​A

​Seminar Report

​on

​Road Safety Audit

Submitted in
Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY IN

(TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING)

Submitted by

ABHINAV DHAYAL (2019PCT5073)

Under the Guidance of

​Dr. Jinendra Kumar Jain

Department of Civil Engineering MNIT

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
JAIPUR
January 2021

1
 MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JAIPUR

JAIPUR – 302017 (RAJASTHAN), INDIA

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the seminar entitled “Road Safety Audit” being submitted
by Abhinav Dhayal (2019PCT5073) is a bonafide work carried out by him under
my supervision and guidance, and hence approved for submission to the
Department of Civil Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology
Jaipur, Rajasthan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
degree of Master of Technology (M.Tech) in Transportation Engineering. This
seminar report has not been submitted anywhere else for award of any other
degree.

Place: Jaipur Dr. Jinendra Kumar Jain

Date:06/01/2021 ​Associate Professor

​Department of Civil Engineering

​MNIT Jaipur

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With great delight, I acknowledge my indebted thanks to my guide and mentor,

Dr. J.K. Jain who has always been a source of inspiration and encouragement for
me. His stimulating guidance and unwavering support always motivated me to
reach out for, and achieve higher levels of excellence. This seminar could not
have attained its present form, both in content and presentation without his active
interest, direction, and help. I am grateful to him for keeping trust in me in all
circumstances. I thank him for being big-hearted with any amateurish mistakes of
mine.

I express my sincere gratitude to Prof.B.L.Swami, Dr.Arun Gaur, and Dr.Pawan

Kalla for their support and guidance throughout the course of study at MNIT
Jaipur.

I highly acknowledge and duly appreciate the support extended by my seniors,

colleagues- friends, and juniors for their help & support in the accomplishment of
this work during my stay at MNIT Jaipur.

ABHINAV DHAYAL

2019PCT5073

3
 ​Table Of Contents

Certificate……………………………………………………………....3
Acknowledgment……………………………………………………....4
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Brief History……………………………………………………..8
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Road Safety Papers from other countries……………………….11
2.2 Road safety Papers from India……………………………….....13
Chapter 3 Methodology
3.1 General steps for Road Safety Audit…………………………...20
Chapter 4 Road safety audit on section of NH-52
4.1 About the section……………………………………………….25
4.2 Road safety issues………………………………………………26
4.2.1 General Observations…………………………………………26
4.2.2 Junction……………………………………………………….32
4.2.3 Road Signs……………………………………………………37
4.2.4 Shoulders, embankments, and safety barriers………………...40
References……………………………………………………………42

4
1.​ Introduction

Safety is an essential component of transportation engineering. The safety of road

transportation involves many factors including driver skills, roadway characteristics,
vehicle conditions, and weather. In addition to crash causation, the identification of
hazards that may increase severity in the event of a crash is important. Among all
contributing elements, speed is considered to be one of the most critical.

There exist two types of internationally recognized engineering approaches to counter

road safety problems the Proactive and the Reactive approach. In the Reactive
Approach, safety improvement interventions are taken after many accidents have
already occurred. In many countries, the adoption of reactive approaches could not
gain significant success. The Proactive Approach encompasses accident prevention
and adoption of corrective measures before accidents can take place. One of the
proactive interventions is the Road Safety Audit (RSA) and that is a relatively new
tool in the developing countries.

Here the main focus is on the mechanism of addressing roadway safety is the
implementation of road safety audits.

According to WHO,

● Every 24 seconds someone dies on the road.

​

● 1.35 million Road traffic deaths every year.

● Road traffic injuries are the 8​th​ most leading cause of death worldwide.
​

● 1​st cause of death among children aged 5-14 and among young adults aged
15-29.

The road accident deaths and injuries are global phenomena but more severe situations
in mixed traffic conditions as prevailing on Indian multilane highways.

In India, out of 4,67,044 road crashes, 1,51,417 fatalities and 469418 injuries have
resulted in 2018, as per the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Annual Report of
2019-20.

In economic terms, the cost to the nation is estimated at about 3.04% of the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). A majority of Fatalities are in the age group of 18 to 45

5
years. There is a need for coordinated action by all concerned stakeholders. Road
Safety Audit is one critical step in that direction.

The concept of quality management and sustainable safety have gained ground in the
past two decades and may have been among the factors that led policymakers and
project managers to realize the need for purely safety-oriented tools. Road Safety
Audit (RSA) is one of the best tools for the improvement of road safety; in which
experts attempt to identify potentially dangerous features on the highway environment
and suggest remedial measures.

Road Safety Audit is a systematic approach for the evaluation of existing or new roads
by an independent audit team at the stages of planning, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to achieve accident-free roads and to enhance overall
safety performance.

The practice of auditing new or existing roadways to assist in building safety into the
road network is known as the road safety audit. A road safety audit is a formal and
proactive process to complete a comprehensive traffic safety study.

The Austroads guidelines define a road safety audit as a “​formal examination of a

future road or traffic project, an existing road, or any project which interacts with road
users, in which an independent, qualified team assesses the crash potential and safety
performance​”.

​A road safety audit is defined in the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC)

Canadian Road Safety Audit Guide as follows: ​A road safety audit is a formal and
independent safety performance review of a road transportation project by an
experienced team of safety specialists, addressing the safety for all road users​.

6
As per IRC: SP:88-2019 “​Road safety audit is a formal, systematic, independent, and
detailed examination of road project by an independent and qualified team of auditors
that leads to a report of potential safety concerns in the project​.”

It is formal because the audit follows a set process that leads to a formal report which
then becomes a part of a record of the whole project.

7
1.1 Brief History

Road safety analyses started during the early 1980s in the United Kingdom, moved to
Australia and New Zealand in the early 1990s, and gradually has spread to many other
countries. Road safety audits were introduced to the United States in the mid-1990s
and various reasons justify the need for implementing them.

Experiences with road safety audits in Australia, New Zealand, and the United
Kingdom were successful.

​United Kingdom

The concept of the road safety audit originated in the United Kingdom in the 1980s. In
1987, the Department of Transportation developed strategies to reduce road casualties
by one-third by the year 2000. In 1988, legislation placed responsibility on-road
controlling authorities to take action to reduce crashes. In response to this, the
Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) prepared the ​“Guidelines for the
Safety Audit of Highways​”, which was published in 1990. In April 1991, road safety
audits were made mandatory for all national roads and Freeways of the United
Kingdom.

​Australia

Australia is presently the leader in the implementation of road safety audit processes.
At the national level​, Austroads (the national association of road and traffic agencies)
set up a working party to develop road safety audit guidelines to provide a national
focus for this work. In 1994, they published the first guidelines that become an
international guiding principle in the road safety audit process. These guidelines were
revised in the Austroads International Road Safety Forum held in Melbourne in May
1998 and a second edition of the Austroads guidelines was published in 2002. This
improved edition reflects the knowledge and experience gained around the world. The
latest version is Guide to Road Safety Part 6: Managing Road Safety Audit, Austroads
2019.

8
New Zealand
Safety audits began in New Zealand with a series of
post-construction safety audits in 1990. They were helped by experienced safety
auditors from the United Kingdom and Australia, some pilot safety audit
projects were conducted in 1992 and 1993. A safety working party was set up
with representatives of all sectors to developed safety audit policies and
procedures.
From 1993, safety audit was mandatory for a 20
percent sample of state highway projects.

United States

A ​Federal Highway Administration (​FHWA) report entitled “Management

Approach to Highway Safety: A

Compilation of Good Practice”, published in 1991, recognized the need for a

comprehensive and coordinated approach to highway safety. Although safety audit as
such was not mentioned, the main concept was introduced.

In 1994, the FHWA sponsored an international technology scanning review focused

on Japan, Australia, and New Zealand to review safety management systems. One of
the findings was that safety audits were an effective tool in improving highway safety.

9
RSA In India

India has also started realizing the importance of Road Safety Audit. At present, there
is no formal qualification in Safety Audit or Road Safety Engineering but there are a
few training programs designed and conducted to produce Road Safety Auditors.

The first RSA was carried out by CRRI in 2000 on Indore Bypass. In the year 2002,
the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) sponsored the project on
“Development of Safety Audit Methodology for Existing Roadway Sections”.

Thereafter, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) entrusted CRRI to carry
out RSA of engineering design for construction packages under NH-2. Gradually it
was recognized that RSA is to be undertaken for all road types. With the number of
fatal road accidents increasing in India, the International Road Federation (IRF) has
emphasized the need for regular RSAs, which has been made mandatory by the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.

The first RSA guidelines were produced in 2003 and revised in 2009 by CRRI.
However, still there is a need to make highway professionals aware and
knowledgeable in making roads safer and the highway authorities would need to
commit themselves much more seriously on road safety aspects. As per the recently
approved road safety manual, the experts must carry out safety audits, not just during
the design and implementation phases of the projects, but also in the post-operation
period to identify and rectify deficiencies.

In 2010, a comprehensive manual on RSA, IRC: SP:88 was published in India. It is a

guideline for RSA to the decision-makers, engineers, and technicians in road sectors,
providing procedures for applying quality assurance to road projects from the road
safety perspective. It was reprinted in August 2013 and then again in November 2017.
Its First Revision was published in August 2019.

10
2. Literature Review

2.1 Road Safety Papers from Other countries

​Highway work zone safety audits for safety Improvements (2010)

Zongzhi Li

The paper aims to review current practices of road safety audits worldwide,
investigate the perceptions of experts on highway work zone safety in the USA and
issues of adopting work zone safety audits in the country, and propose a framework
for developing guidelines for implementing work zone safety audits for safety
improvements.

The paper was conducted by reviewing the existing literature of road safety audits and
administering four-week questionnaire surveys of experts on highway work zone
safety in the USA.

The findings of questionnaire surveys confirmed the leading causes of highway safety
problems were inadequate pre-construction planning and improper execution and
majority of responses of questionnaire believed public outreach and education on
safety issues and regular inspection are vital for road safety.

A Comparative Review of Road Safety Audit Guidelines of Selected Countries

(2013)

Ishtiaque Ahmed, Othman Che Puan, Che Ros Ismail

The objective of this study was to compare the contents of the guidelines of the
selected seven countries. The documents were reviewed and compared in terms of
seven critical parameters. This comparative method enabled us to identify the
shortcomings and any potential improvements of the guideline documents that could
be recommended through this study. Importance was given to study the checklist and
legal aspects of RSA. The main conclusion was no RSA guideline document can be
called the best one, as those were prepared considering the local conditions and
requirements.

11
Road safety audit on a major freeway: Implementing ​Safety Improvements
(2014)

Sophia Vardaki & Fanis Papadimitriou & Pantelis Kopelias

This paper explained thoroughly the method followed in the RSA of Attica Freeway
in New York. The RSA team not only focused on identifying potentially dangerous
roadway environments but also discussed misleading or missing information on the
road. The major safety issues identified by them were grouped into specific areas such
as signage, roadside hazards, issues related to cross-sections, stopping sight distance,
decision sight distance, driver behavioral issues, and issues related to vulnerable road
users.

Road Safety Audit (2017)

Yuha Huvarinen , Elena Svatkova , Elena Oleshchenko, Svetlana Pushchina

It emphasized that the mere compliance of road design and construction standards
and codes does not guarantee the safety of the traffic as more often these codes only
include practices that are the bare minimum. The authors applied RSA to the risks
outside the framework of standards and codes and found the process to be
cost-effective. Moreover, the authors found that RSA has the potential for improving
intra-industry cooperation besides decreasing the accident rate. The thorough traffic
safety audit performed at all the phases of the road construction and operation helps in
the determination and elimination of errors at an early stage. The study proposed that
the safety audit should be combined with the experience of the road sector and other
field experts for making the design of future roads in Russia more user-friendly. This
would confirm higher traffic safety levels due to the prevention of errors in road users’
behavior, making it more predictable and safer.

12
2.2 Road Safety Papers from India

ACCIDENT STUDY ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY - 5 BETWEEN

ANAKAPALLI TO VISAKHAPATNAM (2003)

B.S., E. Madhu, T.S. Reddy

They carried out an accident study between Anakapalli and Visakhapatnam of NH-5.
The RSA revealed that the main reason for a high number of crashes on the four-lane
divided highways is the direct access of the local traffic to the NHs. Moreover, median
openings at a frequent interval resulted in wrong maneuvering by the road users. The
analysis also indicated that vehicle drivers are mostly responsible for the accidents as
they fail to perceive the situation ahead because of poor reflexes, fatigue,
inexperience, or intoxication. The RSA team suggested appropriate traffic guidance
and control systems and adequate infrastructural facilities to guide road users,
ensuring safety.

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT FOR FOUR LANE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS (2011)

Dr. S. S. Jain, P. K. Singh, Dr. M Parida

The authors aimed to evaluate the RSA of a section of four-lane divided NH-58. The
study focused on evaluating the benefits of the proposed actions that have emanated
from deficiencies identified through the audit process. The RSA team found that truck
parking on highways reduced the effective width of the carriageway and created
traffic hazards to high-speed moving traffics. Unauthorized median openings were
another potential threat identified in the audit. The Vulnerable Road User (VRU) such
as pedestrians and cyclists needed to be facilitated on priority. However, no
design-related deficiencies emerged from the study.

13
Road Safety Audit (2012)

Arun S Bagi, Dheeraj N kumar

The objective of the study was the identification of accident-prone areas on the road
from FIR, to study the effect of roadway geometrics and traffic conditions on the road
stretch and the development of the statistical relationship between accident rates and
various factors causing accidents.

Road Safety Audit: A Case Study for Wardha Road in Nagpur City (2014)

​MANISH.D.KATIYARI, PROF.S.D.GHODMARE

In this project analysis of one of the major arterial streets of Nagpur city will be
undertaken. The location of interest for the analysis is Wardha Road from Morris
College Square to Airport Intersection. The roadway carries a considerable amount of
traffic throughout the day and it has several conflict points such as the merging of
traffic from flyovers. A detailed analysis of Wardha Road will be carried out from the
point of view of safety and supplemental analysis regarding the traffic growth and
accident analysis will also be performed.

Road Safety Audit & Remedial Measures-A Case Study of SH-55 (2015)

Patel Savankumar, Prof. C.B.Mishra, Prof. N.F.Umrigar

The objective of the study is to concentrate on completing the road safety audits for
evaluating accident potential and wellbeing execution in the change of the existing
road.

14
Road safety analysis using multi-criteria approach: A case study in India (2016)

Shalini Kanugantia, Ruchika Agarwalab, Bhupali Duttac, Pooja N.Bhanegaonkard,

Ajit Pratap Singhe, A K Sarkarf

In this paper a study was carried out to determine the priority of safety requirements
of a certain category of rural roads, viz., Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana
(PMGSY) roads in the Jhunjhunu district of Rajasthan, India. Multi-criteria techniques
were used to quantify the safety levels. Further analysis has also been done on the
road having the worst safety features to rank various stretches. The parameters vital
for safety have been selected and quantified using three multi-criteria decision making
analysis tools: Simple Additive Weightage (SAW), Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP), and Fuzzy AHP methods and results are compared. The methodology
presented herein gives the insight to prioritize roads for safety mitigation measures.

Road Safety Audit and a Case Study on Kaithal-Kurukshetra Road Haryana,

India 2017

Hitesh Kumar, Mrs. Monika

The objective of the study is the identification of accident-prone areas on the road
from FIR, to study the effect of roadway geometrics and traffic conditions on the road,
and the development of the statistical relationship between the accident and various
factors causing accidents. The road selected for the study is Kaithal-Kurukshetra,
Haryana, India. Accident-prone locations are identified by all analysis.

ROAD SAFETY AND ROAD SAFETY AUDIT IN INDIA: A REVIEW (2017)

Abdul Rahoof, Bipin Kumar Singh

In this paper, the concept of the road safety audit and its stages were critically
analyzed. The five stages of road safety audit were discussed and information was
provided about what steps must be undertaken during different stages.

15
Road Safety Audit of Delhi – Mathura Road 2017

N. Naveen, Dr. T. Ilango, Dr. Abdhesh Kumar Sinha

This paper explores the defects in the design and other safety features. This study
highlights even the psychological factors involved in understanding the behavior of
pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The main tool is the Road Safety Audit. The road
selected for this study is Delhi to Mathura road near CRRI, a construction site at
Mewala Maharajpur Station & Okhala Interchange. This audit is a part of the CRRI
Road Safety Audit Training Program. In conclusion, we argue that significant
measures should be taken on Road Safety aspects to mitigate accidents and ensure the
safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

Road Safety Audit: A Case Study on NH-65 2018

Tummala Bharat Kumar, Chukkapalli Jeswanth Chowdhary

The case study on the four-lane NH-65 indicated that road markings, condition of the
shoulder, condition of the carriageway, and median opening are the significant
contributing factor for accidents. It was also observed that the moderately moving
vehicular traffic, which generally occupies the innermost lane of the highway, creates
traffic glitches for the fast-moving vehicular traffic. The need for a service road along
the highway to segregate the slow-moving vehicular traffic from fast-moving
vehicular traffic was evident from the study. The RSA report insisted that all the
illegal median gaps should be closed and necessary provisions such as foot-over
bridges must be provided for the local neighborhood to cross the highway on a priority
basis. The undeveloped minor and major crossings along the road should be
developed with necessary lighting provisions to reduce the accident rate. Footpath for
the pedestrian should be developed and maintained near the habitant areas, industries,
educational institutions, and guard rail to be provided along the entire length of the
footpath. The authors suggested the development of special facilities for the
differently-abled people at bus stops.

16
Road Safety Audit 2018

Omkar Gholap, Nikita Shinde, Vaishnavi Shelke, Navnath Navale, Kuldeepak

Deshmukh

The study aims to inspect the road in the terms of safety measures, road scenario, any
type of flaws and to suggest the mitigating and preventive measures for the selected
section of the road for audit.

Identifying Critical Safety Issues on Two-Lane National Highways In India – A

Case Study From NH-60 and NH 117 2019

Sudipa Chatterjee, Partha Sarathi Bandyopadhyay, Sudeshna Mitra

They attempted to identify critical safety issues on two-lane highways in India

through a combined proactive-reactive approach. Several risk factors were identified
using the principles of RSA and were mapped with the available crash data analysis to
develop a risk matrix. This systematic development of the risk matrix was found to be
helpful in the selection of countermeasure design in a more scientific way, targeting
the frequent crash types and severities expected to result at the high crash sites.

17
3.​ ​Methodology

There are five stages of a road project at which a road safety audit can be conducted.

• ​Stage 1 Feasibility Stage/Preliminary Design Stage

An audit on completion of the planning or feasibility study stage will examine

features such as design standards, route choice, and continuity with the existing
adjacent network, horizontal and vertical alignments, cross-sections, and
interchange/intersection layouts. Careful auditing at this early feasibility study stage
can help to reduce the costs and lost time associated with changes that may otherwise
be brought about during later audits.

• ​Stage 2 Detailed Design Stage

This audit stage occurs on completion of the detailed road design (the final DPR) but
before the preparation of contract documents. Typical considerations include
geometric layout, pavement markings, signals, lighting, road signs, intersection
details, clearances to roadside objects (crash barriers/frangibility), and provision for
vulnerable road users. Attention to detail at this design stage can do much to reduce
the costs and disturbance associated with last-minute changes that may otherwise be
brought about with a pre-opening audit.

• ​Stage 3 Construction Stage

This stage of audit takes place during the construction of the road works. It examines
the safety of the traffic management plans for each phase of construction for large
road protects before the works begin, and it also inspects the provisions for road safety
at the road work site during the construction period. Typical issues examined include
the provisions for pedestrian safety, advanced warning zones, adequate transition zone
lengths, worker safety, effective numbers of reflective signs, safe delineation, credible
speed limits, lighting, and diversions.

18
• ​Stage 4 Pre-Opening Stage

This audit involves a detailed inspection of the new road project immediately before
its opening. Although most road projects are constructed "under traffic- there is a time
just before the Contractor hands over the project when the project is almost complete
and when a pre-opening stage audit is undertaken. The new road should be driven,
ridden, and walked (as appropriate) by the audit team to ensure that the safety needs of
all road users are provided. A night-time inspection is particularly important at this
stage to check the installation and visibility of signs, markings, delineation, lighting,
and any other night time / low light related issues.

•​ Stage 5 Safety Audit of Existing Roads

The existing road may be a well-established road dating back decades or it may be a
recently upgraded or rehabilitated road. The audit of the existing road aims to ensure
that the safety features of a road are compatible with the functional classification of
the road. It also aims to identify any feature that may develop over time into a safety
issue (such as a tree blocking sightline at an intersection).

A number of the safety issues found in these audits should be readily addressed
through simple low-cost maintenance practices (e.g. tree trimming, sign, line marking
renewal. and roadside hazard issues).

19
3.1 General Steps for Road Safety Audit

1. To comply with the road safety audit policy of an organization, decide that if a
project is to be audited.

The road works on Expressway and National Highway and primary arterial is always
audited and usually at different stages. The table shown below gives an idea about
which stages of road safety audit to employ to which type of road.

Road authority decides if an audit is needed.

2. Appoint a safety audit team.

The road safety audit is a simple process, but qualifications, experience, skills are
necessary for a successful audit.The audit team should be led by a senior road safety
auditor, having adequate knowledge and experience in road safety engineering.The
number of members in the Audit team depends on the size of the task.As a general
rule, a team of two members is considered for most audits.For minor projects on low
volume roads in low-speed locations, the team may comprise one Senior Road Safety
Auditor and one Apprentice auditor who is a qualified civil engineer and trained in
road safety.

3. ​The Team Leader of the Audit team has to procure all relevant information about
the project from the Project Manager.

The Audit team should have access to all the latest drawings and designs of the
project.The first task for the audit team is to list all the drawings and reports that have
been given to it for the audit, this list is also part of the audit report.

4. The scope of the audit has to be defined for which the commencement meeting is
held.

At this stage, the audit team requests any other information if required .Also, the
designer explains where compromises may have been made in the design if any. Other
information, issues regarding the project is also discussed.

20
5. Desktop audit of Drawings, Design reports, and documents.

It involves reviewing the drawings, design reports, etc before and after carrying out
the inspection. The drawings are closely examined, problematic areas and issues are
marked, the list of possible safety concerns to be checked on site is made.

6. Detailed inspection of the site during day and night.

The location of the new road proposal is to be inspected - by the entire audit team -
during day time and again at night time.While on-site, lots of photographs are taken.
A few of these can be used in the audit report, while the entire stock of photos can
serve as a historical record of the audit assignment. They can also help the audit team
to remember a specific safety concern when back in the office writing the audit report.
Keeping a record of observations and safety findings on-site can be a challenge. Pen
and paper will work but is often hard to manage in hot, dusty, windy, humid, or wet
conditions. Observations can be taken verbally on to a digital recorder or a
smartphone. These enable more detailed observations to be recorded and in a shorter
time. The inspection should be taken from the viewpoint of all likely road user groups
– not just motorists.

7. Writing the road safety audit report.

The report writing is the responsibility of the team leader, other members can
double-check it and provide comments on it. Audit reports are concise reports with
brief, but technically clear descriptions of each of the safety concerns that have been
identified. It is best if the report follows an agreed format; this makes it easier for the
team to write and importantly it assists project managers and designers to respond.

The audit report should contain:

● A title page - with the name of the road project and its location.
● A brief description of the road project — what type of project, why it has been
proposed, and the stage of the audit.
● The names of the road safety audit team members.
● Dates of the audit inspections and the weather conditions on-site at those
times.

21
 ● A table of all the safety concerns found from the desktop audit as well as from
the site inspection.
● A risk rating for each safety concern.
● A practical and clear recommendation for corrective action for each safety
concern.
● Digital photographs of important safety concerns linked/aligned with the road
chainage as far as possible.
● A statement signed and dated by the Team Leader on behalf of the team,
indicating that the team has audited the drawings, inspected the site, and
identified the road safety concerns noted in the report.
● List all the Identified safely concerns (and recommendations for each) either

- In order from highest risk to lowest risk, or

- In groups of similar concerns (e.g. cross-section matters, Intersection layout,

geometric deficiency, pedestrian matters), or

- By chainage along the project stretch.

8. Holding a completion meeting.

The Project Manager is responsible for arranging a completion meeting involving:

● The Audit Team Leader,
● The Project Manager, and
● The Designer/Design team.

At this meeting, the road safety audit findings and recommendations are tabled and
discussed. The meeting provides an opportunity for the auditor, the Project Manager,
and the design team to discuss all and any issues in the report. This will usually
involve a discussion of each safety concern, its risk rating and priority, and its
recommended ways to overcome the identified safety problem.The meeting should be
held in a professional and co-operative manner with a spirit of all parties working
together for the enhanced safety of road users. It should not become a meeting of the
blame game, or serious dispute. A safety audit is a positive activity that helps to
improve road safety for all road users by highlighting potential safety concerns before
they become problems. The Project Manager is required to provide his response in

22
writing to each and every recommendation in the report. At that time, he/she will be
able to state why a recommendation has not been able to be accepted. The audit
process is a professional, transparent, and positive process with one goal — to
improve safety for all road users.

9. Road authority responds to audit recommendations, clearly stating what action will
and will not take place.

The Project Manager is required to provide a response in writing to each audit

recommendation in the report. He/she can either:

● Accept it completely (and develop solutions to overcome or reduce the safety

concern): or
● Accept the safety concern but not agree with the recommendation. In these
cases, he/ she will seek alternative ways to resolve the safety concern: or
● Not accept the recommendation (explaining clearly why this decision has been
taken).

To provide useful feedback, the Project Manager should send a copy of the response
to the Audit Team Leader for information. The audit team should note the responses
and where possible learn from them. The team should be aware that they should not
create an on-going dispute over which recommendations have or have not been
accepted. The audit team "guides" but it is the responsibility of the Project Manager
and the designers (not the audit team) to make the decision about the solution and to
arrange for any redesign.

A part of the audit process that is often more challenging and demanding rests with
the Project Manager and the road authority. How does the client decide whether or not
to accept an audit recommendation? It is neither always possible nor practical to agree
with all recommendations as some of these may involve large additional expenses that
will affect progress with the project. In practice, this challenge facing the
decision-makers usually only arises with the 'very expensive' recommendations and
occasionally with 'complex' recommendations; it rarely happens with simple and/or
low-cost recommendations.

23
As a guiding principle, when faced with an audit recommendation that is difficult to
resolve, the Project Manager needs to consider and weigh up the following aspects:

● How often might crashes occur? (Weekly, monthly, yearly)

● How serious might such crashes be? (Fatal, injury, property damage only),
● What will it cost to remedy (or at least reduce) the problem? With most safety
concerns, there are usually several alternative remedies.
● How effective can each alternative be expected to be?

10. Implement all agreed-upon changes and recommendations.

A road safety audit achieves nothing for the road users until its recommendations are
discussed, decided, and implemented.

The audit process can direct Project Managers towards a safer alternative but the onus
lies on the Project Manager to ultimately decide on the course of action and its
implementation. As long as all competing issues are clearly and fully considered for
each identified safety concern, the audit team should be satisfied that its contribution
has been of value to the project.

24
4. Road Safety Audit on Section of NH-52
4.1 About the Section
National Highway 52 (NH 52), ​Sangrur​, ​Punjab​ to ​Ankola​, ​Karnataka​, is a ​National
Highway​ in ​India​.
In Rajasthan, it is referred to as:

Jaipur – Tonk – Deoli – Kota Road.

Chainage of our section

11 + 500 – 13 + 000 (Day Audit) (shown by point1 to 2)

13 + 990 – 15 + 000 (Night Audit). (shown by point 3 to 4).

25
4.2 Road Safety Issues
The issues are identified, a brief description and recommendation are provided.

The issues are broadly divided into the following categories:

● General Observations
● Junctions
● Road signs
● Shoulders, embankments, and safety barriers.

4.2.1​ General Observations

• ​Safety Issue: Parking Management on the Project Corridor Location.

It has been observed that vehicles are parked on the highway for varying lengths of
time, which can be attributed to a lack of understanding of highway etiquettes and
sometimes out of necessity as there are no stopping lanes along the corridor in case of
the need for a driver break or vehicle breakdown. Parking may also occur because of
the lower parking capacity available at the designated parking spaces. The presence of
truck parking alongside the carriageway can result in an increased number of
collisions, particularly at night.

26
Recommendation

Identify and provide adequate parking facilities along with proper signages and
carriageway markings at appropriate locations for motor vehicles. The signs must be
in accordance with IRC: 67-2012. Working with the help of police, ensure that
junctions are kept clear from parked or waiting vehicles. It helps in preventing drivers
from parking on the running traffic lanes.

• Safety Issue: Visibility of road markings

. There are chances of disorderly flow, thereby affecting the performance of the
carriageway and hence remains a road safety hazard due to improper road markings.

​ Faded Pavement Markings

27
 Absence of Hazard markers at the intersection on median

Recommendation

Road markings should be clearly visible for smooth flow of traffic psychological
barriers which prevent road hazards, provide visible road markings in accordance with
IRC: 35-2015 with use of thermoplastic color, so that smooth flow of traffic is
ensured.

28
• Safety Issue: Absence of signages, road studs, delineators.

Recommendation
Provision of retro-reflective signages. Road studs and delineators must be provided.

• Safety Issue: Livestock

A major cause of collisions in India is due to livestock roaming on roadsides. The

project corridor is predominantly located adjacent to fields and passes through
settlements with untethered livestock. The livestock is often driven along or across the
carriageway. The driving of livestock along or across the highway is a potential source
of collisions. Motor vehicles driving at a higher speed need to decelerate and change
lanes to avoid collisions when livestock is seen driven along the project highway. The
probability of accidents increases even more during the night time.

29
Stray animals

30
 Stray animals

Recommendations

When livestock is being driven across the highway, motor vehicles need to stop,
which can often result in hard braking, to avoid collisions with livestock. Such hard
braking to avoid collision with livestock may result in rear shunt collisions. Warning
signs to Figure 15.66 of IRC: 67-2012 should be installed at known cattle crossing
points, the locations can be ascertained from farmers regarding livestock crossing
points. The sign should be erected where there is danger due to farm animals or cattle
crossing on the road. The sign should not be used simply because animals are driven
along or across the road at infrequent intervals but should be used where they cross or
are driven alongside the highway regularly. Consider the installation of fences
alongside the carriageway to restrict access to the carriageway except for agreed
access points. At major livestock crossing locations, consider the provision of
livestock underpasses. As part of a road user education program and consultation,
highlight the safety issues of untethered livestock, driving livestock along and across

31
the highway. Develop an operational plan after discussion with farmers and livestock
owners to minimize the safety risk as far as practicable.

Cattle crossing sign as per IRC 67:2012

4.2.2 Junction

There are some minor roads heading towards some villages. These minor roads form
conflict points as there are no service roads. Villagers using the minor roads are likely
to cross carriageway, which could be a safety hazard. It was also observed that the
cross-minor roads are having steep gradients. Moreover, there are no warning
signages representing the approach of a minor road connecting to a village. Also, there
are no rumble strips/alert strips provided to alert inattentive drivers of a potential
danger due to approach road.

32
•Safety Issue: No speed control mechanisms were adopted at the junction
opening at Shivdaspura.

33
Recommendations

Provide necessary signages, which indicate the approaching villages and

corresponding minor roads. In addition, there should a provision to provide service
roads for the densely populated areas to avoid any road mishaps. Also, improve the
gradient of minor roads within permissible limits as specified in IRC: SP: 41-1994.
Also, rumble strips/alert strips are to be provided to alert inattentive drivers about
approach roads.

Stop marking on minor road

Stop sign on the minor road

34
 Rumble strips at the intersection

•Safety Issue: Poorly-lit junction opening

Recommendation
Provision of retroreflective signages and lightning arrangements are required as per
IRC 93.

35
• Safety Issue: Non-standard speed hump with pedestrian crossing over it.

Recommendations
As per IRC-103:2012, safe pedestrian crossing must be planned. As per IRC-99:2018,
traffic calming measures must be implemented.

36
4.2.3 Road signs

• Safety Issue: Absence of Chevron Signs and Cautionary Sign

Boards on a sharp curve

Recommendations

As per IRC–67:2012, left-hand curve signage and chevron signs must be provided.

37
• Safety Issue: Absence of cautionary signboards, hazard marker, and a
sharp turn at the intersection with slope​.

Recommendations
As per IRC-67:2012 and IRC-35:2015, proper signages and markings are required.

38
• Safety Issue: Tollgate signage was covered with FASTAG posters.

Recommendations
As per IRC–67:2012, standard signages must be provided.

• Safety Issue: Wrong directional informatory signboard, Chaksu town is

on left.

Recommendations
As per IRC–67:2012, standard correct signages must be provided.

39
3.2.4 Shoulders, embankments, and safety barriers.
• ​Safety Issue: Absence of Crash Barrier before and at left-turning link
road to Shivdaspura town with embankment.

Recommendation
As per IRC–119:2015, road edge traffic safety barriers must be provided at turnings
with embankments.

40
• Safety Issue: Provision of extra widening not provided at the curved
junction, and absence of crash barrier

Recommendation
Provide the necessary extra widening with traffic safety barriers at curves.

41
References

Zongzhi Li (2010) Highway work zone safety audits for safety Improvements.

Ishtiaque Ahmed, Othman Che Puan, Che Ros Ismail (2013) A Comparative Review
of Road Safety Audit Guidelines of Selected Countries.

Sophia Vardaki & Fanis Papadimitriou & Pantelis Kopelias (2014) Road safety audit
on a major freeway: Implementing​ ​Safety Improvements.

Yuha Huvarinen , Elena Svatkova , Elena Oleshchenko, Svetlana Pushchina (2017)

Road Safety Audit.

B.S., E. Madhu,T.S. Reddy (2003) ACCIDENT STUDY ON NATIONAL

HIGHWAY - 5 BETWEEN ANAKAPALLI TO VISAKHAPATNAM.

Dr. S. S. Jain, P. K. Singh, Dr. M Parida (2011) ROAD SAFETY AUDIT FOR
FOUR LANE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS.

Arun S Bagi, Dheeraj N kumar (2012)“Road Safety Audit”.

MANISH.D.KATIYARI, PROF.S.D.GHODMARE (2014) “Road Safety Audit: A

Case Study for Wardha Road in Nagpur City”.

Patel Savankumar, Prof. C.B.Mishra, Prof. N.F.Umrigar (2015) Road Safety Audit &
Remedial Measures-A Case Study of SH-55.

Shalini Kanugantia, Ruchika Agarwalab, Bhupali Duttac, Pooja N.Bhanegaonkard,

Ajit Pratap Singhe, A K Sarkarf (2016) Road safety analysis using multi-criteria
approach: A case study in India.

Hitesh Kumar, Mrs. Monika (2017) Road Safety Audit and a Case Study on
Kaithal-Kurukshetra Road Haryana, India.

Abdul Rahoof, Bipin Kumar Singh (2017) ROAD SAFETY AND ROAD SAFETY
AUDIT IN INDIA: A REVIEW.

42
N. Naveen, Dr. T. Ilango, Dr. Abdhesh Kumar Sinha (2017) Road Safety Audit of
Delhi – Mathura Road.

Tummala Bharat Kumar, Chukkapalli Jeswanth Chowdhary (2018) Road Safety

Audit: A Case Study on NH-65.

Omkar Gholap, Nikita Shinde, Vaishnavi Shelke,Navnath Navale, Kuldeepak

Deshmukh (2018) Road Safety Audit.

Sudipa Chatterjee, Partha Sarathi Bandyopadhyay, Sudeshna Mitra (2019) Identifying

Critical Safety Issues on Two-Lane National Highways In India – A Case Study From
NH-60 and NH 117.

IRC:67-(2012) CODE OF PRACTICE FOR ROAD SIGNS.

IRC:SP:55-(2014) GUIDELINES ON TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT IN WORK

ZONES.

IRC SP:88 (2019).MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT.

Guide to Road Safety Part 6: Managing Road Safety Audits. (2019) Austroroads
Sydney.

Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Annual Report of 2019-20.

43
44
45