meeting transportation’s 21 century challenges, 15-17 March 2010,
Savannah Georgia, USA, ITE, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 10pp.
nd
Gorell, RSJ & Tootill, W 2001, Monitoring local authority road safety schemes using MOLASSES, report TRL
512, TRL, Crowthorne, UK.
Austroads 2012
— 98 —
Hoareau, E, Newstead, S & Cameron, M 2006, An evaluation of the default 50 km/h speed limit in Victoria,
report 261, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Vic.
Imberger, K, Cairney, P, Boschert, L & Styles, T 2004, ‘Pedestrian countermeasure research project’,
contract report RC4019-2, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Jordan, P 1995, ‘Road safety audit: what it can do to improve safety for pedestrians’, Australian pedestrian
and bicyclist safety and travel workshop, 1994, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, ARRB Transport
Research, Vermont South, Vic, pp.213-22.
th
Jurisich, I, Segedin, T, Dunn, R & Smith, M 2003, ‘Experience of using flush medians in Auckland City’, 26
Australasian Transport Research Forum, 1-3 October 2003, Wellington, New Zealand, NZ Institute of
Highway Technology, Plymouth, NZ, 21pp.
Kennedy, J & Sexton, B 2009, Literature review of road safety at traffic signals and signalised crossings,
report PPR436, TRL, Crowthorne, UK, viewed 6 September 2010,
<http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_literature_review_
of_road_safety_at_traffic_signals_and_signalised_crossings.htm>.
Kumar, A 1990, ‘Road safety benefits from skid resistance program’, report for Road Safety Division Roads
Corporation Victoria, Sinclair Knight & Partners, South Melbourne, Vic.
Land Transport Safety Authority 1995, Accident investigation monitoring analysis version 3.0, Land Transport
Safety Authority, Wellington, NZ.
Lenné, MG, Corben, BF & Stephan, K 2007, ‘Traffic signal phasing at intersections to improve safety for
alcohol-affected pedestrians’, Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol.39, no.4, pp.751-6.
Maxwell, A, Kennedy, J & Routledge, I 2010, ‘Study compares accident frequency at Puffins and crossings
using farside facilities’, Traffic Engineering and Control, vol.51, no.8, pp.317-21.
Markowitz, F, Sciortino, S, Fleck, JL & Bond PE 2006, ‘Pedestrian countdown signals: experience with an
extensive pilot installation’, ITE Journal, vol.76, no.1, pp. 43-8.
McLean, AJ & Anderson, RWG 2008, ‘Metrication of the urban speed limit and pedestrian fatalities’
Australasian road safety research policing education conference, 2008, Adelaide, South Australia,
Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, SA, 7pp.
Michael, LG, Bruce, CF, & Karen, S 2007, ‘Traffic signal phasing at intersections to improve safety for
alcohol-affected pedestrians’, Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 39, no.4, pp.751-56.
Midson, K 2009, ‘Traffic control measures to improve pedestrian safety in shopping strips’, Public Works
Engineering, April/May, pp.40-6.
Moses, P 1987, ‘Combating the road toll’, National local government engineering conference, 4th, 1987,
Perth, WA, Institution of Engineers, Canberra, ACT, pp.70-4.
Retting, RA, Ferguson, SA & McCartt, AT 2003, ‘A review of evidence-based traffic engineering measures
designed to reduce pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes’, American Journal of Public Health, vol.93, no.9,
pp.1456–63.
Austroads 2012
— 99 —
Stewart, D 1988, ‘Pedestrian guardrails and accidents’, Traffic Engineering and Control, vol. 29,no. 9,
pp. 450-5.
Teale, G 1984, The evaluation of the effectiveness of low cost traffic engineering projects, consultant report
CR 22, Office of Road Safety, Canberra, ACT.
<www.uk-morse.com>.
Van Houten, JE, Malenfant, JE, Van Houten, J & Retting, R 1997, ‘Using auditory pedestrian signals to
reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflicts’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1578, pp.20-22.
Webster, N 2006, The effect of newly installed Puffin crossings on collisions, London Road Safety Unit
Research Report, Transport for London, London, UK.
Zegeer, CV, Blomberg, R, Henderson, D, Masten, S, Marchetti, L, Levy, MM, Fan, Y, Sandt, L, Brown, A,
Stutts, J, & Thomas, L 2008, ‘Evaluation of Miami-Dade pedestrian safety demonstration project’,
Transportation Research Record, no. 2073, , pp.1-10.
Austroads 2012
— 100 —
C.19 Transverse Rumble Strips

Summary of research
Harwood 1993 United States Installation of transverse 14–100% (Harwood expressed concerns
rumble strips regarding validity)
Gunatillake 2001 Australia/NZ Installation of transverse 20–50% (Unspecified crash type)
rumble strips
Elvik et al. 2009 Various Rumble strips in front of 33% injury crashes
junctions
Srinivasan, Baek & 2010 Unspecified Installation of transverse 21% (Fatal and injury crashes)
Council rumble strips at 31% (Fatal and serious injury crashes)
intersections 24% increase (PDO crashes)
(All at 90% confidence interval)
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 United States Rumble strips on at stop 28% (all crashes)
controlled approach
Gan, Shen & Rodriguez 2005 United States Rumble strips on 90% rear-end
approach to intersections
McGee & Hanscom 2006 United States Curves Speeds tend to reduce in most cases, but not
to a practical level
Barker cited in Charman 2007 United Kingdom Curves 4.8 km/h reduction in speed
et al. (2010)
Hore-Lacy 2008 Victoria Railway crossing 4 km/h reduction in speed
approach
Hore-Lacy 2008 Victoria Minor approach to T- 4.8 km/h reduction in speed
intersections
Radalj and Kidd 2005 Australia Railway crossing 5 km/h reduction in speed
approach (stop controlled
crossings)
Thompson, Burris & 2006 United States On intersection approach 1.6 km/h reduction in speed
Carlson (Stop controlled)
Five studies were found that identified crash reductions associated with the installation of
transverse rumble strips. In addition to these, many studies concentrated on speed reduction
associated with this treatment.
Two of the five studies identified a wide range in treatment effectiveness. Srinivasan, Baek and
Council (2010) found that at sites with rumble strips there was a significant decrease in fatal and
injury crashes (21%) and an even higher decrease in fatal and serious injury crashes (31%).
However, there was a significant rise in property damage only crashes (24%), all at the 90%
confidence level. Elvik et al. identified a 33% reduction in injury crashes in advance of junctions.
Gan, Shen and Rodriguez (2005) identified a 28% reduction for all crashes where rumble strips
were provided on the approach to stop controlled intersections and a reduction of 90% was
determined for rear-end crashes. Based on these three studies the average reduction is 27% for
all crashes (rounded to 25%, low confidence).
Austroads 2012
— 101 —
References assessed
Charman, S, Grayson, G, Helman, S, Kennedy, J, de Smidt, O, Lawton, B, Nossek, G, Wiesauer, L, Fürdös,
A, Pelikan, V, Skládaný, P, Pokorný, P, Matejka, M, & Tucka, P2010, – Self-explaining roads literature
review and treatment information, deliverable Nr 1, Road ERA net, Europe.
nd
Gan A, Shen J & Rodriguez A 2005, ‘Update of Florida Crash Reduction Factors and Countermeasures to
improve the Development of District Safety Improvement Projects’, Lehman Centre for Transportation
Gunatillake, T 2001, Investigation of the use and design of rumble strips, contract report: RC1877-1, ARRB
Transport Research Ltd, Vermont South, Vic.
Hore-Lacy, 2008, ‘Rumble strip effectiveness at rural intersections and railway level crossings’ contract
report VC73896-1, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Australia.
Harwood, DW 1993, Use of rumble strips to enhance safety, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program synthesis of highway practice 191, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
McGee, H & Hanscom, F 2006, Low-cost treatments for horizontal curve safety, report no. FHWA-SA-07-002
Federal Highway Administration Washington DC.
Radalj, T & Kidd, B 2005, ‘A trial with rumble strips as a means of alerting drivers to hazards at approaches
to passively protected railway level crossings on high speed Western Australian rural roads’
Australasian road safety research policing education conference, Wellington, New Zealand, Ministry of
Transport, Wellington, NZ, 11pp.
Srinivasan, R, Baek, J & Council, F2010, 'Safety evaluation of transverse rumble strips on approaches to
stop-controlled intersections in rural areas', Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, vol. 2, no.3,
pp. 261-78.
Thompson, TD, Burris, MW & Carlson, PJ 2006, ‘Speed changes due to transverse rumble strips on
approaches to high-speed stop-controlled intersections’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1973,
pp. 1-9.
Austroads 2012
— 102 —
C.20 Street Closure

Summary of research
Brownfield in Brindle 1980 UK LATM measures, Internal roads
(1984) principally street closures Total crashes: 31.2% reduction (non-significant)
Pedestrian crashes: 24% reduction
(non-significant)
Peripheral roads
Overall reduction (non-significant) (extent of
reduction not listed)
Bagby in Brindle (1984) 1980 United States, Street diverters and Reduction from 43 to 2 crashes (95%)
Grand Rapids closures
Smith & Appleyard in 1980 United States, LATM applications Reduction from 41 to 18 crashes (56%)
Brindle (1984) California
Pfundt in Brindle (1984) 1980 Germany Closures, constrictions Injury crashes: 64% reduction
and meandering
pavements with alternate
angled parking
Department of Transport 1978 Australia LATM programs – Internal roads
in Brindle (1984) elimination of through Woodville South: 48%
traffic Flinders Park: 33% reduction
Peripheral roads
Crash rate reported as unchanged
Cairney & Brebner in 1980 Australia Street closures – South Internal roads
Brindle (1984) Australia (Unley) Injury crashes: 56% reduction
Total crashes: 42% reduction
Peripheral roads
Injury crashes: 32% reduction
Cairney & Brebner in 1980 Australia Street closures – South Internal roads
Brindle (1984) Australia (Burnside) Reduction from 50 to 29 crashes (42%)
Peripheral roads
Between major intersections - reduction from
145 to 127 crashes (12%)
The major intersection rate remained about the
same
Ogden 1996 United States Street closure at 50% to 80% reduction in vehicle crashes
low-speed cross- 10% to 50% reduction in vehicle and pedestrian
intersection and link crashes
closure on a mid-block
AASHTO 2010 USA Access management at Reducing the number of median crossings and
intersections intersections on urban and suburban arterials,
appears to reduce the number of intersection
and driveway-related crashes. However, the
magnitude of the crash effect is not certain at
this time
No recent information about the effect of street closures was found. Brindle (1984) reviewed a
number of LATM treatment studies that included street closures. A number of studies (Brownfield,
Department of Transport and Cairney & Brebner) distinguished between crash effects for internal
and peripheral roads. Internal roads generally refer to situations where the street closure occurs
within the treated area, while peripheral roads are at the perimeter of the treated area. Five
studies provided crash reductions for internal roads, with an average of 42% (rounded to 40%).
There is a medium level of confidence in this figure. For peripheral roads, there was a range in the
reported effects from little or no change up to a 32% reduction. A crash reduction of 5% may be
assumed for peripheral roads (with a low level of confidence).
Austroads 2012
— 103 —
References assessed
st
Brindle, RE 1984, Town planning and road safety: a review of literature and practice, special report 28,
Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Austroads 2012
— 104 —
C.21 Street Lighting

Summary of research
Thorpe in Andreassen 1962 Australia Very good street lighting 20% (significant)
(1989) only
Wortman & Lipinski in 1972 USA/Illinois Rural 30% night crashes
Isebrands et al.
Roberts & Walker in 1976 USA/Iowa Rural 49% night crashes
Isebrands et al.
Hall & Fisher 1977 All 30%
Carstens & Berns in 1984 USA/Iowa Rural No significant reduction detected
Isebrands et al.
Creasey & Agent 1985 US based General 50%
research
(Kentucky)
Intersections 55%
Routes 50%
Interchanges 50%
Railway crossing 60%
Osram-Gec 1985 Australia All 30%
Box in Isebrands et al. 1987 USA/Illinois Urban intersection 21% night crashes (significant)
Ermer, Fricker & Sinha 1991 USA/Indiana New installation 37%
25% upgrade
Luminaire replacement 16%
New bridge lighting 59%
LTSA 1995 NZ All 33%
Intersections 41%
Routes 30%
New installations 38%
33% lighting upgraded
Agent, Stamatiadis & 1996 US based General 50% night crashes
Jones research
(Kentucky)
Road segments 45% night crashes
Intersections 50% night crashes
Interchanges 50% night crashes
Train crossings 60% night crashes
Corben et al. 1997 Australia Rural and metro 24.9% increase in casualty crashes
LTSA 1997 NZ Upgraded lighting 33% reduction night crashes (significant)
NZ Intersections – upgraded 41% reduction night crashes (significant)
lighting
NZ Routes – upgraded 30% reduction night crashes (significant)
lighting
NZ New installations 38% decrease in night
Preston & Schoenecker 1999 USA/Minnesota Rural intersections 40% reduction night crashes (significant)
15% reduction all crashes (significant)
Austroads 2012
— 105 —

Bruneau, Morin & Pouliot 2001 Canada Rural – four-lane 33% reduction night (significant) for injury and
motorway PDO
Continuous lighting
(straight sections and
interchanges)
Canada Rural – four-lane Interchange 4% reduction (not significant)
Interchanges
BTE 2001 Australia Urban 27% increase (significant) in all (night and day)
Rural 63.2% reduction (significant)
Gorell & Tootill 2001 UK Urban 31% decrease in all
Rural 8% reduction in all
Isebrands et al. 2004 USA/Minnesota Rural intersections 35% reduction night crashes (significant)
Daytime crashes increased, but not significant
Shen et al. 2004 USA For all crashes – no injury/PDO breakdown
General illumination CRF average of three
states 27% (range 19–37%)
Night-time reduction, general illumination CRF
average of two states 40% (range 30–50%)
Shen et al. 2004 USA For all crashes – no injury/PDO breakdown
Improved street lighting CRF two states both
had reductions of 25%
Night-time reduction, improved street lighting
CRF two states both had reductions of 50%
Shen et al. 2004 USA Mid-blocks For all crashes – no injury/PDO breakdown
Install/improved lighting at roadway segment
average of three states 23% (range 20–25%)
Night-time reduction, install/improve lighting at
roadway segment average five states 36%
(range 20–45%)
Shen et al. 2004 USA Intersections For all crashes – no injury/PDO breakdown
Install/improve lighting at intersections average
of three states CRF 32% (range 30–36%)
intersections average of six states CRF 55%
(range 50–67%)
Shen et al. 2004 USA Intersections For all crashes – no injury/PDO breakdown
Install/improve lighting at interchanges two
states both had CRF 25%
interchanges three states had a CRF of 50%
Shen et al. 2004 USA Install/improve lighting at For all crashes – no injury/PDO breakdown
railway crossings Average of three states CRF 41%
(range 30–62%)
railway crossings three states each had CRF of
60%
Bahar et al. 2007 Majority seem to Intersections – improve Pedestrians – fatal 78% CRF
be US based intersection lighting (standard error 87)
Pedestrians – injury 42% CRF
(standard error 18)
Bahar et al. 2007 Majority seem to Install lighting All fatal/injury crashes CRF of 17%
be US based Night-time but all crash severities CRF of 50%
Austroads 2012
— 106 —

Bahar et al. 2007 Majority seem to Mid-blocks – improve Fatal rural highway CRF of 73%
be US based lighting (standard error 72)
Based on a meta-analysis
Bahar et al. 2007 Majority seem to Mid-blocks – improve Fatal urban highway CRF of 63%
Bahar et al. 2007 Majority seem to Mid-blocks – improve Injury crashes rural highway CRF of 20%
Bahar et al. 2007 Majority seem to Mid-blocks – improve Injury urban highway CRF of 31%
Bahar et al. 2007 Majority seem to Install lighting at Fatal/injury CRF of 26% (standard error 38)
be US based interchanges
Elvik et al. 2009 International CRF for going from unlit Night-time crashes – all road types
to lit fatal CRF 60% (95% CI -62 -57)
(controlled for publication bias CRF is 14% and
not controlled for publication bias CRF is 23%;
the source did not report 95% CI for these)
Elvik et al. 2009 International CRF for going from unlit Severity unknown: head-on crashes CRF 52%
to lit (95% CI -57 -46)
Head-on crashes CRF 20% (95% CI -54; +44)
Elvik et al. 2009 International CRF for going from unlit Severity unknown: rear-end crashes CRF 54%
to lit (95% CI -68 -33)
Rear-end crashes CRF 41% (95% CI -71; +21)
Elvik et al. 2009 International CRF for going from unlit Severity unknown: single vehicle crashes CRF
to lit 39% (95% CI -64 +3)
Single vehicle crashes CRF 5%
(95% CI -50; +79)
Elvik et al. 2009 International CRF for going from unlit Night-time crashes – rural areas
to lit Fatal CRF 87% (95% CI -98; -34)
(controlled for publication bias CRF is 14% and
Elvik et al. 2009 International Intersections CRF for Night-time crashes at intersections/junctions
going from unlit to lit – rural areas
Injury CRF 22% (95% CI -28; -15)
Elvik et al. 2009 International CRF for going from unlit Night-time crashes – urban areas
Injury CRF 29% (95% CI -34; -23)
Elvik et al. 2009 International CRF for going from unlit Night-time pedestrian crashes – urban areas
Injury CRF 50% (95% CI -57; -43)
Elvik et al. 2009 International Intersection CRF for Night-time crashes at intersections/junctions
going from unlit to lit – urban areas
Injury CRF 40% (95% CI -51; -27)
Elvik et al. 2009 International CRF for going from unlit Night-time crashes on motorways
to lit (controlled for publication bias CRF is 4% and
Austroads 2012
— 107 —

Elvik et al. 2009 International CRF for going from unlit Night-time crashes on motorways
to lit Severity unknown
Rear-end crashes CRF 20% (95% -36 +0)
Single vehicle crashes CRF increase of 44%
(95% -2 +110)
Intersection/junction crashes CRF 41%
(95% -64; -5)
Elvik et al. 2009 International CRF for increasing Night-time
lighting levels Increase level by up to double – injury CRF 8%
(95% CI -20; +6)
Increase level by 2–5 times – injury CRF 13%
(95% CI -17; -9)
Increase level by 5 times – fatal CRF 50%
(95% CI -79; +15) – injury CRF 32%
(95% CI -39; +25)
AASHTO 2010 USA Base condition = unlit Night-time crashes
Rural two-lane roads, rural multilane highways,
freeways, expressways, urban arterials,
suburban arterials
Injury CMF 0.71 (standard error unknown)
Given the large number of studies on this topic, the information is summarised in the table below.
Environment/Treatment Intersections Mid-blocks All
All –55% –50% –50%
–41% –30% –-30%
–50% –45% –-30%
–55% –36% –33%
–20%
+25%
–50%
–-40%
–29%
Motorways –50% –33%
–4% (not significant) –4%
–50%
–50%
Rural –40% –8%
–35% –49%
–22%
Urban –21% –31%
–40% –29%
Bridge –59%
Railway crossing –60%
–60%
–60%
New installation –38%
–25%
–38%
–50%
Austroads 2012
— 108 —
Environment/Treatment Intersections Mid-blocks All

Upgrade installation –41% –30% –33%
–25%
–33%
–50%
The effectiveness of lighting depends on a number of factors, including the luminance. The
following sections provide simple crash reductions for the installation or upgrading of street lighting,
but do not reflect issues such as the degree of lighting. Therefore a Crash Modification Function
that took into account such factors would be more desirable than a simple percentage reduction.
C.21.1 New Lighting – All Sites

A 35% reduction in night-time crashes for installing new lighting where no lighting was present,
based on eight studies (one report rejected as an outlier). Given most of the results are consistent,
there is a medium level of confidence.
C.21.2 New Lighting – Intersections

A 50% reduction in night-time crashes at intersections with no lighting was based on the mean of
four studies. Given the consistent results there is a high level of confidence in this figure.
C.21.3 New Lighting – Mid-blocks

A 40% reduction in night-time crashes at mid-blocks based on the mean of four studies. The
results are fairly consistent, so there is a high level of confidence in this figure.
C.21.4 New Lighting – Rural

No CRF was calculated as there was one study which had results that were not significant, one
figure that suggested an 8% reduction and one a 49% reduction.
C.21.5 New Lighting – Rural Intersections

The CRF is 30% for night-time casualty reduction. There is medium confidence in this reduction as
it is based on three studies suggesting fairly similar crash reductions.
C.21.6 New Lighting – Urban

A 30% reduction in night-time crashes at urban sites based on two studies. Given there are just
two studies, there is a low level of confidence.
C.21.7 New Lighting – Urban Intersections

There is also an estimated 30% reduction at urban intersections. This figure is based on only two
studies and has a low level of confidence.
C.21.8 New Lighting – Motorway Freeway Interchanges

A reduction of 50% in night-time casualties is proposed. This is based on the mean of the three
values (the 4% reduction was removed as it was not significant). There is a high level of
confidence in this as all three studies suggest a 50% reduction in crashes.
C.21.9 Railway Crossings

A 60% reduction in night-time crashes is recommended, based on three studies that show the
same result. There is high confidence in this figure.
Austroads 2012
— 109 —
C.21.10 Upgrade Existing Lighting

The benefit from improving existing lighting is estimated to be 35% (night-time casualties). There
is a medium level of confidence in this figure. No information is provided on the level of
improvement required to provide this benefit, but it is assumed to be significant. As a guide, more
comprehensive guidance is provided in Elvik et al., and that research indicates that with a doubling
of the lighting level there is an expected 8% decrease in night-time casualties; with between a two
and five times increase there is a 13% decrease, and with a five times or more increase, there is
an expected 32% decrease.
C.21.11 Effect on Different Crash Types and Severities

Various studies provided information on the expected crash reduction for different crash types (e.g.
rear-end crashes) and severities (e.g. fatal). However, in most cases there is only one study that
provides this information. Therefore, crash reduction factors have not been provided for these.
C.21.12 Time of Day

The vast majority of research provides CRFs for changes in casualties at night. There is no robust
information on the effect of street lighting during day and night, and so no information has been
provided on this. However, as would be expected, some of the research provides indications that
the effect for both night and day combined is less than the effect for night-time alone.
References assessed
Officials Washington, DC, USA.
Andreassen, DC 1976, ‘Vehicle conspicuity at night’, Australian Road Research Board conference, 8th,
Perth, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic, vol.8, no.5, pp.26-43.
NSW.
Bruneau, J, Morin, D & Pouliot, M 2001, ‘Safety benefits of motorway lighting’, Transportation Research
Record, no. 1758, Transportation Research Board, Washington, pp.1-5.
Austroads 2012
— 110 —
CTRE 2006, Safety impacts of street lighting at isolated rural intersections, part II, project web page, Center
for Land Transport and Education (CTRE), Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA, viewed 18 July 2011
<http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/research/detail.cfm?projectID=579>.
Elvik, R, Høye, A, Vaa, T & Sørensen, M 2009, The handbook of road safety measures, 2nd edn, Emerald
Ermer, DJ, Fricker, JD & Sinha, KC 1991, Accident reduction factors for Indiana, JHRP-91-11, School of Civil
Engineering, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN, USA.
Gorell, RSJ & Tootill, W 2001, Monitoring local authority road safety schemes using MOLASSES, report 512,
TRL, Crowthorne, UK.
Hall, RR & Fisher, AJ 1977, Measures of visibility and visual performance in road lighting, research report
ARR 74, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Isebrands, H, Hallmark, S, Hans, Z McDonald, T, Preston, H & Storm, R 2004, Safety impacts of street
lighting at isolated rural intersections, part 2, year 1, draft report, Center for Land Transport and
Education (CTRE), Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
Land Transport Safety Authority 1995, Accident investigation monitoring analysis version 3.0, Land Transport
Safety Authority, Wellington, NZ.
Land Transport Safety Authority 1997, Road lighting improvements, Land Transport Safety Authority,
Wellington, NZ, viewed 18 July 2011, < http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/road-lighting-
improvements/index.html >.
Osram-Gec 1985, ‘Road lighting: a proven countermeasure to road accidents’, Lighting in Australia, vol.5,
no.6, pp.35-6.
Preston, H & Schoenecker, T 1999, Safety impacts of street lighting at isolated rural intersections’, report
MN/RC 1999-17, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota, USA.
Sanderson, JT & Fildes, B 1984, Run-off-the-road accidents in rural areas, report TS84/6, Traffic and Safety,
Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV), Melbourne, Vic.
Teale, G 1984, The evaluation of the effectiveness of low cost traffic engineering projects, consultant report
CR 22, Office of Road Safety, Canberra, ACT.
Austroads 2012
— 111 —
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads, 2012, Effectiveness of Road Safety Engineering Treatments,

Sydney, A4, pp. 115. AP-R422-12
Keywords:
Crash Reduction Factors, CRF, Crash Modification Factors, CMF, guide posts,
chevron alignment markers, pavement markings, profile line marking, profile
edge lines, profile centrelines, signs, regulatory signs, advisory signs,
delineation, traffic signals, signal visibility, channelisation at intersections,
splitter and median islands, grade separation, right-turn lane provision, extend
right-turn lane, left-turn lane provision, lane width in tunnels, overtaking lanes,
superelevation, impact attenuators, pedestrian treatments, transverse rumble
strips, street closure, street lighting.
Abstract:
Previous Austroads research has identified that there is a lack of reliable

information regarding the effectiveness of different road safety engineering
treatments. This project addresses some of these gaps, providing information
on the crash reduction effectiveness of a range of road safety engineering
treatments.

Austroads - Effectiveness of Road Safety Engineering Treatments PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austroads - Effectiveness of Road Safety Engineering Treatments PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP-R422-12

AUSTROADS RESEARCH REPORT

Effectiveness of Road Safety

Published November 2012

© Austroads Ltd 2012

Effectiveness of Road Safety Engineering Treatments

Austroads Project No. ST1571

Austroads Publication No. AP-R422-12

Published by Austroads Ltd

C.10.5 Urban ..................................................................................................................... 70

2.2 Filling the Gaps Knowledge

2.3 Selected Issues

2.4 Determining Treatment Effectiveness

3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON CRASH TREATMENT

Table 3.1: Summary of treatment effectiveness

Treatment Environment Crash reduction Crash Confidence Year most Reference

Treatment Environment Crash reduction Crash Confidence Year most Reference

Treatment Environment Crash reduction Crash Confidence Year most Reference

Treatment Environment Crash reduction Crash Confidence Year most Reference

Treatment Environment Crash reduction Crash Confidence Year most Reference

Treatment Environment Crash reduction Crash Confidence Year most Reference

Treatment Environment Crash reduction Crash Confidence Year most Reference

4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A PRIORITISING GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE

Table A 1: Gaps in knowledge priority matrix

Treatment Frequency (F) Cost (C) Uncertainty (U) Comments FxCxU

Treatment Frequency (F) Cost (C) Uncertainty (U) Comments FxCxU

Treatment Frequency (F) Cost (C) Uncertainty (U) Comments FxCxU

APPENDIX B REVISIONS TO TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS FIGURES

Table B 1: Updated treatment effectiveness values

APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FOR PRIORITY

C.1 Guide Posts

Study Year Country Environment/Treatment Reduction

C.2 Chevron Alignment Markers

Rural but with other 46% reduction (95% CI 21.95; 70.4)

Any environment, and 50% reduction (95% CI 34.88; 64.46)

C.3 Pavement Markings

Study Year Country Environment/Treatment Reduction

C.3.2 Provision of Centrelines

Study Year Country Environment/Treatment Reduction

C.3.3 Provision of Centreline and Edge Line

Centre and edge line Mean: 2.49, standard error – 0.261

C.4 Profile Line Marking

Study Year Country Environment/Treatment Reduction

Perrillo 1998 United States Installation of shoulder 72% (run-off-road)

Study Year Country Environment/Treatment Reduction

C.4.2 Profile Centre Lining, Centreline Rumble Strip

Outcalt, W 2001, Centerline Rumble Strips, report CDOT-DTD-R-2001-8, Colorado Department of

C.5 Signs – Regulatory

Four-leg intersection 2% all crashes, 12% injury crashes

Study Year Country Environment/Treatment Reduction

Study Year Country Environment/Treatment Reduction

Right-turn ban All: 45%

C.5.1 General: Regulatory Signs at Intersections

C.5.2 Stop Signs at Three-leg Intersections

C.5.3 Stop Signs at Four-leg Intersections

C.5.4 Four-way Stop Signs

C.5.5 Give-way Signs

C.5.6 Stop Sign to Give-way Sign

C.5.7 Give-way Sign to Stop Sign

C.5.8 U-turn and Right-turn Ban

C.6 Traffic Signals

C.6.1 New Signals