BRDM - 2018 - Vol1 - Part5 - Road Safety

BAHRAIN ROADS DESIGN MANUAL
Part 5 Road Safety
1st Edition
2018
Kingdom of Bahrain Part 5 Road Safety Roads Design Manual
Document Control
Client The Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain, as represented by

the Ministry of Works, P.O. Box 5, Bahrain
Title Bahrain Roads Design Manual
Subtitle Part 5 Road Safety
References Prepared and published by AECOM
Contract Number RPD-11/050 (March 2012)
st
Edition 1
Revision 00
Issue Date 2018
Roads Design Manual Part 5 Road Safety Kingdom of Bahrain
Summary
This Part 5 of the Bahrain Roads Design Manual provides an overview of the Road Safety
requirements for the management, improvement and maintenance of the highway network in
Bahrain.
This Manual has been developed and based on an underlying design philosophy embracing
the concept of sustainable safe road design which aims to: "avoid burdening a future
generation with the consequences of road traffic accidents resulting from current and future
mobility demands". This philosophy includes concepts such as the forgiving roadside (see
Parts 6 and 15); safety principles (see Part 5); functionality; homogeneity and predictability.
Road safety is thus an essential element of all Parts of the new Bahrain Design Standards at
all stages of a road infrastructure project, from the preliminary proposals through the
detailed design to completion of construction. This Part describes how road safety is a
proactive and reactive process that relies upon accurate data. Data that are used to identify
problems; forecast future trends and enable the engineer to prepare measures to improve
the infrastructure and reduce the number of crashes and injuries on the Kingdom’s roads.
The main chapter contains advice on Road Infrastructure Safety Management, which
includes Road Safety Impact Assessment, Road Safety Audits and when they should take
place during the life cycle of the project, the teams of Auditors which are required, their brief
and reporting procedures. It also deals with safety ranking and management of the road
network, safety inspections and the management of the data drawn from these activities. It
also provides advice on the best elements of safety design and describes the procedures for
establishing a management regime of the network for the whole of its life.
The remaining chapters take all of the separate road safety advice, guidelines and
standards within the other Parts of the Manual and draw it together in a coherent and
succinct manner. Users of the Manual should however consult the relevant Part for the detail
rather than relying on this Part.
The information has been drawn from international best practice to establish procedures and
methods of improving road safety and to enable the Kingdom to become the leading State in
the region in road safety management.
st
1 Edition 1 2018
[There is no other text on this page]
st
2018 2 1 Edition
Contents
The Bahrain Roads Design Manual
The Bahrain Roads Design Manual has been prepared and published in 18 separate parts
grouped together in a thematic structure to make it easier to use and manage.
Part Title
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROAD PROJECTS
1 Introduction to the Bahrain Roads Design Manual
2 Planning Procedures
3 Scheme Appraisal
4 Design & Implementation Procedures
5 Road Safety
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROAD PROJECTS
6 Road Geometry
Chapter 1: Introduction and General Design Criteria
Chapter 2: Link Design
Chapter 3: Cross Section Elements
Chapter 4: Junction Type, Size and Choice
Chapter 5: Design of Priority Junctions
Chapter 6: Grade Separated Junctions and Interchanges
Chapter 7: Roundabouts
Chapter 8: Signal Controlled Junctions (including Signalised Roundabouts)
Chapter 9: Highway Features
7 Geotechnical Investigation
8 Pavement Design and Rehabilitation
9 Road Drainage
10 Minor Road Structures
11 Street Lighting
12 Environmental Assessment & Design
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
13 Traffic Signs and Road Markings
14 Traffic Signals and Control Equipment
15 Road Safety Barriers
16 Traffic Management at Road Works
ROAD MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
17 Road Maintenance
DRAWINGS
18 Standard Details
st
1 Edition 3 2018
Part 5 Road Safety
The contents of this part are:
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1
Contents ................................................................................................................................... 3
The Bahrain Roads Design Manual ..................................................................................... 3
Part 5 Road Safety ............................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 6
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 6
Glossary ................................................................................................................................... 7
Definition of terms (particular to this part) ............................................................................ 7
Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 9
1 Introduction and Scope ......................................................................................... 11
2 Road Infrastructure Safety Management .............................................................. 14
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Road Safety Impact Assessment.......................................................................... 14
2.3 Road Safety Audits ............................................................................................... 15
Stage 1 (RSA1): ............................................................................................................. 17
Stage 2 (RSA2): ............................................................................................................. 17
Stage 3 (RSA3): ............................................................................................................. 17
Stage 4 (RSA4): ............................................................................................................. 18
Further guidance ............................................................................................................ 18
2.4 Appointment of Road Safety Auditors .................................................................. 18
2.5 Audit Brief ............................................................................................................. 19
2.6 Audit Report .......................................................................................................... 20
2.7 Safety Ranking and Management of the Operational Road Network................... 22
2.8 Safety Inspections ................................................................................................ 24
2.9 Data Management ................................................................................................ 25
3 Safety in Geometric Design .................................................................................. 27
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 27
3.2 Design Speed ....................................................................................................... 27
3.3 Stopping Sight Distance (SSD)............................................................................. 28
3.4 Horizontal Alignment ............................................................................................. 28
3.5 Vertical Alignment ................................................................................................. 29
3.6 Coordinated Link Design ...................................................................................... 29
4 Roadside Hazard Management ............................................................................ 30
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 30
4.2 Point Hazards ....................................................................................................... 31
4.3 Continuous Hazards ............................................................................................. 31
4.4 Providing a Forgiving Roadside Environment ...................................................... 32
4.5 Other Types of Hazards and their Treatments ..................................................... 32
5 Landscape ............................................................................................................ 33
6 Advertising Boards / Structures ............................................................................ 34
7 Junction Strategy .................................................................................................. 35
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 35
7.2 Signalised Junctions ............................................................................................. 35
7.3 Priority Junctions (Give Way and Stop) ................................................................ 35
st
2018 4 1 Edition
7.4 Simple Junctions .................................................................................................. 35

7.5 Ghost Islands ........................................................................................................ 36
7.6 Dual Carriageway Junctions ................................................................................. 36
7.7 Crossroads ........................................................................................................... 36
7.8 Staggered Junctions ............................................................................................. 36
7.9 Siting of Priority Junctions .................................................................................... 36
7.10 Visibility ................................................................................................................. 37
7.11 Major Road ........................................................................................................... 37
7.12 Roundabouts ........................................................................................................ 37
7.13 Mini Roundabouts ................................................................................................. 37
7.14 Signalised Roundabouts ....................................................................................... 38
7.15 Roundabout Entry Width ...................................................................................... 38
7.16 Visibility on the Approach to Roundabouts ........................................................... 38
7.17 Interchanges ......................................................................................................... 39
8 Safety Barriers ...................................................................................................... 40
9 Traffic Signs and Markings ................................................................................... 41
9.1 Traffic Signs .......................................................................................................... 41
9.2 Traffic Signs at Road Works ................................................................................. 41
9.3 Road Markings...................................................................................................... 42
9.4 Posts for Traffic Signs .......................................................................................... 42
10 Safety of Vulnerable Road Users ......................................................................... 43
10.1 Pedestrian Crossings ........................................................................................... 43
11 Traffic Calming...................................................................................................... 44
11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 44
11.2 Traffic Calming Objectives .................................................................................... 45
11.3 Guidelines for Designers ...................................................................................... 45
11.4 Calming on Routes ............................................................................................... 46
11.5 Self – Calming Routes .......................................................................................... 47
11.6 Scheme Assessment ............................................................................................ 47
11.7 Pedestrians and Cyclists ...................................................................................... 48
11.8 Bus Services ......................................................................................................... 48
11.9 Emergency Services ............................................................................................. 48
11.10 Parking and Servicing ........................................................................................... 48
11.11 Location and Spacing of Measures ...................................................................... 48
11.12 Environmental Considerations .............................................................................. 49
11.13 Signs, Markings and Lighting ............................................................................... 49
11.14 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 49
11.15 Range of Traffic Calming Measures ..................................................................... 50
References ............................................................................................................................. 54
Appendix A Illustrative Road Safety Audit (RSA) Report Stage 1 and 2 .......................... 55
Appendix B Illustrative Road Safety Audit (RSA) Report Stage 4..................................... 61
Appendix C Model RSA Issues Guidance Checklists ....................................................... 63
Appendix D Road Safety Audit (RSA) Review Sheet Template ........................................ 75
Appendix E Range of Traffic Calming Measures .............................................................. 76
E.1 Individual Measures .............................................................................................. 76
Vertical Deflection .......................................................................................................... 76
Horizontal Deflection ...................................................................................................... 77
E.2 Route Treatments ................................................................................................. 78
st
1 Edition 5 2018
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Risk Assessment Matrix ......................................................................................... 21

Table 2.2 Risk Assessment Table ......................................................................................... 21
Table 11.1 Description of Traffic Calming Measures ............................................................. 51
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Procedure for Accident Investigation Studies ....................................................... 12

Figure 2.1 Steps to Remediate Accident-prone Locations .................................................... 23
Figure E.1 Typical Examples of Vertical Deflection ............................................................... 76
Figure E.2 Horizontal Deflection Parameters......................................................................... 78
Figure E.3 Gateways (A) ........................................................................................................ 79
Figure E.4 Central Hatching (A W O) ..................................................................................... 80
Figure E.5 Central Refuges (A W O) ..................................................................................... 80
Figure E.6 Coloured Patching (A W O) .................................................................................. 81
Figure E.7 Speed Limit Roundels (A W O) ............................................................................ 81
Figure E.8 Pedestrian Facilities (W) ...................................................................................... 82
Figure E.9 Vehicle Activated Signs (A W O) .......................................................................... 82
Figure E.10 Lane Reallocation (A W O) ................................................................................. 83
Figure E.11 Carriageway Width Reduction (A O) .................................................................. 83
Figure E.12 Dragons Teeth (A) .............................................................................................. 84
Figure E.13 Virtual Road Hump (A W) ................................................................................... 85
Figure E.14 Typical Examples of Horizontal Deflection ......................................................... 86
Figure E.15 Rumble Devices (A) ........................................................................................... 86
Figure E.16 Speed Cushions (W) .......................................................................................... 87
Figure E.17 Road Humps and “Thumps” (W) ........................................................................ 88
st
2018 6 1 Edition
Glossary
Each Part of this Manual includes a Glossary defining the special terms and abbreviations
particularly relevant in that Part of the Manual. In order to assist the reader or user of this
Manual:
(i) Terms (and abbreviations) that appear in many Parts are defined in Part 1, but not
in the individual Parts.
(ii) Terms (and abbreviations) that appear in several Parts are defined in Part 1, as well
as the relevant individual Parts.
(iii) Terms (and abbreviations) that only appear in a few Parts are only defined in those
Parts where they occur.
If the reader encounters a term which is unfamiliar, or wants a precise definition, then the
recommended approach is to:
(i) Look in the glossary for that Part
(ii) Look in the glossary in Part 1
(iii) Search on the internet (or in a dictionary of technical terms).
Definition of terms (particular to this part)
TERM DEFINITION
Accident Collision or crash where a driver fails to cope with the road
environment and strikes another vehicle, person or object
causing personal injury.
Audit Brief A document that defines the scope of the audit and provides
details of the drawings and documents used and prepared by
the designer.
Batter Slope(s) The gradient of earthworks at the edge of a road where that
road is above or below the surrounding natural ground level.
Black Spots A cluster of crashes located within 20m of each other
Clear Zone Area of land adjacent to the surfaced road that should be
devoid of all obstacles and hazards.
Collision See ‘Accident’ above.
Continuous hazard A hazard that is present over a continuous distance.
Crash See ‘Accident’ above.
Data Information collected that can be used for analysis and
comparison.
Design Organisation or Any person who carries on a trade, business or other
Designer undertaking in connection with which he prepares a design or
arranges for any person under his control (including, where
he is an employer, any employee of his) to prepare a design.
Design Team Leader Project manager or leader responsible for supervising the
design team.
st
1 Edition 7 2018
Design Speed The speed at which a vehicle is expected to progress along a

road safely under normal conditions.
Contractor The Organisation undertaking the various phases of a
scheme which might include design, construction and/or
maintenance.
Hazard An obstacle or situation that is a danger or risk to humans or
property (vehicles) in the absence of any control.
Pedestrian Restraint System installed on a footway to provide a level of
System (PRS) containment for pedestrians.
Point Hazard A permanent feature or object of limited length.
Practicable Capable of being put into practice with the available resource
at a reasonable price and within a reasonable period of time.
Risk Exposure to the chance of injury.
Road Restraint System General name given for Vehicle Restraint Systems (VRS) and
(RRS) Pedestrian Restraint Systems (PRS) used on the road.
Road Safety Audit An independent and systematic safety check of the design of
a road infrastructure project covering all stages from early
planning to early operation.
Road Safety Audit Team The person with overall responsibility for carrying out the
Leader audit, managing the audit team and certifying the report.
Road Safety Impact A strategic comparative analysis of the impact of a new road
Assessment or modification on the safety performance of the road
network.
Roadside Hazard An object or obstacle that, if struck, could cause personal
injury to the driver or passenger(s) of a vehicle.
Run Off Road A crash where a vehicle fails to stay within the limits of the
road.
Running Lane Part of the trafficked carriageway between opposite verges or
between the verge and the central reserve that is under
consideration.
Safety Barriers See ‘Road Restraint System’ above.
Safety Ranking A method for identifying, analysing and ranking of sections of
existing road network according to their potential for safety
improvement and accident cost savings.
Safety Inspections A periodic assessment of the characteristics and defects that
require work to be carried out for safety reasons.
Secondary Event An incident that arises as a result of an initial incident. For
instance, a lighting column is struck in the initial incident and
falls onto the carriageway to cause a secondary event.
Speed Limit The posted maximum speed which all vehicles must not
exceed.
Temporary Traffic Temporary realignment of existing road to facilitate
Management construction or maintenance works.
Traffic Calming Specific measures to reduce and control the speed of traffic
to a level that is appropriate for the activities taking place
along the road.
Vehicle Restraint System System installed on a road to provide a level of containment
(VRS) for an errant vehicle.
st
2018 8 1 Edition
Abbreviations
For a more extensive list of abbreviations, refer to Part 1 of this Manual (Introduction)
ABBREVIATION MEANING
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow
BS British Standard
CEN European Committee for Standardization or Comité Européen de
Normalisation is the standards organisation responsible for producing
and overseeing the development of standards; an association of the
national standards bodies
DMRB UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
EN European Norm or technical specification drafted by a technical
committee and adopted as a national standard by members belonging
to CEN
GDT General Directorate of Traffic (Police)
H&S Health & Safety
km/h Kilometres per hour
Manual Bahrain Roads Design Manual (BRDM)
MOWMAUP Ministry of Works, Municipalities Affairs and Urban Planning
NMU Non-motorised User
PRS Pedestrian Restraint System such as a parapet, fence or guardrail
ROR Run off road
RPDD Roads & Planning Design Directorate
RRS (VRS) Road Restraint System (also known as Vehicle Restraint System)
RSA Road Safety Audit
SSD Stopping Sight Distance
TTM Temporary Traffic Management
st
1 Edition 9 2018
[There is no other text on this page]
st
2018 10 1 Edition
1 Introduction and Scope
1.1.1 In the broadest terms, Road Safety is simply defined as the avoidance of danger
on the road. However, it is most commonly understood to be the investigation of the cause
of crashes and the identification of measures to remove or reduce risks of injury, death and
harm to drivers, cyclists, passengers and pedestrians.
1.1.2 Road Safety will be an underlying principle of the whole Manual. The contents of
this Part have been dovetailed with the content of other Parts of the Manual, by the use of
cross references, to minimise duplication and overlap. This Part provides guidance relating
to road safety for all engineers involved in the design of road infrastructure projects and their
subsequent operation and maintenance.
1.1.3 Road safety practice is a proactive and reactive process to identify the contributory
factors that lead to road accidents, to understand how they inter-relate and how they can be
modified and prevented, and to produce a safer environment and safer road users. Road
safety engineering depends upon reliable data about where, when, how and why crashes
occur. Remedial action should be focused on individual sites, routes and areas with high
concentrations of crashes, known as ‘black spots’, in order to concentrate efforts where
there is a known, not perceived, problem. It must be emphasised that the most successful
outcome is when professionals from different disciplines work together to maximise casualty
reduction benefits.
1.1.4 The normal procedure for carrying out an accident investigation study is shown in
the flow chart Figure 1.1 below.
st
1 Edition 11 2018
Collect road accident

Monitor
data for past 3 years
Plot accident data on

Scheme installation
maps
Look for patterns in Detailed design

accident types,
locations & time
Consultation
Separate accident
data into files by road
class and type Outline design
Detailed accident Detailed site analysis

analysis & site visits
Tabulate results of Prioritise roads for further

each stage of analysis investigation / treatment
Figure 1.1 Procedure for Accident Investigation Studies
st
2018 12 1 Edition
1.1.5 Good roads should be designed and constructed to provide for the safe,
convenient, effective and efficient movement of people and goods. The combination of
individual elements of a design should result in a road environment that is both “non-
surprising” and “forgiving”. Additionally, the selection of the design speed, on which the road
alignment is based, should be realistic and compatible with the expected operational speed
and in accordance with the type and functional requirement of the road. However,
standards adopted for the design of roads are influenced by terrain, traffic volumes, vehicle
types and travel speeds, and must consider the costs the community is prepared to pay.
These include land costs, initial construction costs, on-going maintenance costs, user
operating costs and costs associated with road crashes. Road geometry, pavement
condition and traffic control devices all play a part in a driver’s ability to maintain control of
the vehicle. Drivers’ ability and vehicle fitness also play important roles in road safety.
1.1.6 It is important in terms of safety management and good safe road design that the
needs of all users of the highway are catered by being taken into account in all the
management, planning, design and construction activities associated with the management
of a road network. Especially taking into account the needs of those who, because of
disability of one type or another, find the use of the highway network challenging.
1.1.7 It is reported in the Accident Statistics for Bahrain (2011) that 95% of all vehicles
involved in crashes had no defects. Therefore the greatest problems in the Kingdom are
associated with driver behaviour and/or the road layout. Driver behaviour that causes
crashes includes speeding, lack of attention, distraction and physical illness. Factors
relating to the road layout include visibility, alignment, cross sections, lane demarcation,
inadequate pedestrian provision, presence of roadside hazards and poor skid resistance.
1.1.8 The presence of black spots is normally a good indication of a road layout
deficiency.
st
1 Edition 13 2018
2 Road Infrastructure Safety Management
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Safety management should be considered throughout the whole life of a road.
Commencing with a safety impact assessment before a decision is made to site a new road,
and continuing with safety audits at the design and construction stage where all aspects of
detailed design that might affect safety are addressed. Once the road is built there is also
an obligation to ensure that it operates safely. This is best done through a combination of
accident investigation and on-road inspection to enable cost effective remedial programmes
to be developed. Many commercially available tools exist to support these activities.
2.1.2 Procedures for road safety management within the Kingdom of Bahrain are an
essential tool. It is very important that appropriate processes, such as maintaining a
database of reported crashes, and undertaking crash investigation are adopted to enable
the situation to be monitored. Such rigorous processes allow the safety performance of
existing roads to be raised by targeting investment to the road sections with the highest
concentration of crashes. Likewise, the use of road safety impact assessments and road
safety audits identify road safety issues/concerns on proposed changes to the network.
2.1.3 Research is a vital element of improving road safety and analysing research data
plays an important part in increasing the safety of the road infrastructure. It is vital to have
the fullest information stored on a database to enable a proper and effective outcome to any
research/analysis. Different organisations need to use this information in different ways.
Whilst the Police and insurance companies need to identify who is at fault, the roads design
engineer uses the information to identify if there is anything connected to the design that can
be addressed to remove or reduce the potential for future crashes. As a minimum this
information should include vehicle type, collision type, direction of travel of all vehicles, time
of day, day of week, weather conditions and severity of any injuries to casualties. The
analysis of crash data will enable the authorities to:
(i) Give an overall view of the situation.
(ii) Examine trends and predict forecasts.
(iii) Help assess the effect of legislation or changes in environmental situations.
(iv) Provide a basis for costing.
2.1.4 Analysis of reported crashes requires a systematic process to be carried out in
order to identify the dominant type of crash.
2.1.5 Network safety ranking has a high potential to successfully prioritise and treat
accident black spots. Once road sections/interchanges with a high level of collisions have
been treated then safety inspections should take on a more important role. Regular
inspections are essential.
2.2 Road Safety Impact Assessment
2.2.1 Road safety impact assessment is a formal procedure for independent assessment
of the likely effects of proposed road or traffic schemes, or indeed other developments or
schemes that may have substantial effects on road traffic and upon accident occurrence
throughout the road network.
2.2.2 The scope of safety impact assessment is dependent on the scale of the proposals
being considered. For small-scale schemes, the impact of change can usually be expected
to be confined largely within the scheme itself. For larger schemes, the impact on accident
occurrence can be expected to be felt over a larger part of the road network.
st
2018 14 1 Edition
2.2.3 The road safety impact assessment shall be carried out at the initial planning stage
before the infrastructure project is approved. It shall provide all relevant information
necessary for a cost benefit analysis of the different options assessed. It shall indicate the
road safety consideration which contributes to the choice of the proposed solution.
2.2.4 A road safety impact assessment contains three steps:
Step 1 Basic data has to be collected on the network to be studied, the
current pattern of traffic on that network, and the level of reported road accidents
occurring. Each road is considered in terms of junctions and stretches of road
between the junctions, with associated traffic volumes, and numbers of crashes
and casualties. This data is usually derived from historic and existing sources, a
traffic model or specific surveys of flow movements on links and at interchanges.
Step 2 The possible changes to the existing network are defined and
interpreted to determine the impacts they will have on the number of crashes and
casualties. This will be done in terms of network composition, traffic volumes for
the different network components and the road safety indicators. To accomplish
this, quantitative indicators of risk (such as casualty rates per million vehicle-km)
for each type of road are required, supplemented if possible by corresponding
indicators for each main type of junction. In addition, thought should be given to
any expected changes over time in the level of risk for each type of road or
junction.
Step 3 Traffic volumes and road safety indicators are described or
estimated in order and the existing situation is compared with different scenarios in
the future. The results of this comparison (the existing situation with at least one
situation in the future) can be brought to the consideration of those who have to
decide on the basis of all kinds of impacts of each scenario. In other words, safety
impact assessments allow for a better consideration to be given to safety
implications of possible measures in the context of their other effects.
2.2.5 The results of safety impact assessments can be translated into monetary terms
by using values attached to preventing accidents and casualties and thus provide an input to
monetary cost-benefit analysis.
2.3 Road Safety Audits
2.3.1 The objective of road safety audits is to "ensure that roads provide the highest
practicable standard of road safety for all road users". Road safety audits shall form an
integral part of the design process of an infrastructure project at the following stages:
Draft/preliminary design (RSA1), Detailed design (RSA2), Pre-opening (RSA3) and Existing
roads in operation (RSA4).
2.3.2 A RSA is NOT a technical check that the design conforms to Standards; neither
should it consider the structural safety of the project.
2.3.3 RSAs are carried out by experienced Auditors with extensive safety engineering
knowledge to identify safety deficiencies in road schemes. A broad experience in road,
traffic and safety engineering will ensure that a Road Safety Auditor has the knowledge and
ability to refer back to the basic principles in road safety, and ask a series of pertinent
questions:
(i) Does the design layout create confusion or ambiguity for road users that could
lead to potential road traffic accidents?
(ii) Is there too much, or too little information for road users?
(iii) Is there too much, or too little visibility, or a localised obstruction to the road users'
view?
(iv) Does the layout create hazards or unexpected obstacles to road users that could
contribute to an increased risk of injury?
st
1 Edition 15 2018
2.3.4 If there is a "yes" answer to any of these questions, then the safety of the scheme
could be compromised and remedial measures may be required to remove this potential or
actual deficiency. Drivers and other road users have to perceive and process vast amounts
of sensory and visual information to negotiate a road layout. The designer's role is to
provide a safe road environment that should:
(i) Provide adequate information for road users of the layout and conditions ahead;
(ii) Provide adequate warning of hazards or unusual layouts ahead; and
(iii) Provide positive control of road users' passage through conflict points or unusual
sections.
2.3.5 The objectives of a road safety audit are to:
(i) Identify potential safety hazards on new projects;
(ii) Identify hazardous features before they become involved in accidents;
(iii) Ensure that safety requirements of all road users are considered; and
(iv) Reduce the overall "through life" cost.
2.3.6 Road Safety Audits should be carried out by a team (at least 2 persons)
independent of the design organisation in order to achieve objectivity and see the project
through “new eyes”. No member of the road safety audit team should have had any
connection with the design being audited. This independence should be maintained
throughout the audit process. The auditors should demonstrate an appropriate level of skills
and experience in road safety management and good background knowledge in roads
design and traffic management.
2.3.7 The minimum qualifications and experience requirements for members of the Road
Safety Audit team are set out in section 2.4 below.
2.3.8 The arrangements for auditing Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) are set out
in Part 16 (Traffic Management at Road Works) of this Manual. The Traffic Control Group of
the Traffic Engineering Section of RPDD is responsible for the “Issuance of Road Work
Permit and Auditing Works Process”. Routine inspections are carried out and reported
using the Traffic “Diversion” Routine Audit Form (RPDD-TES-F-014) and the Traffic
Monitoring Audit Report Form (RDDD-TES-F-015). It will not normally be appropriate to
carry out a separate Road Safety Audit of TTM except when the TTM involves significant
(complex or complicated) changes to the network over a substantial length of time (typically
6 months or more).
2.3.9 Maintenance works that solely involve a like for like replacement or refurbishment
of existing highway features are excluded from a RSA. However, where improvements are
made to the network at the same time as routine maintenance activities a RSA shall apply.
2.3.10 An exemption from carrying out a RSA at any stage shall only be approved when,
in the opinion of the Director RPDD, the effect on the highway network would be minimal.
Reasons why a RSA is not required shall be recorded on the scheme file.
2.3.11 Although a RSA team's contribution to design is minimal, in making
recommendations, they will have deemed to have undertaken a check on the Health and
Safety (H&S) issues and have considered the implications of their recommendations for the
safety of both the workforce and public.
2.3.12 The design team will take on the H&S responsibilities of any change to the design
as a result of the road safety audit.
2.3.13 The RSA team shall make allowances that strategic decisions on matters such as
route choice, junction type, standard of provision and departures from standards already
reflect the best balance of the proposals, including safety.
2.3.14 A RSA shall not be used as a means of selecting between various design options
that are under consideration. Where there are several options within a design it remains the
responsibility of the designer to select the preferred design before the road safety audit is
carried out.
st
2018 16 1 Edition
2.3.15 Auditors should examine the overall geometry of the scheme. All users of the
highway should be considered including pedestrians, cyclists, those working on the highway
and all motor vehicle users. Particular attention should be given to vulnerable road users
such as the very young, the elderly and the mobility and visually impaired.
2.3.16 The potential for road safety problems is often greatest at junctions, tie-ins and
immediately beyond tie-ins. Where a new road scheme joins an existing road or junction,
inconsistency in the standard of provision can lead to accidents, so special attention should
be paid to these areas to ensure a safe transition is achieved. This applies particularly to
online improvements where variations in the standard of provision between new and existing
sections may not be obvious to the road user.
2.3.17 The RSA and subsequent actions shall be undertaken following the completion of
each of the four specific stages of a projects development. These stages are:
Stage 1 (RSA1):
2.3.18 At the completion of the preliminary design. The project design should be
sufficiently progressed such that all significant features are clearly shown. The location of
the scheme should be visited by all the audit team members together, to gain an
appreciation of the context of the proposals. However, where the proposals do not affect
any part of the network, a site visit may be discounted and the RSA1 carried out as a desk
study only. This must be agreed with RPDD before appointment of the audit team and
preparation of the audit brief.
Stage 2 (RSA2):
2.3.19 At completion of the detailed design and before the preparation of any works
orders or tender documents. At this Stage 2 the audit team shall consider all details of the
design. The project should be sufficiently progressed to enable construction to commence.
The audit shall consider the layout of the junctions, position of signs, carriageway markings,
lighting provision and various other issues. The RSA2 shall consider the items raised in
RSA1. Any issues that have not been resolved should be reiterated in the RSA2 report. All
audit team members should visit the site together to review the existing network in the
vicinity of the proposals. Consideration should be made of the use of adjacent
buildings/land and how the existing network operates. On occasions it can be beneficial for
representatives of the police and maintaining authorities to advise on audits at Stage 2.
Application to the Director RPDD should be made and confirmed if this is required.
Stage 3 (RSA3):
2.3.20 When construction of the scheme is complete and preferably within 4 weeks of the
project opening up to traffic. The RSA3 is normally carried out after the scheme is
operational so that driver behaviour can be observed. However, the timing of the RSA3
shall be agreed with RPDD as it may be beneficial to carry out the audit prior to the scheme
becoming operational so that any issue identified in the RSA can be addressed prior to
opening.
st
1 Edition 17 2018
Stage 4 (RSA4):
2.3.21 An audit of an existing road or after the construction of new road works. The
scope at this stage is broadened to encompass collision investigation monitoring. This will
review the collision data for the period following the opening to traffic and if there are any
outstanding issues arising from adopting the specific recommendations raised at RSA3.
Note that this is NOT the same as Safety Inspections described in section 2.8 below. The
report should identify any road safety problems indicated by the analysis of the collision data
and observations during the site visit. Liaisons with relevant representatives (police and
maintaining authorities) may be useful to ascertain if there are any known road safety issues
with the scheme. An RSA4 should be carried out at both 12 months and 36 months after
completion of the scheme. The first is to identify any emerging problems since opening to
traffic whilst the later report can generally provide a statistically valid evaluation of the safety
impacts of a scheme. If additional work is required after the completion of a scheme, this
may need to be procured through a separate contract.
Further guidance
2.3.22 All audit team members shall examine the scheme together during daylight hours.
They shall also examine the site together in darkness so that hazards particular to night
operations can be identified. Note that a site visit during darkness may be omitted at RSA1
& RSA2 with the approval of RPDD. The audit team shall examine the scheme from all road
users’ viewpoints and may need to drive, walk and cycle through the scheme to assist in
their evaluation and to ensure that they have a comprehensive understanding. The auditors
should also consider the effect of various weather conditions that may not be present at the
time of inspection.
2.3.23 It is often beneficial for representatives of the design team and contractor to be
present during the site visit to explain specific matters relating to the design and construction
of the scheme. The road safety audit team leader shall ensure that representatives of the
GDT, RPDD, Designer and Contractor are invited to attend to offer their views on the
project.
2.3.24 For smaller projects, where no preliminary design has been necessary, it may be
possible to omit RSA1 from the procedure. However, it should be recognised that the
designer takes the risk that potential road safety issues may be identified late in the project’s
development when corrective action may be more difficult. In these circumstances RSA
Stages 1 & 2 shall be combined at Stage 2 and referred to as a Stage 1/2 RSA.
2.3.25 For large complex projects it may be appropriate to undertake interim road safety
audits. Aside from being undertaken in parts, each interim audit shall follow the same
procedure as for the formal audit procedure. An interim audit will not replace the formal
RSA stages, which must still be undertaken in full. It is essential that RPDD are advised and
agree to proposed interim reporting procedures.
2.3.26 RSAs have a limited ‘life’. Where there has been a delay in the design process of
more than 2 years, or the design has changed significantly since the last audit, it may be
necessary to repeat the previous RSA. This can occur if the traffic volumes and content
changes or where other developments have been completed in the intervening period. The
decision on this matter shall be determined by the Director of RPDD.
2.3.27 It is not necessary for the same team to audit all four stages of a scheme,
however, any change to the audit team or individual members will require further approval
from RPDD.
2.4 Appointment of Road Safety Auditors
2.4.1 At any stage before the instruction to carry out a road safety audit, the names,
qualifications and experience of each member of the audit team shall be submitted to the
RPDD for approval. The audit team shall comply with the following requirements with regard
to qualifications and experience. An audit team should consist of at least 2 road safety
engineers; the size of the audit team shall depend upon the scale and complexity of the
proposals.
st
2018 18 1 Edition
2.4.2 The following information gives guidance on the minimum acceptable training,
skills and experience that Road Safety Auditors should demonstrate:
2.4.3 Audit Team Leader:
(i) Minimum of 4 years collision investigation or road safety engineering experience.
(ii) Attendance of a 5 day recognised formal Collision Investigation course.
(iii) A minimum of 2 days Continual Professional Development training relevant to road
safety audits, road safety engineering, traffic management or collision investigation
in the last 12 months.
(iv) Completion of at least 5 road safety audits in the last 12 months in the role of audit
team leader or audit team member.
2.4.4 Audit Team Member:
(i) A minimum of 2 years collision investigation or road safety engineering
experience.
(ii) Attendance of a 5 day recognised formal Collision Investigation course.
(iii) A minimum of 2 days Continual Professional Development training relevant to road
safety audits, road safety engineering, traffic management or collision investigation
in the last 12 months.
(iv) Completion of at least 5 road safety audits in the last 12 months in the role of
either audit team member or observer.
2.4.5 Audit Observer:
(i) A road safety audit observer should have acceptable levels of training, skills and
experience prior to accompanying an audit team in order that they gain worthwhile
experience. As a minimum, an observer shall have:
(ii) Attended a recognised 5 day course on collision investigation.
(iii) A minimum of 1 year collision investigation or road safety engineering.
2.5 Audit Brief
2.5.1 The Brief is central to the safety audit procedure. It defines the scope of the audit
and provides sufficient information that gives the audit team a full understanding that
enables them to complete their task. The Brief should contain details of the audit team,
naming the audit team leader and audit team member(s), the anticipated programme for the
audit procedure, including any specific deadlines, together with the following:
(i) Design Brief
(ii) Approved Relaxations and Departures from Standard (if any)
(iii) Scheme Drawings
(iv) Other scheme details (such as schedules and specifications)
(v) Collision data (for on-line schemes)
(vi) Previous road safety audit reports (if any)
(vii) Any elements to be excluded from the audit
(viii) Any other relevant information
2.5.2 The Draft Brief should be submitted to the Director of RPDD for approval. On
approval the Brief is issued to the road safety audit team leader. Before undertaking the
audit the audit team leader should be satisfied that the brief contains adequate information
for the audit to be undertaken. The audit team leader should raise any concerns with the
Director of RPDD.
st
1 Edition 19 2018
2.5.3 Procedures for carrying out road safety audits.

Step 1 The design team leader/construction manager shall compile
background information including, Scheme Drawings (plans, sections and profiles),
design criteria, and other documents. The design team leader shall also submit
the names and experience of the proposed audit team to RPDD for approval.
Once approved, the designer team leader shall submit the audit brief to the audit
team leader.
Step 2 The audit team shall review the drawings and other design
information and, if required, request additional information.
Step 3 A meeting shall take place between the audit team and the design
team leader/construction manager at which additional information requested in
Step 2 shall be handed over. The meeting shall confirm the programme for the
audit. Note that if it is deemed unnecessary to carry out a site visit for the Stage 1
RSA, and this has been approved, the meeting may also be omitted. RPDD
should confirm that a site visit and meeting is not required.
Step 4 Carry out the RSA. This should include a visit to the site location by
all road safety audit team members together to enable them to observe existing
traffic movements and how the proposals fit into the network. A site visit may be
cancelled only on the agreement of the Director RPDD.
Step 5 The audit team leader shall be responsible for the preparation of the
audit report (section 2.6 below).
Step 6 The report shall be submitted to the Director of RPDD for review
and approval.
Step 7 The designers shall prepare and submit their response(s).
Step 8 A completion meeting , attended by the audit team leader, the
design team leader and RPDD, shall be arranged (if required) to discuss any
outstanding issues from the RSA.
Step 9 Following the completion meeting the Director of RPDD shall
consider and approve the Audit (the report and the designer’s responses).
Step 10 Designer implements accepted recommendations.
2.6 Audit Report
2.6.1 At all stages the audit team shall prepare a written report (See Appendix A). The
report shall include:
(i) A brief description of the proposed scheme and the limits of the audit.
(ii) Identification of the audit stage, team members and the names of others
contributing.
(iii) Details of who was present at the site visit, when it was undertaken and what the
site conditions were on the day of the site visit (weather, traffic conditions etc.).
(iv) The specific road safety problems that are identified should be supported with
background reasoning.
(v) Recommendations for action to mitigate or remove the issues. The
recommendations should be as practicable as possible and be relative to the scale
of the scheme.
(vi) A statement signed by the audit team to verify the independence of the audit team
and confirm that none have been involved in the design process prior to auditing
the project.
(vii) A list of drawings and documents used in the audit, and
(viii) A3 or A4 sized location map, marked up and referenced to any problems and, if
available, photographs illustrating the problems identified.
st
2018 20 1 Edition
2.6.2 The audit report shall contain a separate statement for each of the problems
identified together with a description of the location and nature of the problem and the type
of collisions that are considered likely to occur.
2.6.3 Each problem shall be followed by a recommendation. The audit team should aim
to provide proportionate and viable recommendations to eliminate or mitigate the identified
problems. Recommendations to "consider" should be avoided.
2.6.4 On occasions it may be beneficial to carry out an informal risk assessment, ranking
both the audit problems and recommendations using a matrix like that shown in Table 2.1
below.
Table 2.1 Risk Assessment Matrix
More than once Once every 1 to 3 Once every 3-7 Once every 7-20
per year (probable years (possible years (remote years (improbable
score 4) score 3) score 2) score 1)
Multiple fatal
16 12 8 4
(extreme score 4)
Fatal/Serious
12 9 6 3
(extreme score 3)
Minor Injury
8 6 4 2
(minor score 3)
Damage only
4 3 2 1
(negligible score 1)
2.6.5 The RSA team would go through the report and give each problem a risk score –
effectively this is their assessment of risk if nothing is done. The team would then go back
through their recommendations, and, making the assumption that the recommendation will
be carried out, reassess the risk. An Audit Report could then contain a risk assessment
table in the summary, such as the example in Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2 Risk Assessment Table
Audit Paragraph Risk assessment Risk assessment if

number of problem recommendation
implemented
A1.4 16 (high) 9 (medium)
B1.8 8 (medium) 1 (low)
D1.18 6 (medium) 1 (low)
K1.6 3 (low) 1 (low)
L1.7 2 (low) 1 (low)
2.6.6 The information would be used by the RPDD to help decide whether or not to
implement the recommendations. The client could instruct the designer to cost the
recommendations and then judge whether the reduction in risk was worth the cost of
improvement. A rejection of any RSA recommendation on the basis of cost alone is not
acceptable.
2.6.7 Recommendations to “monitor” should only be made where a need to supplement
the scheduled Stage 4 monitoring is specifically identified in terms of frequency and
incidence of particular vehicle manoeuvres or accident causation factors, and the monitoring
task can be specifically allocated.
2.6.8 Items such as correspondence, copies of marked up Issues Guidance Checklists
(if used, see Appendix B) and the brief shall not be included in the audit report.
st
1 Edition 21 2018
2.6.9 The audit team shall not include any technical issues that have no implications on
road safety. The audit team leader shall send any comments on matters not covered by the
audit brief under separate letter to RPDD.
2.6.10 On completion of the audit the report shall be submitted to RPDD for initial review.
If accepted, RPDD shall then issue the report, together with the RSA Review Sheet
Template (see Appendix C) to the designer for comment. The designer, on completion of
the RSA Review Sheet, shall then submit this together with the audit report to the Director
RPDD to approve, particularly where there is an alternative solution that would achieve the
same effect. The Audit Team shall consider the Designer’s response and reply to the
Director RPDD indicating acceptance or otherwise of the response to each item.
2.6.11 In the majority of cases the recommendations will be accepted and incorporated
into the design. Where there is a ‘dispute’ between the designer and the auditors it will be
the responsibility of the Director RPDD to decide the appropriate course of action.
2.7 Safety Ranking and Management of the Operational Road

Network
2.7.1 All Road owners are required to operate their roads safely. To do this it is
necessary to monitor accident occurrence and to assess the scope for remedial treatment to
reduce accident numbers and severity. They rely on data that identifies each crash location
and the causes and severity of casualties to identify sites that require treatment. By
studying historical patterns of crashes and forecasting trends, action can be taken to reduce
the chances of reoccurrence. This is known as Accident Investigation and Prevention.
Accident investigation requires a combination of detailed analysis of crash data and on-site
investigation.
2.7.2 Casualty reductions have been achieved by identifying the locations with the
highest crash frequencies. Those with the most crashes are then given priority over others
for remedial treatment. This has proved a successful approach and road safety engineering
budgets have been spent accordingly although, of course, factors such as the vehicle
capacity of the road, land development, policy issues and environmental matters often affect
the budgeting decisions as well.
2.7.3 Crashes are past events and cannot be prevented. However, future recurrence of
crashes can be prevented where an accurate understanding of the problems is known.
Therefore, the analysis of the crash data needs to look for patterns of crashes that are very
likely to keep repeating unless some treatment is implemented. Once specific sites have
been identified, it is necessary to a carry out a more in-depth crash data analysis of the
sites.
2.7.4 Roads engineers and traffic police are already aware of the tendency for road
crashes to cluster together at certain locations, commonly termed ' black spots'. Although
the straightforward process of plotting crashes on maps reveals this, and this method
remains an important means of identifying black spots, it is preferable, if not essential, that
these crashes are recorded in an objective way by reasonably accurate and complete
records.
2.7.5 Research has shown that the numbers of crashes at a particular site will vary
widely from year to year, even if there are no changes in traffic or in the road layout. In
statistical terms, crashes at individual sites are rare, random, multifactor events. This
means that comparison between the numbers of crashes at particular sites must be made
with respect to a fixed time period. Ideally, a minimum of at least three years data should be
collected. Three years is generally regarded as a practicable minimum period for which a
reasonably reliable annual average rate can be calculated. Accident rates per million
vehicles passing through an intersection, or per million km travelled on a length of road, can
also be useful in identifying locations warranting attention because there are more crashes
than would be expected for the given volume of traffic.
st
2018 22 1 Edition
2.7.6 One of the most cost-effective road safety interventions is to identify and eliminate
black spots. This includes the following steps: identify the black spots, study all the possible
problems (diagnosis), design suitable countermeasures, estimate their effects, set priorities,
implement, and finally, follow up and evaluate the results. The procedure for identifying
black spots is comparable to that for carrying out an accident investigation study as shown
in the flow chart in Figure 1.1.
Figure 2.1 Steps to Remediate Accident-prone Locations

2.7.7 Identifying black spots and studying the problems - In the investigation of
crash locations, the crash data should be analysed so that any patterns can be identified.
The investigator should look for and highlight common factors, such as movement types,
time of day, light conditions, weather, approaches etc. The analysis of crash factor patterns
will narrow down the list of likely road features, or their deficiencies, which may have
contributed to the crashes at the location. Given this data, it is then possible to rank sites in
terms of their accident history. For intersections, this would be in terms of average numbers
of accidents per annum; for links it would be in terms of average accidents per km per
annum. The severity of accidents should also be taken into account, as accidents with fatal
and serious injuries are more costly in both social and economic terms. If sufficient research
has been carried out to identify the costs of accidents of different types and with different
severity, then they can be weighted relative to their cost.
2.7.8 Designing suitable countermeasures – Upon reviewing the type and frequency
of accidents, plus any common factors, the designer can produce suitable changes within
the area in order to limit and reduce the impacts.
2.7.9 Estimating Effects - the cost of remedial measures and the likely success rate
(i.e. expected reduction target) shall be determined based on the countermeasures
proposed.
2.7.10 Setting Priorities - The sites shall be evaluated and ranked in order of priority.
Priority shall be given to those sites/locations where the remedial measures with the highest
benefit to cost ratio are identified. The evaluation shall include the analysis of accident
records, observations made by visiting the site, the cost of remedial measures and the likely
success rate (i.e. expected reduction target).
st
1 Edition 23 2018
2.7.11 Implementation - Targeted remedial measures shall be prepared and

programmed for implementation.
2.7.12 Follow up and evaluation of results - The Ministry/RPDD shall ensure that
sections of road with high collision concentrations (black spots) will be reviewed, at least
annually. To understand the effectiveness of accident improvement programmes it is
important both to monitor the overall trend in accidents on the network, and also to record
the effectiveness of the individual measures introduced. Knowledge that a particular
measure has only had limited effectiveness at a particular type of site should lead to more
efficient use of resources.
2.8 Safety Inspections
2.8.1 Developments in the road network may create a conflict between the current
function of a road and its intended future use. Furthermore, improvements in road
standards may result in discrepancies between characteristics of newly built or
reconstructed roads and existing ones. It is also true that, due to technological
developments and new technical standards, existing road equipment may become obsolete
making its replacement necessary.
2.8.2 Safety Inspections are a preventive tool, consisting of a regular, systematic, on-
site inspection of the existing road network and surveys resulting in a formal report on
detected road hazards and safety issues. The frequency of the inspections shall be
sufficient to safeguard adequate levels of safety for the road infrastructure in question. It is
suggested that RPDD select an interval of 1 to 5 years between inspections depending upon
the status of the road. Road Safety Inspections should not be confused with the road
maintenance safety inspections described in Part 17, Chapter 9, of this Manual.
2.8.3 The RPDD shall ensure that safety inspections are undertaken on existing roads in
order to identify traffic hazards related to the road environment characteristics and propose
interventions to mitigate the detected hazards. Although accident data are used either as an
inspection triggering criteria or as complementary information used for setting suitable
interventions, caution should be taken to ensure that Safety Inspections do not become too
similar to other safety management tools, such as Black Spot Management.
2.8.4 Safety Inspections are performed on-site using a mixture of relevant factors to
analyse road conditions such as daylight or night time conditions, roadside only, incidence of
pedestrian issues, etc. They must: detect possible problematic sites upon preliminary
analysis of the selected road section; identify hazards while moving through a road; evaluate
their importance and decide upon the need to collect additional detailed information; assess
each detected hazard and recommend the application of cost-effective safety interventions
that may mitigate the hazard while not creating additional hazards.
2.8.5 Safety inspections are not intended to be a road maintenance inspection but any
safety issue resulting from lack of maintenance should be included within the safety
inspection.
st
2018 24 1 Edition
2.8.6 Check lists may be used to enable the inspector to focus on specific issues. If
used the check list should include the following core elements:
(i) The quality of traffic signs, with respect to their need and to whether they are
correctly placed or legible in the dark.
(ii) The quality of road markings, in particular whether they are visible or are
consistent with traffic signs.
(iii) The quality of the road surface characteristics, in particular with respect to friction
(macro and micro-texture) and evenness.
(iv) The adequacy of sight distances and the absence of permanent or temporary
obstacles that prevent timely observation of the road or other road users.
(v) The presence of roadside traffic hazards, near the carriageway, such as trees,
exposed rocks, drainage pipes and culverts, steep high embankment slopes, etc.
(vi) Aspects of traffic operation, in particular if drivers’ speeds are appropriate to local
conditions and to the function of the road. This also includes items such as the
suitability of the road to its function, the adequacy of space for current traffic and
separation between motorized and vulnerable road users.
2.8.7 Following the site visit the inspection team will prepare a report providing a general
description of the route inspected, including traffic volumes and composition. The report will
also identify the deficiencies observed, and their order of severity, together with any
mitigation measures on three separate timescales: short, medium and long term.
2.9 Data Management

2.9.1 The accuracy and comprehensive recording of road crash data is key to
understanding their causations and in identifying the measures to be implemented for future
improvements to the existing network.
2.9.2 There are four basic elements or processes in which a database is assembled and
utilised. These are crash reporting, recording, analysis and dissemination of data. Each
report should have its own reference number, details of the date the crash occurred, its
location, the number of vehicles involved and the direction of travel of all vehicles
immediately prior to the crash. The data should also record the number and severity of
casualties.
2.9.3 RPDD is responsible for maintaining a record of each injury crash provided by
GTD. Whilst this data should be centrally stored different groups need access for their
specific task(s). Traffic and Safety Engineers need to collect the data in order to plan future
resources and to reduce the overall number of casualties. Ministers, researchers and other
specialists will need the data for other purposes.
st
1 Edition 25 2018
2.9.4 Each individual record shall include, but not be limited to, details of the following:
(i) Precise (as possible) location of collision.
(ii) Pictures (and/or) diagram of the site.
(iii) Date and hour of collision.
(iv) Weather and road surface conditions at the time of the collision.
(v) Lighting conditions (day/night; were street lamps present and if relevant, were they
lit).
(vi) Road type, junction type.
(vii) Number and severity of each casualty.
(viii) Characteristics of each person (i.e. gender, age and nationality; driver or
passenger).
(ix) Vehicle type.
(x) Collision type, vehicle and driver manoeuvre.
2.9.5 The data can be utilised to:
(i) Identify specific cluster and ‘black spot’ sites.
(ii) Indicate trends (over specific time periods) of certain types of collisions.
(iii) Highlight vulnerable users/ specific user types.
2.9.6 From this data detailed analysis and the development of engineering solutions can
be formed in consultation and cooperation with the General Directorate of Traffic.
st
2018 26 1 Edition
3 Safety in Geometric Design
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 The alignment consists of a variety of design elements that combine to create a
road that serves traffic safely and efficiently, consistent with the road’s intended function.
Each alignment element should complement others to achieve a consistent, safe, and
efficient design.
3.1.2 Part 6 (Road Geometry) of this Manual has been developed with due regard to
safety of the road users, and the design parameters in it have been developed to provide for
safe operation at various design speeds. The initial objective should be designs with at least
Desirable Minimum Standards which will produce a high standard of road safety .
3.1.3 Relaxations may be introduced at the discretion of the Designer when physical
constraints or excessive costs makes the provision of the minimum standards difficult having
regard to the guidance in Part 6 and all the relevant local factors. Departures may ONLY be
introduced with the explicit agreement of the MOWMAUP. Further guidance on the
procedures for Relaxations of and Departures from Standard are given in Part 1 of this
Manual. Careful consideration must be given to layout options incorporating Relaxations or
Departures, having weighed the benefits and any potential disbenefits. Particular attention
should be given to the safety aspects and the environmental and/or cost benefits which
would result from the use of Relaxations or Departures.
3.1.4 The Designer should also consider whether the following should be introduced in
conjunction with any Relaxation or Departure:
(i) Signs and road markings, to alert the driver to the layout ahead.
3.1.5 Impact mitigation measures, such as road safety barriers. The designer should
avoid introducing elements that drivers could fail to observe. The most common problems
that drivers face that may lead to crashes are:
(i) Inadequate Stopping Sight Distance.
(ii) Excessive Stopping Sight Distance.
(iii) Superelevation.
(iv) Inappropriate junction type.
(v) Inappropriate or inadequate signing.
3.2 Design Speed
3.2.1 Design speed is an important concept in the design of road alignments in order to
ensure that the majority of road users can drive safely and at a speed appropriate for the
type of road. The road alignment shall be designed in relation to the proposed or existing
design speed so as to ensure that the geometric design is provided to a standard that is
consistent with the anticipated vehicles speeds.
3.2.2 Design Speed should not however be thought of as the maximum safe speed as
traffic, climatic or other prevailing conditions may mean the safe vehicle speed is
considerably slower.
st
1 Edition 27 2018
3.2.3 Posted speed limits or other regulations are also used to influence the speed of
drivers. The speed limits for a new road should be determined at the design stage taking
into account its position in the road hierarchy and the particular frontage characteristics and
proposed function of the road. Chapter 1 (General Design Criteria) of Part 6 of this Manual
gives a guide to appropriate speed limit based on road type. However, the selected speed
limit will be confirmed at the beginning of the scheme to avoid abortive works by the RPDD
in consultation with GDT for endorsement by the Traffic Board Sub-Committee.
3.2.4 Chapter 2 (Link Design) of Part 6 gives more detailed information on the
requirements of speed control particularly when referring to the alignment of the proposed
road and the relationship at the interfaces with the existing network.
3.3 Stopping Sight Distance (SSD)
3.3.1 Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) is the assumed distance required by a driver to
stop a vehicle when meeting an unexpected obstruction in the carriageway. It is made up
from two components:
(i) The perception or reaction distance, which is the distance travelled at the design
speed from the time that the driver sees the obstruction to the time that their foot
reaches the brake pedal.
(ii) The braking distance is the distance travelled while braking to a stop just short of
the obstruction.
3.3.2 For safe and efficient traffic operation on the road, sufficient sight distance must be
provided to enable drivers to perceive and react to any hazardous situation. This includes
other moving or stationary vehicles and objects in the carriageway.
3.3.3 Sight distance is a measurable parameter that is related to the geometry and
design speed of a road, based on assumptions of hazards and driver behaviour. Sight
distance is measured from a driver’s eye height (to a point above the surface of the ground.
For more details see Chapter 2 (Link Design) of Part 6.
3.3.4 Fixed and substantial obstructions such as safety fences, parapets, bridge soffits,
planting, landscaping and traffic signs can interrupt the driver’s line of sight. Guidance on
clearances are provided in Chapter 3 (Cross Section Elements) of Part 6.
3.3.5 Isolated and narrow obstructions to sight distances, for example sign posts,
lighting columns and individual trees do not normally impact on visibility and can be ignored.
However care should be taken to ensure that individual features such as trees do not
combine to form a more continuous restriction of visibility.
3.4 Horizontal Alignment
3.4.1 The horizontal alignment of a road is formed from circular curves and straights. It
should provide for safe and continuous operation at a uniform travel speed. Generally, the
adopted alignment should be as direct as possible, with curve radii as large as practicable.
Sudden reductions in design standard, such as isolated curves of small radius (particularly
at the end of long straights), introduce an element of surprise to the driver and should be
avoided. The result of drivers not recognising the required action for these geometric
features greatly increases the chance of a single vehicle accident occurring.
3.4.2 On low and intermediate speed alignments, the radius of curves used should
generally be consistent along the road. Special care must be taken with curves at the end of
long straights because of the increased risk of higher vehicle speeds that can be developed
at these locations. Designers should also avoid locating drainage ditches adjacent to the
roadway on the outside of curves.
st
2018 28 1 Edition
3.5 Vertical Alignment
3.5.1 In addition to the specific guidance given in Chapter 2 of Part 6 of this Manual,
there are a number of general considerations which are important in producing a safe
design. These are outlined below, and are particularly applicable to higher speed roads.
(i) A smooth profile with gradual changes, consistent with the class of road and the
character of the terrain, is preferable to a vertical alignment with numerous sharp
breaks and short lengths of uniform grade.
(ii) A "roller coaster" or "hidden dip" type of profile should be avoided.
(iii) A broken-back profile (two vertical curves in the same direction separated by a
short section of uniform grade) is not desirable, particularly in sags where a full
view of the profile is possible.
(iv) In flat terrain the profile is often controlled by drainage considerations. It is
important that adequate falls (both longitudinal and transverse) are provided so
that water drains freely from the road surface. The height of the profile above the
surrounding ground level may be governed by the need to provide drainage
structures under the road.
(v) Vertical curves which are substantially longer than the length required for stopping
sight distance are generally more aesthetically pleasing.
(vi) A superelevation runoff occurring on a vertical curve designed to near minimum
standards requires special attention to ensure that the required minimum vertical
curvature is maintained in all lanes. Both edge profiles should be checked and
adjusted where this is necessary in order to maintain the desired minimum vertical
curvature.
(vii) It is not desirable for intersections to occur on sections of road which have steep
grades or on vertical curves with relaxations, and the design should seek to avoid
this situation.
3.6 Coordinated Link Design
3.6.1 It is preferable to co-ordinate the horizontal and vertical alignments of a road as

this gives better rideability and will avoid optical illusions on the curvature of bends when the
scheme is constructed.
3.6.2 This can be achieved by making the points where the horizontal and vertical
curvatures changes coincide with one another. Where this is not possible and the curves
cannot be separated entirely, the vertical curves should be either contained wholly within, or
wholly outside the horizontal curves. Where curves are allowed to overlap, the resulting
optical illusions are damaging to the appearance of the road and in extreme cases may
contribute to accidents. More detailed guidance on co-ordinated link design is given in
Chapter 2 of Part 6 of this Manual.
st
1 Edition 29 2018
4 Roadside Hazard Management
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 A well-designed road aims to keep vehicles safely on the road. However, drivers
will make mistakes; the only unknown is where on the network that will occur. To minimise
the consequences it is important to reduce the effect of forces on the occupants of vehicles
to within human tolerance levels. This can be achieved by either removing or protecting
roadside hazards that have the potential for serious crashes involving injury to vehicle
occupants.
4.1.2 Roadside hazards that may be encountered adjacent to the road include rigid
objects (for example. bridge piers and abutments, trees, utility pole, signs, street lighting,
buildings and culvert headwalls), slopes of embankments and medians on high speed roads.
4.1.3 It can be difficult to remove roadside hazards on the existing road network as the
infrastructure has generally been provided over a period of time. In urban areas it may not
be feasible to remove or modify features on the roadside such as electricity poles, trees,
large sign supports, fences and buildings. Relocation of poles in urban areas may also be
restricted due to underground utilities such as water pipes, drainage and cables. Relocation
of hazards may also not be feasible in urban areas due the restricted width of the road right
of way. Therefore, the treatment of roadside hazards on existing roads should generally
target high risk sites with high operating speeds.
4.1.4 All hazardous roadside features should be considered high priority if they are
associated with accident clusters or a greater-than-average history of crashes.
4.1.5 Run-off-road (ROR) crashes are a major type of road crash that results in death
and serious injury. There are numerous reasons as to why vehicles leave the roadway and
encroach onto the roadside environment. These reasons include lack of driver
concentration or inattention, driver fatigue, driving while intoxicated or under the influence of
drugs, excessive speed, poor visibility, inadequate visual cues of the road path, poor road
condition and vehicle failure (for example brake failure, or worn tyres).
4.1.6 The key first step in roadside hazard management is to provide a road
environment that reduces the potential for road users to lose control of their vehicle and run
off the road. Should this occur it is then essential that a roadside environment be provided
that is free of hazards or is forgiving.
4.1.7 The type of roadside feature that can be defined as a hazard is divided into two
categories; point hazards, which are obstructions of limited length, and continuous hazards
that extend for a considerable distance.
st
2018 30 1 Edition
4.2 Point Hazards
4.2.1 Point hazards are permanent installations, of limited length, that may be struck by
vehicles running off the road. Because of their limited extent, point hazards should usually
be removed from clear zones, rather than being shielded with a barrier. The following items
are examples of point hazards:
(i) Trees over 100 mm in diameter
(ii) Bridge end posts and piers
(iii) Large planters
(iv) Hazardous landscape features
(v) Non-breakaway signs
(vi) Inappropriate slip bases on signs
(vii) Protruding footings
(viii) Non-traversable driveway headwalls
(ix) Non-traversable culvert head walls
(x) Utility poles
(xi) Walls or corners of walls
(xii) Hydrant bases more than 100 mm high
(xiii) Short isolated sections of kerbs with a vertical face (such as barrier kerbs)
(xiv) Fences with rails that can break away and spear vehicles
(xv) Advertising boards.
4.3 Continuous Hazards
4.3.1 Continuous hazards differ from point hazards in that they are of considerable
length. It is therefore generally less practical to remove or relocate them. The length of the
hazard increases the likelihood that an errant vehicle will crash into it, and some hazards
(for example exposed rock faces) have a high crash severity regardless of the speed of the
errant vehicle. Examples of continuous hazards include:
(i) Dense landscaping with substantial trees
(ii) Rows of large trees
(iii) Drainage ditches
(iv) Steep embankments
(v) Rock outcrops, cutting or boulders
(vi) Precipitous drop-offs
(vii) Channels over 0.6 m deep
(viii) Retaining walls
(ix) Kerbs with a vertical face (such as barrier kerbs) over 100 mm high on roads with
operating speeds of 70 km/h or more
(x) Pipelines exposed above ground
4.3.2 The designer should avoid placing poles, trees/landscaping and other features
(described above) in a position where they may be struck should a vehicle leave the road.
st
1 Edition 31 2018
4.4 Providing a Forgiving Roadside Environment
4.4.1 The ‘clear zone’ concept in road design relates to the part of the roadside from the
edge of the traffic lane that is to be kept relatively free of hazards so that safety is
maximised for occupants of errant vehicles. The rationale is to maintain a physical area
adjacent to the road where hazards are managed in order to minimise the severity of any
injuries resulting from crashes. This area provides drivers of errant vehicles space to
manoeuvre, or at least decrease their speed in relative safety, if they leave the roadway.
4.4.2 The provision of a clear zone should ALWAYS be considered as part of the road
design process when new works are planned. Part 15 (Road Safety Barriers) and Chapter 3
(Cross Section Elements) of Part 6 of this Manual give further guidance on the provision of
clear zones.
4.4.3 The actual ‘recovery area’ which an errant vehicle requires to enable it to come to
rest safely, or to pass through before re-joining the traffic lane, is primarily dependent on
traffic speed. Early studies in the USA and more recent studies in Australia found that on
high speed (100 km/h) open roads with flat side slopes, between 80 and 85% of vehicles
could recover within 9 metres from the edge of the roadway. This distance also depends on
the adjacent cut or fill slope and the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road at that
point; for example the required recovery area is greater on the outside of curves or where
there is a significant cut or fill slope away from the roadway. As the actual ‘recovery area’
can be relatively large, the concept of a ‘clear zone’ has been developed to define an area
which reflects the probability of a severe crash occurring at a particular site. The clear zone
concept and principles can also provide a risk management approach to prioritise the
treatment of roadside hazards at different locations.
4.5 Other Types of Hazards and their Treatments
4.5.1 Ideally, a safe roadside should have flat fill slopes, particularly if they are to be
traversable for errant cars and trucks. Steep sided slopes on fill embankments could cause
a vehicle to roll; deep open drains and rough cut slopes may also be hazardous.
4.5.2 Road safety barriers should be provided wherever cutting slopes are not safely
traversable by vehicles unless there is sufficient right of way to provide the minimum clear
zone at the foot of the cutting. (See Part 15 of this Manual.)
4.5.3 Slopes can be made more traversable if the top and bottom of the slope are
rounded to help an errant vehicle remain in contact with the ground.
4.5.4 Posts located adjacent to the road can be a significant hazard to errant vehicles.
Passive posts meeting the requirements specified in Part 13 of this Manual do not require
protection. Where posts do not meet those requirements and the use of such posts is not
appropriate posts must be located a safe distance from the edge of the running lane or
protected by a road safety barrier as specified in Part 15.
4.5.5 Although Bahrain is a relatively dry country and there are few fresh water hazards,
it is also an island with extensive development along the coastline and on reclaimed land.
Consequently there are many places where there are deep water hazards adjacent to
roadways. Although the head of a driver, or occupant, of an upright vehicle is normally at
least 1 m above ground level, there is a risk that an errant vehicle may roll over after a
crash. This may result in an occupant being suspended upside down or with their head
resting on the roof of a vehicle. In such circumstances even the smallest amount of water
could interfere with their ability to breath. For this reason deep water is defined in Part 15 of
this Manual as water more than 0.6 m deep.
st
2018 32 1 Edition
5 Landscape
5.1.1 Careful selection of planting is necessary at the design stage to ensure that, when
mature, the planting does not obscure the plane of visibility defined in Part 6 Chapter 2.
5.1.2 Planting design will vary according to the road hierarchy and speed characteristics.
Planting groups for higher speed locations should include a spacing and simplicity of layout
which is appropriate for viewing when travelling through the planting at speed. Further
guidance on planting design is given in Part 12 of this Manual (Environmental Assessment &
Design).
5.1.3 Vegetation may conflict or assist in highway safety objectives in the following
ways:
(i) By interfering with driver’s sightlines at junctions/intersections.
(ii) At locations where lines of trees may create an overlapping barrier which can
screen headlights to the benefit of oncoming drivers.
(iii) By adversely affecting forward visibility through the creation of a visual barrier for
example, close spacing of palms in a line creating a “wall” effect.
(iv) By trees having a strobe light effect along a road in bright sunlight.
5.1.4 Consideration should be given to the safe use of trees in the highway environment
in relation to:
(i) The potential hazard from vehicles leaving the road and colliding with trees.
(ii) The potential for trees to fall across or onto the highway in high winds.
(iii) Assessment of the health and stability of existing trees to be retained.
5.1.5 Roadside palm trees are potentially a hazard and, therefore, need to be
considered by the Designer. All trees should be considered a hazard unless it can be
shown that they will not reach the size specified in Part 15 of this Manual.
5.1.6 A designer’s risk assessment should identify the risk from the potential hazards
and then suggest mitigation, for example the use of a barrier or kerb to prevent or reduce
risk of collision with trees. Conversely, shrubs may assist in slowing out of control vehicles
and act as a living barrier beneficially reducing the severity of any collision.
5.1.7 The general visibility criteria for the alignment of new roads are closely connected
to the speed of traffic. Inappropriate shrubs or other plants with dense foliage may obstruct
sight lines at sensitive locations such as junctions, crossing points and along the inside of
curves.
5.1.8 Where signs or sight lines are obscured by trees sited in the highway, pruning
should be carried out after liaison with the relevant Department. Where a sign is persistently
obscured by trees or shrubs, consideration should be given to re-siting the sign or removing
the tree.
5.1.9 Where appropriate to a particular project, the designer shall use the Landscape
Checklist in Part 12 (Environmental Assessment & Design) where more information on this
subject may be found, as an initial tool to identify those landscape factors that may influence
the design.
st
1 Edition 33 2018
6 Advertising Boards / Structures
6.1.1 All advertisement boards are intended to attract the attention of the public and as
such road engineers should give careful consideration to the placement and type of
advertising boards erected. The physical presence of advertisement boards in particular
situations is likely to cause danger to road users. These are:
(i) When sight-lines are impaired such as at corners, bends, junctions or accesses.
(ii) When they obstruct traffic signs or signals or are likely to distract road users
because of their unusual nature.
(iii) When there is insufficient clearance for vehicles on the carriageway.
(iv) When illuminated:
a. Have spotlights or by other means are directly visible from the carriageway.
b. Could be confused with or mistaken for traffic lights or authorised signals.
c. Could result in glare or dazzle.
6.1.2 Therefore, advertisement boards should be prohibited when:
(i) Sight lines are impaired along the highway.
(ii) Any part of the advertisement obstructs any road sign or is too close to enable
drivers to read and understand the traffic sign.
(iii) Any external lighting is likely to dazzle drivers.
(iv) They incorporate moving elements in their display.
(v) Fixed to bridges or above the highway.
(vi) They obstruct the passage of pedestrians and cyclists.
6.1.3 There are less likely to be road safety problems if the advertisement is on a site
within a commercial or industrial locality, and if the advertisement is not on the skyline.
Further guidance on Advertising Sign Permit Conditions can be provided by MOWMAUP on
request.
6.1.4 In many cases it may be possible for the hazardous traffic features of the display
to be removed by, for example, re-siting the sign, or screening of floodlights, or changing the
colours of lights. Such changes might be achieved by discussing a suitable alternative
display with the advertiser. Brief guidance on the procedures for managing advertising signs
is given in Part 2 of this Manual.
st
2018 34 1 Edition
7 Junction Strategy
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 The aim should be to provide drivers with road layouts that have consistent
Standards and are not likely to be confusing. Detailed guidance on the selection of the most
appropriate type of junction is given in Part 6, Chapter 4 of this Manual.
7.1.2 The selection of the most appropriate type of junction should be based on a wide
range of factors, taking into account the design year traffic flow, the nature and proportions
of large goods and passenger carrying vehicles, geometric and traffic delays, an initial
estimate of entry and turning stream capacities, and accident costs. It should also be based
on a consideration of the particular site characteristics such as development and
topography. The next step is to address all of the relevant safety issues to ensure as safe a
design as practicable, to take account of road users' specific requirements and to
incorporate a preliminary landscape design within the junction. More detailed guidance of
junction choice is given in Chapter 4, Part 6 of this Manual.
7.1.3 On lengths of inter-urban road sequences of junctions should not involve many
different layout types. A length of route or bypass containing roundabouts, single lane
dualling islands, simple priority junctions and grade separation would inevitably create
confusion and uncertainty for drivers and may result in accidents. Safe road schemes are
usually straightforward, containing no surprises for the driver.
7.2 Signalised Junctions
7.2.1 The use of traffic signals for the control of traffic is an established traffic
management tool. When carefully designed, operated and maintained, traffic signals offer a
means of increasing capacities at junctions in a safe and efficient manner for road vehicles
and for other road users such as pedestrians. Detailed guidance on the design of signal
controlled junctions, including signal controlled roundabouts, is given in Chapter 8 of Part 6
of this Manual.
7.2.2 The need for pedestrian signals within signalled junctions is likely to arise from a
safety or policy initiative. Particular consideration should be given to these facilities in the
location of schools, hospitals and/or any junction close to areas where there may be a high
proportion of disabled people.
7.2.3 Where there is substantial clutter on the footways and/or bushes and trees, the
forward view of the traffic signal heads may be obscured, which is unacceptable.
7.2.4 Detailed guidance on the design of traffic signals and control equipment is given in
Part 14 of this Manual.
7.3 Priority Junctions (Give Way and Stop)
7.3.1 Most vehicular and pedestrian accidents occur at priority junctions. Poorly judged
left turn movements onto and from the major road and unsafe overtaking manoeuvres
usually accompany these accidents. Detailed guidance on the design of priority junctions is
given in Part 6 Chapter 5 of this Manual.
7.4 Simple Junctions
7.4.1 Simple junctions, as defined in Chapter 4 (Junction Types and Choices) of Part 6,
are appropriate for most minor junctions on single carriageway roads, but must not be used
for wide single carriageways or dual carriageways. Detailed guidance on the suitability of
simple junctions is given in Part 6, Chapter 5 of this Manual
st
1 Edition 35 2018
7.5 Ghost Islands
7.5.1 The use of ghost islands can pose safety problems in situations where an
overtaking opportunity on the major road on either side of the junction is restricted. The
presence of a widened carriageway, albeit with hatch markings, could result in overtaking
manoeuvres which may conflict with left turns into and out of the minor road. As a result the
use of ghost islands is not normally an acceptable junction treatment option in Bahrain. Any
junction design incorporating a ghost island requires prior approval from the RPDD.
7.5.2 The clarity of the layout may also deteriorate rapidly due to the covering of the
road markings with rubber deposits and excessive bitumen. The use of ceramic discs might
be a viable alternative to traditional markings.
7.6 Dual Carriageway Junctions
7.6.1 Priority junctions may also be used on dual carriageways, but should never be
provided on arterial roads with more than 2 lanes in each direction. Detailed guidance on
the suitability of priority junctions on dual carriageways is given in Part 6, Chapter 4 of this
Manual
7.6.2 In addition, priority junctions should not be provided at locations where a dual
carriageway section reduces to single carriageway standard since the merging manoeuvres
resulting from such a layout may lead to an increase in accident potential. There should be
a clear distance between the end of the junction and the signs announcing the end of the
dual carriageway, as specified in Part 6 Chapter 5.
7.7 Crossroads
7.7.1 Crossroads are considered suitable only as simple junctions where the minor road
flows do not warrant a single lane dualling. Staggered junctions are safer than crossroads
where a significant proportion of the flow on the minor roads is a cross movement.
Adequate separation of the minor side roads is necessary to reduce the potential for
conflicts.
7.8 Staggered Junctions
7.8.1 Staggered junctions comprise a major road with opposed T-junctions on either
side. Right/left staggers (where minor road traffic crossing the major road first turns right,
proceeds along the major road and then turns left) are preferred to left/right staggers
because traffic turning between the minor roads is less likely to have to wait in the centre of
the major road.
7.9 Siting of Priority Junctions
7.9.1 On new single carriageways where overtaking opportunity is limited, single lane
dualling junctions should be sited on non-overtaking sections, as defined in Chapter 1
(General Design Criteria) of Part 6 of this Manual. Details of Priority Junctions can be found
in Chapter 5 of Part 6.
7.9.2 A reduction in crashes may also be achieved, and an improvement made in
operational performance, by reducing the number of lightly trafficked minor road connections
onto major roads.
7.9.3 Priority junctions should not be sited where the major road is on a sharp curve.
Junctions on the inside of sharp curves are most undesirable.
7.9.4 Problems have been experienced with priority junctions containing a skew minor
road where the alignment is such that some drivers perceive that the minor road retains
priority. In such circumstances, the minor road approach should be aligned so as to join the
major road as near to right angles as possible in order to eliminate any driver confusion as
to which route has priority. Detailed guidance on the skew limits is given in Part 6,
Chapter 2 of this Manual.
st
2018 36 1 Edition
7.9.5 The best locations for junctions are on level ground, or where the gradient of the
approaches does not exceed 2% either uphill or downhill.
7.10 Visibility
7.10.1 Minor road traffic has to join or cross the major road when there are gaps in the
major road traffic streams. It is therefore essential that minor road drivers have adequate
visibility in each direction to see the oncoming major road traffic in sufficient time to permit
them to make their manoeuvres safely. This concept also applies to major road traffic
turning left into the minor road. As well as having adverse safety implications, poor visibility
reduces the capacity of turning movements. Visibility should however, not be excessive as
this can provide a distraction away from nearer opposing traffic.
7.10.2 Drivers approaching a priority junction from both the major road and the minor
road shall have unobstructed visibility. The envelope of visibility for driver's eye height is set
out in Chapter 1 (General Design Criteria) of Part 6 of this Manual.
7.11 Major Road
7.11.1 Drivers approaching a priority junction along the major road approaches shall be
able to see the minor road entry from a distance corresponding to the Desirable Minimum
Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) for the design speed of the major road, as described in
Chapter 2 (Link Design) of Part 6 of this Manual. This visibility allows drivers on the major
road to be aware of traffic entering from the minor road in time for them to be able to slow
down and stop safely if necessary.
7.12 Roundabouts
7.12.1 A well-designed roundabout is the safest form of intersection control. Numerous

‘before and after’ type studies have shown that in general, fewer motor vehicle casualty
crashes occur at roundabouts than at intersections containing traffic signals, stop, or give-
way signs. The severity of crashes at roundabouts is also considerably lower than at other
types of intersection. Detailed guidance on the design of roundabouts is provided in
Chapter 7 of Part 6 of this Manual.
7.12.2 The primary reason for the improved safety record for motor vehicles is that the
relative speeds of vehicles are considerably lower at a well-designed roundabout than for
other types of at-grade intersections. Controlling speeds through roundabouts by their
design is paramount in maximising the safety performance for all road users. A roundabout
should be designed to limit through speeds by means of adequate deflection angles and
entry path curvature, and this may constrain pavement widths and thus limit the available
capacity.
7.12.3 Studies have shown that roundabouts increase the risk of crashes for cyclists and
this fact needs to be taken into account when considering the adoption of a roundabout
treatment at an intersection. Cyclists are involved in a high percentage of entering or
circulating vehicle crashes.
7.12.4 Roundabouts should preferably be sited on level ground or in sags rather than at
or near crests because it is difficult for drivers to appreciate the layout when approaching on
an up gradient. However, there is no evidence that roundabouts on crests are intrinsically
unsafe where the visibility standards have been provided on the approach to the give way
line and the roundabout is correctly signed. Roundabouts should not be sited at the bottom
of or on long descents where the differential crossfall between the approach and circulatory
may lead to loss of control.
7.13 Mini Roundabouts
7.13.1 Mini-roundabouts must only be used on roads with a speed limit of 50 km/h or less
and where the 85 percentile dry weather speed of traffic is less than 55 km/h unless installed
in combination with speed reduction measures. Detailed guidance on the siting and use of
mini roundabouts, including speed limits, is given in Part 6, Chapter 7 of this Manual.
st
1 Edition 37 2018
7.13.2 Mini-roundabouts do not have kerbed central islands, but have either a flush or
domed circular white central island between 1 m and 4 m in diameter which is capable of
being driven over if this is unavoidable (for example by larger vehicles). Further guidance
on the design of mini roundabouts and the safety considerations they raise is given in Part 6,
7.13.3 They can be introduced to address issues such as accident reduction,
redistribution of queues and delays in a junction or road system or in conjunction with a
traffic calming scheme. They may be inappropriate for frequent use by long vehicles and
some public service vehicles. The use of mini-roundabouts is not recommended at or near
junctions where turns into or out from side roads are prohibited. This is because drivers do
not expect to see vehicles U-turning on mini-roundabouts.
7.13.4 Four-arm mini-roundabouts introduce additional conflicts and can create difficulty
for drivers’ perceptions of the layout and turning flows. They should be used with caution in
this scenario and are not recommended where the sum of the maximum peak hour entry
flows for all arms exceeds the limit specified in Part 6, Chapter 7.
7.13.5 Mini-roundabouts must not be used at junctions with more than four arms.
7.14 Signalised Roundabouts
7.14.1 The signalisation of roundabouts is often necessary when relatively low volumes of
circulating traffic hold up large quantities of vehicles entering the roundabout. This is quite
common where the roundabout is large (when the inscribed diameter is typically >100 m),
where the high speed of circulating traffic only offers small gaps for traffic to enter the
roundabout. Further guidance on traffic signal controlled roundabouts is given in Part 6,
7.14.2 Should there be a large volume of pedestrians wishing to cross the main highway
at the roundabout or over the minor approaches, consideration should be given to install
signalled pedestrian crossings on the exits from the signalised roundabout. To allow drivers
sufficient visibility of the pedestrian signals and vice versa, the pedestrian signals should be
set back from the roundabout.
7.15 Roundabout Entry Width
7.15.1 No roundabout entry should be more than four lanes wide. Further guidance on
entry path width is given in Part 6, Chapter 7 of this Manual.
7.15.2 The entry angle should lie between the limits specified in Part 6, Chapter 7. Low
entry angles force the drivers to look over their shoulders or use their mirrors to merge with
circulating traffic. Large entry angles induce lower capacity and can produce excessive
entry deflection which can lead to sharp braking at entry, accompanied by shunt type
accidents, particularly when approach speeds are high.
7.15.3 It should be noted that entry kerb radii in excess of 100 m will produce inadequate
deflection. The entry kerb radius must not exceed the limits specified in Part 6, Chapter 7.
7.16 Visibility on the Approach to Roundabouts
7.16.1 On the approach to a roundabout, normal Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) applies,
in accordance with the appropriate design speed, as described in Chapter 1 of Part 6 of this
Manual.
7.16.2 To reduce the potential for collisions between vehicles entering the roundabout
and those already on it drivers should be able to see the full width of the circulating
pavement to their left, from the Give Way line for an adequate distance ‘a’ (measured along
the centreline of the circulating pavement).
st
2018 38 1 Edition
7.17 Interchanges
7.17.1 Grade Separation of junctions may be considered for two situations. Firstly, where
conflicts between heavy flows of traffic cannot be resolved by roundabouts or traffic signals
or a combination of both, without unacceptable delays. Secondly, where the type of road
and the nature of the traffic using it is such that interruptions are unacceptable. Grade
separation removes the direct conflicts between the main vehicle flows thus improving both
the safety and the capacity of the intersection. Further guidance on the design of grade
separated junctions and interchanges is given in Chapter 6 of Part 6 of this Manual.
7.17.2 The most efficient form of grade separation is that which presents the driver with
the minimum number of clear unambiguous decision points as they drive through the
junction and in merging and diverging. For safer manoeuvring, there must be both sufficient
width on the road, and sufficient length between the relevant entry and subsequent exit
points. Both of these elements depend directly on the volume of traffic in each stream, and
must to be calculated by the traffic engineer.
7.17.3 It is important on safety grounds and to limit interference to mainline traffic that
joining traffic is channelled into the merging area (from the tip of the nose to the end of the
taper(s)) and arrives there in an orderly fashion to perform a safe and comfortable merge
with the mainline.
st
1 Edition 39 2018
8 Safety Barriers
8.1.1 Road safety barriers (sometimes known as Road Restraint Systems (RRS),
Vehicle Restraint Systems (VRS), highway restraint systems, safety fences and even
sometimes as crash barriers), including bridge parapets, have two main purposes:
(i) To shield others (other people and other property) from the effects of an errant
vehicle leaving the road or falling from elevated structures. As such, they increase
the safety of (and reduce the risk to) the vulnerable others, whether they are
pedestrians, other motorists, or adjacent property.
(ii) To increase the safety of (and reduce the risk to) the vehicle and its occupants by
preventing it from leaving the road and striking potentially hazardous objects off
the carriageway (or falling from elevated structures) and bringing the vehicle to rest
in a controlled manner.
8.1.2 Safety barriers are needed wherever there is an unacceptable risk from a hazard
that cannot be removed or avoided. However, the introduction of a road safety barrier does
not make a situation totally safe. Every year, there are injuries caused when vehicles hit
road safety barriers, and, in some circumstances, it may be better either to remove a hazard
or not to protect it.
8.1.3 The designer must consider whether there is a need to provide safety barriers if
the following circumstances apply:
(i) Whenever a vehicle leaves the road and suffers an off road crash.
(ii) Where there is a fatal crash or there have been two or more serious injury crashes
in a three year period, unless the road design, the roadside design and roadside
obstacles played no part in either causing the crash or the severity of the crashes.
(iii) Roadside safety barriers should be provided before and after any junction on a
limited access road (such as a Motorway or an Arterial road) as specified in Part
15 of this Manual unless the desirable minimum clear zone has been provided.
8.1.4 The placement and nature of hazards in the central reserve and the form of safety
barrier must be chosen to minimise the need for operatives to work in the central reserve.
8.1.5 The detailed requirements for road safety barriers can be found in Part 15 of this
Manual.
st
2018 40 1 Edition
9 Traffic Signs and Markings
9.1 Traffic Signs
9.1.1 There are a number of key issues around the design of traffic signs. The safety of
users depends on the information present on signs being clear and unambiguous. Road
users depend on signs to warn them of hazards, for information and for guidance. It is of the
greatest importance to road safety that drivers can immediately recognise a traffic sign when
they encounter it, and understand exactly what they are required to do.
9.1.2 When signs are installed, consideration should be given to the presence of existing
vegetation and an assessment made of the likelihood of it obstructing sightlines as it grows.
As far as possible, signs should be located clear of trees, so that it is the back that is
obscured and not the sign face.
9.1.3 The higher the prevailing traffic speed, the further away from the sign the driver
needs to start reading in order to finish reading in the time available. A driver needs to
return his attention to the road ahead some distance before actually passing the sign.
Table 2.5 of Part 13 of this Manual provides more detailed information on the siting of
direction signs.
9.1.4 Signs giving legal instructions, and intended to be read from moving vehicles, must
be of sufficient size to enable drivers to recognise them, and understand the message in
time to respond to it. They must therefore be of a size appropriate to the speed of traffic on
the road on which they are used. Signs must also be sited where drivers will have an
unobstructed view of them; the greater the traffic speed, the greater this distance needs to
be, see Table 4.1 of Part 13.
9.1.5 The purpose of warning signs is to alert drivers to potential danger ahead.
Warning signs are generally available in up to four sizes. The appropriate size will be
determined by the prevailing traffic speeds. Where speeds are higher, signs need to be
larger to enable them to be detected at a greater distance, and further in advance of the
hazard to give drivers time to recognise and assimilate the warning, and take any necessary
action in good time. Table 5.1 of Part 13 gives detailed guidance on the appropriate sign
sizes and distances for different speeds.
9.1.6 Drivers must have an unobstructed view of traffic signs. The distance which
should be kept clear of obstructions to the sight line, whether caused by foliage or planting,
other signs, street furniture (including lighting columns and traffic signal posts) or
advertisements is known as the clear visibility distance. The higher the traffic speeds, the
greater this distance needs to be. Sight lines need to be maintained so that the intended
warning is not compromised. Care in siting can minimise future problems. In particular,
sight lines should not cross private land, as it will be difficult to control the growth of
vegetation or the placing of other obstructions. Nor should warning signs be placed where
they will obscure the view of other signs, such as direction or regulatory signs. It will
sometimes be necessary to avoid this by siting the sign further from the hazard, or on the
left-hand side of the road as well as in the verge on the right.
9.2 Traffic Signs at Road Works
9.2.1 Road works on or near a carriageway or footway can be a serious hazard to

pedestrians, cyclists, those travelling in motor vehicles and to the workforce itself. In order
to keep both the public and the workforce safe, it is essential that uniform and consistent
procedures should be adopted.
9.2.2 The traffic management devices and procedures described in Part 16 of this
Manual must be used for all applicable construction work and temporary works on and
adjacent to all roads. These devices and procedures are the minimum standards to be used
at all times.
st
1 Edition 41 2018
9.2.3 Irrespective of the size of the operations, and no matter how long the works are
likely to last (even for a short time, because accidents can happen in seconds), the highest
standards of traffic management must always be applied.
9.3 Road Markings
9.3.1 Road markings convey information and requirements to road users which might
not be possible using upright signs. Road markings do however have limitations; in
particular they can deteriorate rapidly in the environmental conditions experienced in
Bahrain. Reliance should not therefore be placed on road markings alone.
9.3.2 In order to fulfil their guidance purpose, road markings must be clearly visible both
by day and by night. Guidance markings need to be visible at a distance equivalent to at
least two seconds of travel time. The higher the traffic speed on a road, the greater the
visibility distance needed to maintain the two-second preview time.
9.3.3 Further guidance on road markings is given in Part 13 of this Manual.
9.4 Posts for Traffic Signs
9.4.1 The positioning of posts to support traffic signs should be carefully considered to
ensure that they do not cause any hazards or other safety issues for road users. Section
1.3 of Part 13 gives detailed advice on positioning and mounting.
9.4.2 As the number of posts supporting a sign increases and the spacing between them
decreases, there is an increasing possibility for more than one post to be hit by an errant
vehicle and for the sign posts to act together as a comparatively stiffer and more rigid
hazard. Therefore it is not acceptable for designers to reduce the size of sign support posts
by providing an increased number of posts solely to overcome the requirement to provide a
safety barrier unless a passive safety support structure system is used in accordance with
BS EN 12767. Further guidance on posts for traffic signs is given in Part 15 of this Manual.
st
2018 42 1 Edition
10 Safety of Vulnerable Road Users
10.1 Pedestrian Crossings
10.1.1 Pedestrian attractors or generators include such facilities as bus stops, schools,
malls, buildings, trail links, and footway connections. There can be multiple pedestrian
attractors or generators alongside any given road and the interaction and linkage between
them naturally leads to pedestrian crossing demands. The multiple points of origin and
destination, and the arbitrary tendency of pedestrian crossing behaviour, can result in
multiple desired paths of crossing and conflict points with vehicular traffic at midblock and/or
at intersection locations.
10.1.2 In spite of the natural tendencies of pedestrians, their decisions on where, when or
whether to cross are influenced by a number of factors. These include:
(i) The frequency and nature of gaps in streams of vehicles as it relates to the level of
traffic volume and speed of traffic. At crossing locations without traffic control, the
higher the traffic volume and speed, the higher the exposure and the more difficult
it is to find a vehicle gap to cross. High vehicular volumes and speeds can also
inhibit a perception of safety.
(ii) Pedestrians’ physical ability — persons with a disability, seniors or young children
will proceed to cross at a slower speed and therefore will take longer to complete a
crossing.
(iii) Pedestrian behaviour and comfort level in terms of their perception of safety, the
pleasantness of where they are walking, and their understanding of the rules of the
road.
(iv) Availability, proximity and quality of nearby pedestrian facilities — pedestrians may
choose to cross at a nearby pedestrian facility where controlled crossing is
provided.
(i) The criteria for a traffic control signal crossing at an intersection or midway along a
stretch of road are described in Part 14 of this Manual.
10.1.3 The location of signalled pedestrian crossings will be decided in general by road
safety specialists.
10.1.4 The initial consideration when preparing the design of signalled pedestrian
crossings is the visibility of waiting pedestrians from vehicle and vice versa.
10.1.5 The designer must take into consideration permanent interruptions to the line of
sight such as vegetation and buildings as well as temporary or non-fixed blockages such as
parked vehicles. In some instances, it will be necessary to build out the kerb to improve
visibility.
st
1 Edition 43 2018
11 Traffic Calming
11.1 Introduction
11.1.1 Traffic calming uses specific measures to reduce and control vehicle speeds to a
level commensurate with the activities taking place along a road. It can also encourage
drivers to adopt a uniform speed without excessive acceleration or deceleration. In addition,
traffic calming can be used to influence driver behaviour towards non-motorised road users.
Detailed guidance on the design and use of traffic calming schemes in the UK is available in:
(i) Local Transport Note 1/07, Traffic Calming, published by the UK Department for
Transport,
(ii) Manual for Streets (2007) published by Thomas Telford Publishing, 1 Heron Quay,
London E14 4JD on behalf of the UK Department for Transport
(iii) Traffic Calming Techniques (2005) published by the Chartered Institution of
Highways and Transportation, 119 Britannia Walk London N1 7JE
(iv) TA 87/04: Traffic Calming on Trunk Roads A Practical Guide, UK DMRB Volume 6
Section 3 Part 5, Highways Agency, London
11.1.2 Traffic calming has mainly been used in residential areas and on roads with speed
limits of 50 km/h or less. This has reflected the predominance of these lower speed roads in
the urban environment and the much higher proportions of accidents involving non-
motorised road users.
11.1.3 However, with increasing recognition of the importance of dealing with problems
on roads outside built up areas, suitable traffic calming measures are now available for
higher speed roads. This means that physical vertical measures (that is road humps) are
less likely to be used on arterial roads. However, the use of only horizontal and other more
passive measures is likely to result in less significant reductions in speed unless they can be
accompanied by strict enforcement of speed limits. As far as practicable, schemes should
be designed to be self-enforcing. This will help achieve the required speed reductions and
will have the added advantage of reducing the demand on police resources.
11.1.4 Whilst, traditionally, traffic calming has been seen as appropriate to residential
roads, it is now recognised as being equally suited to routes of considerable length that may
have only very limited frontage development or do not pass through any settlements.
11.1.5 While safety may be the primary factor in justifying a traffic calming scheme, the
local environment, community severance and accessibility issues are all acceptable reasons
for introducing traffic calming on arterial roads.
11.1.6 It has been found that the most effective traffic calming measures are generally
those that are very conspicuous. Unfortunately, such measures may not blend with the
surrounding landscape and conflicts of aesthetics can arise. Obviously a balance must be
struck, but designers must be aware that compromises in the design of traffic calming
measures may result in a less than effective solution. In particular, less speed reduction
might be obtained and this must be taken into account fully when informing the public as to
the likely effect of a particular scheme.
11.1.7 High proportions of heavy vehicles will have a significant effect on the measures to
be employed when designing traffic calming schemes for non-residential and arterial roads.
Proposals must take into account vehicle noise, vibration and turning areas required for
larger vehicles.
st
2018 44 1 Edition
11.2 Traffic Calming Objectives
11.2.1 Traffic calming has a clear role in supporting the Government’s objectives for
sustainable transport as well as achieving specific additional objectives of the MOWMAUP.
11.2.2 Although some traffic management and control techniques may not immediately
be thought of as traffic calming, they can assist in achieving the objectives as part of a
package of measures that together promote calming. More specifically, traffic calming
schemes may be used to:
(i) Encourage appropriate vehicle speeds.
(ii) Enhance safety along a particular route.
(iii) Reduce community severance.
(iv) Facilitate access for public transport and pedestrians.
(v) Make cycling safer.
(vi) Enhance the local environment.
(vii) Improve driver awareness and promote appropriate behaviour.
11.2.3 As well as being proactive in the development of traffic calming schemes to meet
the objectives above, RPDD of MOWMAUP can join with Private Developers, through an
agreement with all relevant parties, where they may be developing sustainable travel plans
for an area and may wish for traffic calming measures to be implemented on an arterial road
link forming part of the network.
11.3 Guidelines for Designers
11.3.1 There is a range of traffic calming techniques that fall into two broad categories:
(i) Physical measures such as horizontal and vertical deflections which encourage
drivers to reduce speed by a sharp change in the vertical and/or horizontal
alignment which causes discomfort when travelling at higher speeds.
(ii) Non-physical measures that encourage adjustments in driver behaviour such as
textured surfacing, variable signs, speed limits and gateways.
11.3.2 Most traffic calming schemes will consist of a combination of physical and non-
physical measures. In any particular scheme, the techniques to be used for achieving the
objectives should be based on the most appropriate and effective measures.
11.3.3 Speed Tables, Road Humps, other traffic calming measures and signs must all
comply with the relevant legislation. If non-compliant designs are being considered they
should be discussed with the RPDD. Reference should be made to Part 13 of this Manual
for guidance on the use of signs and markings.
11.3.4 The use of traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds and “smooth” traffic
flow can produce substantial reductions in personal injury accidents.
11.3.5 For those schemes in residential and other built up areas, the measures to be
adopted should aim to remind drivers that they are sharing the road with other users and
therefore they should drive with due consideration. In these cases traffic calming schemes
can have:
(i) Measures to highlight to drivers that there is a change in character of the road.
(ii) Measures at the entrance of a settlement where drivers are expected to adopt a
different style of driving and lower speeds.
(iii) Measures within a settlement, where drivers are expected to continue to drive with
consideration for the local people.
(iv) Measures to increase driver awareness of the presence of non-motorised road
users.
(v) Measures to assist non-motorised road users.
st
1 Edition 45 2018
11.3.6 The techniques to be adopted should be appropriate for the objectives, of the
particular scheme. To reduce and control speeds on the approaches to and through an area
it will generally be necessary to employ a combination of all the measures referred to above.
Individual measures may not have much effect on speed control if they are applied on their
own.
11.4 Calming on Routes
11.4.1 Increasingly, traffic calming is being used as a “route” treatment with measures
being implemented along several kilometres. The route may include a number of
settlements or it may have no settlements at all and only very limited frontage development.
In the same way that local traffic calming schemes can address a range of problems, so
route based schemes can address a range of problems including safety, environment,
severance and accessibility. Particular objectives of route based schemes could be to:
(i) Reduce accidents.
(ii) Smooth traffic flows between settlements.
(iii) Rationalise crossing facilities/locations for pedestrians and cyclists.
(iv) Improve the quality of life of residents living alongside the road.
(v) Enhance drivers’ awareness of other road users.
(vi) Enhance drivers’ awareness of road hazards.
(vii) Ensure consistency of treatment along a route.
11.4.2 Route based schemes can utilise the measures typically used in local traffic
calming schemes. More specifically, measures used might include:
(i) Reductions in speed limit from 100 km/h to 80 km/h on single carriageway rural
roads.
(ii) Extensions of 50 km/h speed limit at the limits of settlements.
(iii) Gateways at entrances to all settlements.
(iv) Enhanced signing and lining.
(v) Coloured surfacing.
(vi) Provision of crossing facilities.
(vii) Widening or provision of footways and cycleways.
st
2018 46 1 Edition
11.5 Self – Calming Routes
11.5.1 The concept of “self-calming” involves achieving conventional traffic calming

objectives by using the existing environment. A self-calming scheme may utilise speed
controlling features such as bends, hump back bridges or parking, provided these features
do not, in themselves, constitute a hazard.
11.5.2 A driver’s speed may be influenced by a number of factors. For example:
(i) Wide roads can make drivers feel more comfortable at speed and vice versa.
(ii) Tall enclosing features such as buildings, walls, hedges or trees will give drivers
the impression of a narrower road width and make them feel less comfortable at
speed.
(iii) Busy roadside activity, parking, street furniture and landscaping may make drivers
more cautious.
(iv) Level roads and open bends may encourage higher speeds and vice versa.
(v) Natural features, such as bends, which may constrain forward visibility, can
encourage lower speeds; however such features may need to be signed to ensure
that safety is not compromised.
11.5.3 All these factors should be considered when developing a traffic calming scheme.
11.6 Scheme Assessment
11.6.1 An appropriate level of engineering, safety, traffic and environmental assessment

should be carried out for all traffic calming schemes to identify constraints and opportunities
and inform decisions.
11.6.2 It is important to identify the problems to be addressed and to define clearly the
objectives for the scheme. This will allow for better assessment of options as well as
helping to define the requirements for “before” data. Scheme objectives may include
casualty reduction, speed reduction, environmental improvement, and promotion of
sustainable modes, accessibility or other community benefits. Different options should be
developed and even at this early stage, value engineering should be introduced.
11.6.3 Assessment and design, together with consultation, must be an iterative process
and the appropriateness and significance of issues should be considered. However, care
should be taken to ensure that the project does not lose its focus on the predefined
objectives. Community input is extremely important in any traffic calming scheme but it is
not the sole input. However popular a particular scheme might be and regardless of the
level of public support it might enjoy, if it will not achieve the stated objectives to an
acceptable level, it should not be progressed.
11.6.4 Particular emphasis should be attached to the transport objectives listed in
section 11.8 below and to measures that benefit local communities, whether by improving
safety and accessibility, assisting public transport, pedestrian and cycling provision or
enhancing the environment. It should be noted that the success of traffic calming schemes
is often linked to the associated environmental enhancement of the area.
11.6.5 In addition to an appropriate level of environmental assessment, the requirements
of the MOWMAUP’s project appraisal procedures should be met.
11.6.6 Designers should note that experience to date has shown that residents are
unlikely to be satisfied with schemes that do not achieve their expectations. Their hopes
should not, therefore, be raised unrealistically.
11.6.7 For complex or innovative schemes consideration should be given to trialling a
temporary, low cost, version of the proposals to identify what “works” and/or carrying out
post implementation consultation on the scheme’s effects.
st
1 Edition 47 2018
11.7 Pedestrians and Cyclists
11.7.1 In considering the needs of non-motorised users it is important to allow for their
need to cross the road as well as to move along it. The effects of traffic calming on cyclists
should be considered and, where appropriate, the design should be modified to
accommodate them, see Chapter 9 (Highway Features) of Part 6.
11.7.2 Pedestrian desire lines should be established and traffic calming schemes
examined from a walking perspective. Potential obstacles to walking should be identified,
particularly for the young and elderly. Consideration of the needs of the disabled should
also be included in the design process.
11.7.3 The provision of controlled and zebra crossings and pedestrian refuges assist
pedestrians, help to promote walking and can act as traffic calming tools in their own right.
Care should be taken if an island is used which requires relatively sharp vehicle deflections
as drivers may focus their attention on this manoeuvre rather than on the crossing
pedestrians. In such circumstances, pedestrians may need to be discouraged from using the
island or alternative traffic calming measures considered.
11.8 Bus Services
11.8.1. The provision of bus services is an important part of the Government’s transport
strategy. It is therefore important to recognise that there may be a conflict between the
application of traffic calming and the desirability of enhancing and improving bus journeys as
part of a drive towards sustainable transport. A balanced approach should be adopted
which minimizes the impact on bus services whilst achieving the overall objectives of the
scheme. In striking this balance due consideration will need to be given to the frequency of
the services affected. The siting of bus stops is an important factor as they often result in
pedestrians crossing in the immediate vicinity. Bus pull-ins and loading platforms may be
considered to assist buses and bus passengers. Bus stops and chicanes should not be
sited near to each other as this may cause safety problems for overtaking vehicles.
Although they are unlikely to be used in arterial road traffic calming schemes, road humps
can create difficulties for buses. Alternatives to full-width road humps, such as cushions,
may need to be considered in order to limit delay to buses and minimise discomfort to bus
passengers. However, where a hump is to be placed at a signal controlled or zebra
crossing it should be a kerb to kerb flat top hump, see Chapter 9 (Highway Features) of Part
6 of this Manual.
11.9 Emergency Services
11.9.1 It is important to identify key routes through traffic calmed areas where special
provision for emergency services should be provided. Emergency services often have
concerns about the effect of traffic calming schemes on response times. This is particularly
important where substantial route treatments have been implemented as this may affect a
large part of the emergency vehicle’s journey. The emergency services must be consulted
on traffic calming schemes, see Chapter 9 of Part 6.
11.10 Parking and Servicing
11.10.1 Parking and servicing requirements should be integrated in the overall design.
Within settlements, opportunities may be available to rationalise parking for residents,
shoppers, visitors and service vehicles, see Chapter 9 of Part 6.
11.11 Location and Spacing of Measures
11.11.1 Although generally referred to as “speed reducing” features, in practice, many

traffic calming measures work on the basis of low speeds being kept low that is they are
“speed controlling” features. This means that some measures can only be introduced at
locations where speed is expected to be relatively low. Speed reducing features are
measures used in advance of a scheme to reduce speeds to the desired level.
st
2018 48 1 Edition
11.11.2 Reduced speed will not be maintained unless measures are used at regular
intervals along a route. The spacing of measures is an important influence on speed
reduction. Generally, the closer together the measures, the greater the impact they will
have. The intention should be that measures are spaced to achieve a constant speed at an
appropriate level. Physical speed controlling measures at not more than 100 m spacing will
be needed to control 85 percentile speeds to 50 km/h whilst spacing of less than 70m will be
needed if vehicle speeds are to be constrained to 30 km/h.
11.11.3 Spacing of measures will also have an impact on the amount of acceleration and
deceleration and hence on environmental impacts including noise, vibration and vehicle
emissions. The closer the measures, the more likely drivers are to travel at a constant
speed, thus minimising the adverse effects of accelerating and decelerating.
11.12 Environmental Considerations
11.12.1 The degree to which environmental considerations should be applied will vary
depending on the scale and complexity of the project, see Part 12 of this Manual. The
potential for partnership with others, the character of the area and any distinctive features,
the quality and range of paving materials and street furniture, improvements to existing
lighting, noise and air quality implications, planting including offsite planting, and
maintenance implications should all be considered.
11.12.2 Care needs to be taken in designing schemes and selecting measures, to ensure
that adverse environmental effects are minimised. Noise and ground borne vibration can be
generated by some measures, particularly where vertical deflection is involved. These
problems are exacerbated where there is a high proportion of heavy goods vehicles. In
some instances, use of rumble strips has led to a high number of noise and vibration
complaints. This may be due to a change in character of the noise rather than the volume.
An holistic approach is required taking all potential impacts into consideration.
11.13 Signs, Markings and Lighting
11.13.1 Traffic signs, road markings and street lighting (see Parts 13 and 11 of this
Manual, respectively) are used to provide information to ensure that appropriate warning of
traffic calming features is given to approaching drivers at all times. Many measures will
need to be accompanied by signing to indicate to motorists how they should be used. It is
recognised that road clutter and the visual impact of signs can be a problem so the
rationalization of signs and the use of sympathetic lighting systems are recommended.
Traffic calming measures need to be visible during both day and night and during wet and
dry conditions. It may not be possible to identify colours at night under certain types of
artificial lighting. If coloured surfacing is used, it is important that the lighting used to
illuminate it has good colour rendering.
11.14 Monitoring
11.14.1 Monitoring of traffic calming schemes is essential to ensure that the objectives for
a scheme have been achieved and that the problems originally identified have been
addressed satisfactorily. It is important that the effectiveness of a scheme is assessed in a
realistic way commensurate with its scale and nature. As a minimum, for any scheme, data
on flows, accidents and speed should be monitored. For schemes requiring road safety
audits, then post opening safety monitoring is required in accordance with the standard.
11.14.2 For complex or innovative schemes, in order to monitor the performance fully,
surveys of vehicle and pedestrian flows, accidents, speed, noise, air pollution and public
perception should be carried out ‘after’ as well as ‘before’ implementation. Careful
consideration needs to be given to the need to collect ‘before’ data as, in most instances,
this cannot be collected retrospectively. If there is doubt as to the need for a particular
element of ‘before’ data then it may be wise to collect the information even if the expense of
analysing it is deferred until it is certain that it is needed.
st
1 Edition 49 2018
11.14.3 It is important that the results should be recorded for future reference as required
by RPDD. For any scheme, consideration should be given to publicising the results so that
local residents and road users are made aware of the scheme’s performance.
11.15 Range of Traffic Calming Measures
11.15.1 The range of designs of traffic calming measures is extensive. Most traffic calming
measures are made up of a selection of available measures. Table 11.1 below provides
descriptions of the range of traffic calming measures under the basic headings of general
measures, horizontal deflection and vertical deflection. However, the scope for using
measures involving vertical deflection is likely to be limited to residential roads and other
roads with a speed limit of 50 km/h or less.
st
2018 50 1 Edition
Table 11.1 Description of Traffic Calming Measures
Measure Description
GENERAL MEASURES
Gateways A combination of physical features used to indicate the entry into a

particular area where a driver’s behaviour should change, for example
the entry to a village or residential area.
Side Road Changes in colour and/or texture, vertical deflection or narrowing placed
Entry at the entry to side roads. May also include a continuation of the
Treatments “footway” over a side road, requiring vehicles to slow down to drive over
it. This feature makes it easier for pedestrians, particularly for those with
mobility handicaps, to cross the side road. Technically the continuation
of the “footway” is a flat top hump and must comply with the road hump
requirements.
Coloured Can be used to highlight particular features or areas of the carriageway

Surfaces or to indicate reallocated road space such as bus and cycle lanes.
Street Furniture Can be used for visual impact and for reallocating road space.
and Planting
Parking Defining parking areas can reduce carriageway width, ensure sightlines
are maintained and reallocate road space.
Road Markings Usually hatching or non-physical narrowing but can also include ceramic
discs and other features such as speed limit roundels on the road
surface.
Signs Signs are integral elements of most gateways. They are also used to
indicate speed limits and other regulations as well as to advise drivers of
the presence of certain features.
Speed Limits Reduced speed limits can be introduced on particularly sensitive parts of
the network such as settlements.
Cycling Not strictly traffic calming features but may be introduced to improve the
Facilities safety of cyclists. Includes cycle lanes, cycle tracks and crossing
facilities.
Pedestrian May be introduced to improve the safety of pedestrians. Includes

Facilities improved footways, formal crossing facilities, refuges and kerb build-
outs.
Lane The provision of specific lanes for particular types of vehicle or road
Reallocation user, e.g. buses, cyclists. Most likely to be used in the larger rural
settlements.
st
1 Edition 51 2018
HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION
Build-outs Narrowing of the carriageway on one side of the road.
Narrowing Consist of short or long lengths of build-outs on both sides of the road
opposite each other.
Chicanes Consist of build-outs on both sides of the road but spaced so that they
are not opposite one another.
Pinch Points Similar to narrowing but at a specific point and often with very severe
width restriction.
Sheltered The use of build-outs to protect parking areas.

Parking
Mini When well designed, can be used to reduce traffic speed and reduce
Roundabouts accidents.
Islands/ May be used to help reduce vehicle speeds, control lane discipline,
Refuges prevent overtaking and assist pedestrian movements. Can also be used
to separate cyclists from other traffic.
Footway Can be used to constrain road width, assist pedestrian movements and
Widening constrain parking.
Over-run A narrowing of the carriageway using texture and colour but still allowing
Access large vehicles to encroach on it.
Priority Alternating priorities to traffic on the same road through the use of “give
Working way” or signal control. Often associated with narrowing, chicanes or
pinch points.
st
2018 52 1 Edition
VERTICAL DEFLECTION
Road Humps May be round topped, flat topped; sinusoidal; flush with kerb or drop
sided; “H” or “S” shaped. Although rarely used on arterial roads, humps
can be very effective in controlling speeds. Their use should not be
permitted on roads with speed limits greater than 50 km/h. The
maximum height permitted is 100 mm although 75 mm maximum is
recommended.
Raised An extended flat topped hump covering the whole of a junction.

Junctions
Speed A form of hump that does not cover the full width of a traffic lane and can
Cushions be spanned by the axle width of larger vehicles such as buses, fire
engines and ambulances.
Thumps A type of mini hump, formed of thermoplastic and between 900 mm and
1500 mm wide measured in the direction of travel and 30-40 mm high.
Rumble Alerting devices limited to a maximum height of 15 mm, designed to

Devices generate noise or vibration as a vehicle passes over them; may generate
complaints if used near residential properties.
Textured Less severe than rumble devices but used to denote a change in use or
Surfaces character of the carriageway; often used as part of gateways.
st
1 Edition 53 2018
References
AUSTROADS Guide to Road Safety Part 9: Road Hazard Management
EU Directive 2008/96/EC: Road Infrastructure Safety Management.
LTN 1/07 Traffic Calming, Local Transport Note 1/07 Department for Transport, Traffic
Management Division, Zone 3/23, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P
4DR
Manual for Streets (2007) published by Thomas Telford Publishing, 1 Heron Quay, London
E14 4JD on behalf of the UK Department for Transport under licence from the Controller of
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
PIARC 2011RO1: Road Safety Audit Guideline for Safety Checks of New Roads
TAL 9/94 Horizontal Deflections, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 9/94, Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4, Department
for Transport, Traffic Management Division, Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street,
London, SW1P 4DR.
TAL 12/97 Chicane Schemes, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 12/97, Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4, Department
for Transport Traffic Management Division, Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street,
London, SW1P 4DR.
Traffic Calming Techniques (2005) Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation,

119 Britannia Walk London N1 7JE
UAE (Abu Dhabi) Road Safety Audit Procedures.
UK DMRB Volume 5 Section 2 Part 2 HD 19/03: Road Safety Audits.
UK DMRB Volume 6 Section 3 Part 5 TA 87/04: Traffic Calming on Trunk Roads A Practical
Guide
st
2018 54 1 Edition
Appendix A Illustrative Road Safety Audit (RSA)

Report Stage 1 and 2
Project Name Date

Stage X Road Safety Audit
INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report results from a Stage X Road Safety Audit carried out on the
scheme: (Insert the Name of the Scheme), at the request of (Insert name
of Client Organisation).
1.2 The Audit Team consisted of the following members:
1. Audit Team Leader Name

Qualifications
Organisation
2. Audit Team Member(s) Name(s)

Qualifications
Organisation
1.3 The road safety audit was undertaken in accordance with the Audit Brief
issued by (Insert the name of the client organisation). The audit
comprised of an examination of the documents provided by the design team,
which are listed in Appendix A. A site visit was carried out on (Insert Date of
Site Visit, any notable events that occurred and general conditions
including weather and road surface). The audit team was accompanied by
(List attendees and the organisation they represent).
1.4 Optional: A meeting was held with (List attendees) at the designer’s office
on (Insert Date).
1.5 The audit took place at the offices of (Insert audit team’s Organisation)
on/during (Insert Date).
1.6 The terms of reference of the audit are as described in Part 5 (Road Safety)
of the BRDM 2013.
1.7 The scheme has been examined, and this report compiled, only with regard
to the safety implications to road users of the scheme as presented. It has
not been examined or verified for compliance with any other standards or
criteria. However, to clearly explain a safety problem or the recommendation
to resolve a problem the Audit Team may, on occasion, have referred to a
design standard without touching on technical audit.
1.8 Safety Issues identified during the audit and site visit that are considered to
be outside the Terms of Reference, but which the Audit team wishes to draw
to the attention of the client organisation, are set out in the accompanying
letter.
1.9 Unless general to the scheme each problem has been identified with
reference to key features and listed on the attached drawings at Appendix B.
Purpose of the scheme
Insert a brief summary of the scheme/project description and its

objectives
Name of Organisation Page No.
st
1 Edition 55 2018
Project Name Date

MATTERS ARISING FROM THE PREVIOUS AUDIT (Optional)
*The Audit Team is not aware of any outstanding issues from a previous audit.
**The following items are outstanding issues that have not been addressed.
(Note: Ensure that the previous audit details are recorded in this section i.e. Stage X
Road Safety Audit by xyz, dated aa/bb/cccc)
* ** Delete as Appropriate
MATTERS ARISING FROM THIS STAGE 2 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
A. GENERAL ISSUES
A1. PROBLEM
Drawing No:
Summary: In this section the auditors should provide a detailed description of

the issue/hazard, its location, the type of collision and what factor may lead to it
happening.
RECOMMENDATION
In this section the auditors should propose realistic measures to reduce or

eliminate the risk of the collisions which the description above has identified
B. ALIGNMENT
B1. PROBLEM
Drawing No:
Summary:
RECOMMENDATION
C. JUNCTIONS
C1. PROBLEM
Drawing no:
Summary:
RECOMMENDATION
st
2018 56 1 Edition
Project Name Date

D. TRAFFIC SIGNALS
D1. PROBLEM
Drawing no:
Summary:
RECOMMENDATION
E. PEDESTRIANS
E1. PROBLEM
Drawing no:
Summary:
RECOMMENDATION
F. PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
F1. PROBLEM
Drawing no:
Summary:
RECOMMENDATION
G. REFUGES
G1. PROBLEM
Drawing no:
Summary:
RECOMMENDATION
st
1 Edition 57 2018
Project Name Date

H. CYCLE FACILITIES
H1. PROBLEM
Drawing no:
Summary:
RECOMMENDATION
I. MOTORCYCLES
I1. PROBLEM
Drawing no:
Summary:
RECOMMENDATION
J. BUS FACILITIES
J1. PROBLEM
Drawing no:
Summary:
RECOMMENDATION
K. LOADING/PARKING
K1. PROBLEM
Drawing no:
Summary:
RECOMMENDATION
st
2018 58 1 Edition
Project Name Date

L. TRAFFIC SIGNS AND MARKINGS
L1. PROBLEM
Drawing no:
Summary:
RECOMMENDATION
st
1 Edition 59 2018
Project Name Date

AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT
We certify that this audit has been carried out in accordance with Part 5 (Road Safety) of
the BRDM 2013. The auditors have examined the drawings and documents listed in
Appendix A to this road safety audit report. The road safety audit has been carried out
with sole purpose of identifying any features that could be modified or removed in order
to improve safety for road users. No one on the audit team has been involved with the
design of the scheme.
AUDIT TEAM LEADER

(Name of Audit Team Leader and address of his/her office)
(Date)
(Signed)
AUDIT TEAM MEMBER

(Name of Audit Team Member(s) and their office addresses)
(Date)
(Signed)
APPENDIX A
List of Drawings
List ALL drawings provided by the design team.
Documents
List ALL documents provided by the design team.
Departures from standard

List ALL approved Departures and Relaxations provided by the design team
APPENDIX B
Problem locations
Insert Location plan showing positions of ‘problems’ using issue referencing (i.e. A1)
APPENDIX C
Photographs and/or any other supporting information
st
2018 60 1 Edition
Appendix B Illustrative Road Safety Audit (RSA)

Report Stage 4
Project Name Date

INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report results from a Stage X Road Safety Audit carried out on the
scheme: (Insert the Name of the Scheme), at the request of (Insert name
of Client Organisation).
1.2 The Audit Team consisted of the following members:
1. Audit Team Leader Name

Qualifications
Organisation
2. Audit Team Member(s) Name(s)

Qualifications
Organisation
1.3 A site visit was conducted on (Insert date), during which the weather was
(Insert weather) and the road surface was (Insert road condition).
1.4 The purpose of this study is as follows:
(i) to undertake an in-depth study of the accidents that have occurred
on the scheme during the three years since opening;
(ii) to identify any road accident problems;
(iii) to suggest possible measures that would contribute to accident
reduction on the scheme;
(iv) to review the recommendations from the Road Safety Audit Reports
at Stages 1 to 3 and the Exception Reports to identify if they had any
effect on the scheme.
2 Purpose of the scheme
Insert a brief summary of the scheme/project description and its

objectives
3 Analysis of Accidents
Insert accident statistics including frequency, weather, road surface,

light condition and manoeuvres if available.
4 Traffic Conditions
Insert traffic conditions including traffic flow and speeds,
st
1 Edition 61 2018
Project Name Date

5. Statement of safety problems
5.1 Problem Identified
Insert problem
5.2 Review of Previous Road Safety Audit Reports and Exception Reports
Insert review, recommendation and whether implemented. If

recommendation not implemented state reasoning and mitigation
measures provided.
6 Options for treatment
6.1 Accident type
Insert accident type
6.2 Economic Assessment
Insert cost of mitigation.
7 Conclusions
Insert Conclusions
st
2018 62 1 Edition
Appendix C Model RSA Issues Guidance Checklists
A1 – GENERAL ISSUES
Location audited ................................................................

Audit stage ................................................................
Item No Description Comments

1 Are signs/markings adequate and
unambiguous?
2 Are footway widths adequate?
3 Is vegetation likely to obstruct sight lines,

forward visibility or pedestrian movement?
4 Is there adequate provision for vulnerable
groups (specifically the very young, the
elderly and people with a disability and
generally, pedestrians, cyclists and riders of
powered two wheelers)?
5 Is the provision of high friction surfacing at
conflict points and bends adequate?
6 Is there obstruction of forward visibility or
sight lines by bridges, other structures, street
furniture, signs, lamps columns, etc.?
7 Is the provision of guardrails appropriate?
8 Is high visibility guardrail necessary?
9 Is the scheme to be lit and, if so, is it

adequate?
10 Are lighting columns located in a safe
place(s)?
11 Is there a need for road restraint systems to
protect road users from hazards?
12 Are there any special measures that need to
be addressed with regard to the use of
adjacent developments/land to ensure the
safe operation of the road?
13 Are the proposed speed limits appropriate for
the type of road?
14 Are there any climate issues that may affect
the safe use of the road?
st
1 Edition 63 2018
B1 – ALIGNMENT ISSUES

Audit stage ................................................................
1 Where a new road scheme joins an existing

road, will the transition give rise to potential
hazards?
2 Is the forward visibility adequate?
3 Are there any obstructions to sight lines?
4 Are widths and swept paths adequate for all

road users?
5 Does the interface occur near a hazard?
6 Will the road drain adequately?
7 Has screening been provided to avoid

headlight glare between opposing
carriageways?
8 Is the geometric alignment consistent with

the proposed speed limit?
9 Does the horizontal and vertical alignment

create road safety issues (i.e. crest curves,
radii, super-elevation and long straights
followed by sharp curves)?
st
2018 64 1 Edition
C1 – JUNCTION ISSUES

Audit stage ................................................................
Are carriageway and lane widths

1
adequate?
2 Are entry/exit alignments satisfactory?
Is the form of junction appropriate to

3
the situation?
Is there adequate deflection at

4
roundabouts?
Is there unacceptable conflict between

5
turning vehicles?
6 Are traffic islands properly located?
7 Is forward visibility acceptable?
Could forward visibility be obstructed

8
by parked vehicles, bus stops, etc.?
9 Are side road sight lines adequate?
Are side road "stop" signs/markings

10
necessary rather than "give way"?
11 Is lighting adequate?
12 Are advanced warning signs required?
Are road signs (vertical and horizontal)

13
adequate and unambiguous?
14 Are dropped kerbs required?
15 Is tactile paving required?
16 Have drainage issue been addressed?
17 Are pedestrian guardrails required?
Are vulnerable road users catered for?

18
(such as Pedestrians and cyclists)
st
1 Edition 65 2018
D1 – TRAFFIC SIGNAL ISSUES

Audit stage ................................................................
1 Is the forward visibility of the signals

acceptable?
2 Are backing boards for signals required?
3 Are additional signal heads required?
4 Are mast arm signals required?
5 Are advanced warning signs required?
6 Are signal heads masked by street furniture,
trees or other obstructions?
7 Are private accesses affected by the signals?
8 Is there intervisibility of signals between
crossing streams?
9 Are there any "see through" problems?
10 Are additional refuges with signal heads
needed?
11 Are phasing, staging and timings (including
intergreen and clearance periods) optimised
for safety?
12 Is speed assessment equipment needed?
13 Will closely associated signals cause problem
for pedestrians?
14 Are left turning vehicles safely provided for?
15 Can pedestrians cross safely?
16 Are pedestrian guardrails needed?
17 Will street furniture, trees or other obstructions
mask pedestrians?
18 Are dropped kerbs well located?
19 Is tactile paving or other special facility for the
disabled required?
20 Are central reservations/refuges of sufficient
width?
21 Are "look left/look right" markings required?
22 Is carriageway marking adequate and
unambiguous?
23 Are advanced stop lines for cyclists required?
24 Are the signals easily visible at night?
25 Are turning circles for large vehicles adequate?
26 Is anti-skid surfacing required?
27 Do signal poles have adequate clearance from
the carriageway?
28 Do signal poles unduly obstruct the footway?
st
2018 66 1 Edition
E1 – PEDESTRIAN ISSUES

Audit stage ................................................................
Item Description Comments

No.
1 Are footway widths adequate?
2 Is the pedestrian footway obstructed by street

furniture, signal posts, trees etc.?
3 Are there dropped kerbs or continuous

footways at side roads?
4 Is the minimum safe width for shared

footway/cycle achieved?
5 Is there undue pedestrian/cycle conflict on

shared facilities?
6 Does any loading/parking/bus bay adversely

affect pedestrian safety?
7 Do channels or gullies, etc. adversely affect

pedestrian routes?
8 Do access points/crossovers create problems

for pedestrians?
9 Does permitted footway parking create

problems?
10 Does observed illegal parking create

problems?
11 Is street lighting adequate for pedestrians?
12 Is the route for pedestrians appropriate?
13 Is pedestrian provision continuous?
14 Are there appropriate crossing points?
15 Is there any need for guardrails?
st
1 Edition 67 2018
F1 – PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ISSUES

(Including Signals/Pelicans/Puffins/Toucans and Zebras)

Audit stage ................................................................

1 Are the types of crossings and layouts
appropriate for road width and speed limit?
2 Are the crossings on the pedestrian desire
lines?
3 Are pedestrian guardrails required/adequate?
4 Is forward visibility of crossings acceptable?
5 Will pedestrians be masked by street furniture,
guardrails, trees or on-carriageway
obstructions?
6 Are signals/beacons visible to traffic?
7 Are signals/beacons visible to traffic turning out
of side roads?
8 Are additional signal heads required?
9 Are mast arm signals required?
10 Are pedestrian aspects well sited?
11 Are there "see through" problems with
pedestrian aspects?
12 Are advanced warning signs needed?
13 Are pedestrian push buttons appropriately sited?
14 Is the length of the green man phase
appropriate?
15 Are zig-zag markings adequate?
16 Can pedestrians be seen at night?
17 Is additional lighting required?
18 Are dropped kerbs provided and well located?
19 Will water pond at dropped kerb crossing
points?
20 Is tactile paving or other special facility for the
disabled provided?
21 Is there sufficient footway width for pedestrian
storage (including prams and wheelchairs)?
22 Is there sufficient footway width for cyclists at
Toucans?
23 Are crossing widths wide enough?
24 Are staggered facilities orientated "right/left"?
25 If staggered, will 'U' turn, left turn, right turn
vehicles conflict with pedestrians?
26 Is anti-skid surfacing needed?
27 Do signal poles/beacons have adequate
clearance from the carriageway?
28 Do signal poles/beacons unduly obstruct the
footway?
st
2018 68 1 Edition
G1 – REFUGE ISSUES

Audit stage ................................................................
1 Are refuges of appropriate width?
2 Can prams and cycles be accommodated

safely on the refuges?
3 Do any refuges obstruct turning traffic?
4 Will any refuges encourage pedestrians to

cross where visibility is obscured?
5 Are there dropped kerbs at all refuges

intended for pedestrian use?
6 Are any refuges poorly located in respect to

loading/parking boxes?
7 Is there sufficient carriageway width at the

refuge?
8 Will pinch-points be created for cyclists?
9 Will refuges be visible at night?
10 Do any refuges adversely affect private

accesses?
11 Should any refuges have "lollipop" beacons?
12 Do any refuges obstruct the forward visibility

of left turning traffic?
13 Are refuges intended to protect left turners

from oncoming traffic or from following
vehicles correctly sited?
14 Are guardrails required?
15 Is hatching/white lining adequate?
16 Is tactile paving required?
st
1 Edition 69 2018
H1 – CYCLE FACILITIES ISSUES

Audit stage ................................................................
Cycle lanes on the carriageway
1 Are signs and markings appropriate?

2 Are the cycle lane widths appropriate?
3 Does the creation of the cycle lane allow
sufficient width for other vehicle lanes?
4 Is the road surface of a suitable quality for
cycling?
5 Are the start/finish points of the cycle lanes
safe and adequately marked?
6 Is the provision of a coloured surfacing
appropriate?
7 Is there adequate provision at side roads?
8 Is there adequate provision for left turns?
9 Is there adequate provision at main road
crossing points?
10 Should the cycle lane be advisory or
dedicated solely for the use of cyclists?
11 Are gully grates of an appropriate
design/alignment?
12 Is the cycle facility accommodated through
a junction?
Cycle tracks off the carriageway
12 Are signs and markings appropriate?

13 Are there adequate track and footpath
widths?
14 Are the cyclists and pedestrians
appropriately segregated by the use of a
longitudinal division and tactile surfaces?
15 Do shared cycle/footway facilities have
adequate flush dropped kerbs to enable
cyclists to join / leave the facility safely?
16 Is headroom adequate for cyclists, 2.4 m to
structures or 2.3 m to signs?
17 Is the vertical alignment of the cycle lane
acceptable, particularly at overbridges?
st
2018 70 1 Edition
I1 – MOTORCYCLE ISSUES

Audit stage ................................................................
1 Is the road surfacing of a consistent and

adequate standard?
2 Is there a need for anti-skid surfacing?
3 Does on street parking obstruct sight lines?
4 Do posts or rails have sharp edges,

protrusions or parts that can entrap
motorcyclists?
5 Are inspection covers located in likely travel

paths
6 Is there adequate visibility and delineation of

central islands at night especially at mini
roundabouts?
7 Are road humps visible at night?
8 Is the roadside environment forgiving? Avoid

rocks and other non-frangible hazards on
islands?
st
1 Edition 71 2018
J1 – BUS FACILITY ISSUES

Audit stage ................................................................
1 Are bus lane widths sufficient?
2 Are contra-flow bus lane clearly signed and

marked?
3 Is the layout at the commencement of a

bus lane safe?
4 Is the layout at the termination of a bus

lane safe?
5 Are there adequate signs and markings?
6 Is the layout of any special bus signals

adequate?
7 Are bus stops likely to cause obstruction?
8 Could the location of a bus stop force

general traffic to cross the centre line at
unsafe locations?
9 Do the locations of any bus stops

significantly affect forward visibility?
10 Do the locations of any bus stops adversely

affect cycle tracks and shared paths?
11 Are there adequate waiting areas for

pedestrians around bus stops?
st
2018 72 1 Edition
K1 – LOADING/PARKING ISSUES

Audit stage ................................................................

1 Is there sufficient carriageway width for safe
movement of traffic?
2 Do any parking/loading boxes obscure

pedestrian crossing points?
3 Do any parking/loading boxes obscure

forward visibility?
4 Do any parking/loading boxes create an

unsafe chicane effect?
5 Do any side road parking/loading boxes

cause obstruction to entering/ egressing
traffic?
6 Do any parking/loading boxes obstruct

inside "through" lane where right turning
takes place?

crossovers or dropped kerbs?

cycle facilities?
9 Are there any parking/loading boxes

unsafely sited with respect to refuges?
10 Do any parking/loading boxes create

problems at bus stops/bus cages?
11 Will evening/night time parking cause

obstruction?
12 Has the parking/loading box sufficient width

to enable the safe opening of a stopped
vehicle door?
st
1 Edition 73 2018
L1 – TRAFFIC SIGN AND ROAD MARKING ISSUES

Audit stage ................................................................

1 Are gantries needed?
2 Will poles be appropriately located and

protected?
3 Are signs readable and easy to understand?
4 Do signs or their poles obstruct any road

users (i.e. cyclists and pedestrians)?
5 Are road markings appropriate?

a) Centre Line,
b) Edge line,
c) Hatching,
d) Studs,
e) Text/destinations.
6 Is there adequate clearance between the

nearest point of the signs and the edge of
the carriageway?
7 Do the signs need to be illuminated during

darkness?
st
2018 74 1 Edition
Appendix D Road Safety Audit (RSA) Review Sheet

Template
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REVIEW FORM

Consultant/Designer Name of Project Lead RSA Stage XX
Item Project Name
Ref. Date: 25/08/2013
Our Ref. Date: 07/07/2013
Audited By Audit Team Leader: Name Review No.XX
Audit Team Member(s): Name(1)
Name(2)
Site Visit List Names of persons attending site Date of site visit:
visit. 02/09/2013
List of Documents Document No1..……………..
Provided Document No 2………………
List of Drawings Drawing No…………………..
Provided
Drawing/ Descriptions Problems & Recommendation Consultant’s/ Designer’s

Response
This space is
Drawing No: PROBLEM 1
available for the
RDS-12-27-306-1
designer to respond
General Layout &
to each specific
Cross section. Recommendation
problem raised in
the report. If the
designer disagrees
with the
PROBLEM 2 recommendation
then they should
provide an
Recommendation explanation to
enable the RPDD to
determine the
PROBLEM 3 solution.
AUDITOR to
Recommendation complete: –
ACCEPTED /
ACCEPTED WITH
COMMENTS /
REJECTED
Initials Designation Signature Date
Prepared by: Audit Team Leader
Responses Design Team Leader
Checked by: Head, Traffic Safety Group
Reviewed by: Chief, Traffic Engineering
Approved by: Director, RPDD
st
1 Edition 75 2018
Appendix E Range of Traffic Calming Measures
E.1 Individual Measures
E.1.1 Table 11.1 in the main body of this Part details the various types of traffic calming
measures that can be used. This Appendix should be read in conjunction with other Parts of
the Manual for specific dimensions and specifications.
Vertical Deflection
E.1.2 Humps may be round top or flat top or may be used across a whole junction as a
raised table. Although humps are permitted up to 100 mm high, 75 mm is generally
recommended and for arterial roads, with high proportions of goods vehicles, 50 mm may be
more appropriate.
E.1.3 Speed reductions can be substantial with 75 mm high humps giving mean speed
reductions midway between humps of about 15 km/h depending on hump spacing and
“before” speeds. Humps of 50 mm height will have less speed reducing effect.
E.1.4 If humps are used, care needs to be taken with their siting as they can generate
noise and vibration from large vehicles.
E.1.5 Part 18 of this Manual includes standard details for
(i) Speed hump (asphalt) (4.09)
(ii) Speed hump (block paved) (4.10)
(iii) Speed table (4.11) and
(iv) Speed table at a junction (4.11)
Figure E.1 Typical Examples of Vertical Deflection
st
2018 76 1 Edition
Horizontal Deflection
E.1.6 Horizontal deflection is a ‘general’ term which describes any measure which alters
the horizontal alignment of the carriageway over a short distance. Examples include Lateral
Shift, Build-outs, Chicanes, Mini-roundabouts, Narrowing, and Pinch Points. See Table 11.1
and Figure E.14.
E.1.7 Horizontal deflections have mainly been installed to influence vehicle speeds,
though not always successfully. In the case of build outs and pinch points the narrowed
carriageway, even if reduced to a single lane, still allows most vehicles to be driven relatively
quickly through the available gap, unless there is opposing traffic to prevent this.
Unfortunately, in many residential streets traffic is either tidal, or of such low flow that it is
unlikely that vehicles from opposite directions will meet at the narrowing. There is also
some evidence that even where there is opposing traffic, one stream does not willingly give
way to the other.
E.1.8 Chicanes have been more effective in reducing vehicle speeds, as long as they do
not have to accommodate large vehicles such as articulated lorries. Where this occurs the
stagger length may need to be so long that car drivers can adopt a relatively straight line
through the chicane, and therefore speeds are not reduced.
E.1.9 Chicane designs vary considerably but most fall into two broad categories:
(i) Single-lane working, consisting of staggered build-outs, narrowing the road so that
traffic from one direction has to give way to opposing traffic
(ii) Two-way working, using build-outs to provide deflection, but with lanes separated
by road markings or a central island.
E.1.10 A single-lane working chicane allows traffic in both directions, but there is only
room for one vehicle to pass through at a time. Generally priority is given to one direction,
so that the vehicle conflicts are reduced. Priority should be given to vehicles leaving a
traffic-calmed area, so that the speed of vehicles entering is reduced.
E.1.11 Two-way working chicanes take up more carriageway space than other chicanes,
as they allow two vehicles to pass in opposite directions at the same time. Where chicanes
do not have a central divider, vehicles can encroach into the opposing traffic lane, and this
may result in less speed reduction being achieved, and/or safety being compromised.
E.1.12 The main parameters which affect the mean speed of cars through build outs and
chicanes are the stagger length, the free view width, the lane width and the path angle.
Further guidance has been published on the detailed design of horizontal deflection
measures in TAL 9/94; on the detailed design of chicanes in TAL 12/97 and on their
incorporation in traffic calming schemes in LTN 01/07.
st
1 Edition 77 2018
Figure E.2 Horizontal Deflection Parameters
E.1.13 Horizontal deflection can be combined with vertical deflection in a single traffic
calming scheme, usually with the vertical deflection (speed bumps or tables) before the
chicane, to reduce approach speeds.
E.2 Route Treatments
E.2.1 The following measures are typical of those used on the network, including arterial
roads, with some success. Information is provided about each measure with indicative
results on their effectiveness where available. The list of measures is not intended to be
exhaustive and the examples shown are not necessarily recommended for a particular
situation. Each scheme will need to be assessed on its own merits.
E.2.2 Traffic calming may be used on the approaches to settlements (A), within
settlements (W) or on routes outside settlements (O). For each of the measures below, the
locations where they are most likely to be used have been indicated by the following key:
A : Approach to settlements;
W : Within settlements;
O : Outside settlements.
st
2018 78 1 Edition
Figure E.3 Gateways (A)

E.2.3 Gateways should be a common feature of most traffic calming schemes. They are
designed to highlight to drivers that they are entering an area of changed road use such as a
town or settlement. They may involve some form of physical measures, carriageway
markings, signing, often incorporating the name of the town or settlement, and a change of
speed limit.
E.2.4 The visual impact of Gateways can be enhanced by the incorporation of markings
to reduce width at the edge or centre of the carriageway and by the use of “virtual” road
humps.
E.2.5 The use of signs on each verge is preferable to placing a sign on a central island
that may be hazardous on high speed approaches.
E.2.6 An important issue in the design of gateways is achieving a good balance between
“visual impact” and the local environment. Gateways can be designed using sympathetic
local materials whilst still conveying the required message to drivers.
E.2.7 Generally, speed reductions at these more muted gateways are likely to be lower
than at sites with bolder designs. Mean and 85 percentile speeds may be reduced by
between 8 and 12 km/h.
st
1 Edition 79 2018
Figure E.4 Central Hatching (A W O)

E.2.8 The virtual reduction of carriageway width by the use of central hatching is a
common feature of arterial road traffic calming schemes. The hatching can be used to deter
overtaking and can be widened to incorporate protected right turning facilities. Coloured
surfacing is often used in conjunction with hatching to emphasise the presence of the
markings. The impact on the character of the route and specific location should be
considered.
Figure E.5 Central Refuges (A W O)
st
2018 80 1 Edition
E.2.9 The overtaking deterrent can be enhanced by the introduction of refuges either as
a single feature or as a series along the road. The visibility of refuges should be
emphasised by the installation of hazard markers fixed to the keep right posts.
E.2.10 As refuges will be used by pedestrians as a crossing aid, care needs to be taken
to locate them only at points were it is acceptable for pedestrians to cross. If this is not
practicable, they should be designed to deter pedestrian use. Refuges creating sharp
horizontal deflections should be avoided if possible as this may distract drivers’ attention
from crossing pedestrians.
Figure E.6 Coloured Patching (A W O)

E.2.11 Coloured surface patches or strips of contrasting surfacing (such as Block paving)
are commonly used as part of gateways or to emphasise the presence of particular traffic
calming features. They are generally laid across the full width of the carriageway and are
typically 8 to 12 m long. The choice of colour is important. Red surfacing will have high
initial visual impact but will be prone to fading. It may also be aesthetically unacceptable.
Buff surfacing may be more expensive and have less visual impact than red but will be less
prone to fading, less visually intrusive and may have better whole life value.
Figure E.7 Speed Limit Roundels (A W O)

E.2.12 Coloured patches with speed limit roundels are designed to alert drivers to a
change in speed limit and to encourage drivers to reduce their speed. The patches may be
placed across the full width of the carriageway with speed limit roundels for both directions
of flow.
E.2.13 Roundels have been used more successfully in combination with other measures,
such as coloured road surfacing and gateway signing. The use of roundels in conjunction
with terminal signs showing “40” “50” “70” and “80”, and, on dual carriageway roads with a
90 km/h speed limit order showing a “90”. They may also be used with repeater signs
displaying these speeds except on lit roads subject to a 40 km/h limit.
st
1 Edition 81 2018
Figure E.8 Pedestrian Facilities (W)

E.2.14 It is important within any traffic calming scheme to make appropriate provision for
pedestrians. Like cyclists, pedestrians need to move along the road and across it.
Provision of good quality footways can encourage walking in a relatively safe environment.
Widening footways and reducing the carriageway width available to vehicles can help calm
traffic. Whilst pedestrian crossing facilities are not specifically seen as traffic calming
features they can act as measures that will slow traffic down, particularly where there is
frequent use. Good quality pedestrian crossings sited to service pedestrian desire lines will
encourage walking. Where signal controlled facilities are installed care needs to be taken to
ensure that there is a reasonable pedestrian demand, otherwise there is a risk that drivers
will become used to having a green light and may fail to stop when confronted by a red
signal.
Figure E.9 Vehicle Activated Signs (A W O)

E.2.15 Vehicle activated signs are ones which convey an illuminated message to drivers
in response to a predefined “trigger” – usually a speed threshold. This has the effect of
targeting the message specifically at those drivers who need it. Signs can be located on the
approaches to bends, junctions or a speed limit change. However, they should not be seen
as a substitute for getting the basic signing and marking correct.
E.2.16 Careful consideration needs to be given to the siting of the sign. If the sign is too
close to a junction then drivers will not have sufficient time to respond. If it is too far away
then the effects may diminish and drivers start to speed up again. Siting will be influenced
by the prevailing speed limit and the approach speed of vehicles. An appropriate trigger
speed (85 percentile) will need to be determined.
st
2018 82 1 Edition
Figure E.10 Lane Reallocation (A W O)

E.2.17 Allocating carriageway for the specific use of a particular type of vehicle such as a
bus or cycles can act as a calming measure by reducing the space available for other
motorised users. This technique is most likely to be used in, or on the approaches to, larger
settlements. Cycle lanes should not be put in solely as a traffic calming measure where
there is no demand or suppressed demand. Drivers can become accustomed to empty
lanes and start ignoring them.
Figure E.11 Carriageway Width Reduction (A O)
st
1 Edition 83 2018
E.2.18 Reducing carriageway width to encourage drivers to reduce their speed can be
achieved through using markings as well as physical means. This approach can be used to
terminate dual-two carriageways to moderate speeds. It can also be used on single
carriageway roads by width reduction at the centre or at the verges. Care should be taken if
reducing width at the verges not to create unacceptable risk of head-on collisions.
Figure E.12 Dragons Teeth (A)

E.2.19 “Dragons Teeth” road markings can be used in conjunction with gateways to
increase their visibility, although they are only likely to be seen by drivers when they are
close to them. The teeth are laid in pairs either side of the carriageway or a lane. Although
there is no specific constraint, typically between 9 and 17 pairs of teeth have been used in
arterial road traffic calming schemes. The “teeth” may increase in size as the hazard is
approached or they may be all the same size, generally with a 750 mm base and 600 mm
high. There are no specific results available for the use of dragon’s teeth but as they are
only fully visible close up, their contribution to any speed reduction is likely to be small.
st
2018 84 1 Edition
Figure E.13 Virtual Road Hump (A W)

E.2.20 Virtual road humps are achieved through the use of painted edge markings applied
to give the impression to approaching drivers that the carriageway has been raised to form a
road hump. This technique has tended to be used as part of a gateway treatment. It is
unlikely to produce any significant reduction in vehicle speed and any reduction it does
produce is likely to be short lived as drivers realise that there is no physical effect associated
with the virtual hump. Virtual humps may be appropriate on routes where the objective is to
reduce the speed of tourist or visitor traffic as they are least likely to be aware of its virtual
nature.
E.2.21 Chicanes can be used to either slow down the speed of traffic or, where
conventional means have been unsuccessful, prevent large vehicles from accessing
unsuitable roads. Single chicanes can reduce speeds by up to 30 km/h. However, chicanes
designed to reduce car speeds down to about 30 km/h will be too tight for articulated trucks.
Designs to allow buses, coaches and articulated trucks to pass through at 30 km/h will have
little effect on cars. Designs with a speed cushion on the approach will help alleviate this
problem by slowing cars to 30 km/h as well.
st
1 Edition 85 2018
Figure E.14 Typical Examples of Horizontal Deflection

E.2.22 Double chicanes (two closely located horizontal deflections) can reduce speeds
further by up to 8 km/h compared to reductions at single chicanes.
E.2.23 Rumble devices are designed to alert drivers to approaching hazards or gateways
through noise, vibration and visual effect. Devices may be referred to as rumble bars, jiggle
bars, rumble strips or rumble areas.
Figure E.15 Rumble Devices (A)

E.2.24 The layout and specification of rumble devices are considered in Section 5.10 of
Part 13 (Traffic Signs and Road Markings) of this Manual.
E.2.25 Bars or strips can also be formed out of thermoplastic material as shown in the
Figure above. These should not exceed 15 mm in height and with a vertical face of not more
than 6 mm in height. Adequate audible and vibratory warning can be achieved from 13 mm
high rumble devices.
E.2.26 Bars or strips may be laid as a single group or as several groups. Various spacing
between devices within a group has been tried. Generally, spacing below 400 mm will be
best suited to roads with speed limits of less than 60 km/h as faster drivers will tend to
experience less effect.
st
2018 86 1 Edition
E.2.27 Care should be taken in selecting materials for bars or strips to ensure that
adequate skid resistance is maintained, particularly for motorcyclists.
E.2.28 Rumble areas act in a similar way to bars and strips by providing an audible and
vibratory warning to drivers. They consist of wide bands of coarse material (such as block
paving) laid across the carriageway.
E.2.29 It is preferable to lay rumble devices across both sides of the carriageway to avoid
encouraging drivers to pass around the feature on the other side. A small gap at the edge of
the carriageway will allow cyclists to bypass the rumble device. Whilst they can be laid in
any colour, white is least suitable for rumble devices as they may be confused with other
road markings.
E.2.30 Rumble devices are likely to produce only modest reductions in mean speeds of
up to 5 km/h but may provide benefits by raising drivers’ attention levels. Initial reductions in
speed may not be sustained over time. Because of noise generation, traditional rumble
devices should not be used in close proximity to residential properties.
E.2.31 Rumble-wave surfacing is a recent development in traffic calming. The surface
has an undulating profile designed to create an alerting noise and vibration within vehicles
but only minimal changes in external noise. It is still being researched to determine its
impact in a wider variety of settings.
Figure E.16 Speed Cushions (W)
st
1 Edition 87 2018
E.2.32 Whilst the opportunities on the major road network for using measures involving
vertical deflection are limited, speed cushions can be appropriate for some distributor and
sub-distributor roads. Cushions are a form of hump that are sufficiently wide for cars and
light vehicles to have to drive over them whilst being narrow enough for the wheels of large
vehicles to straddle them. This results in less discomfort for bus passengers and less
reduction in speed by large emergency vehicles. Parking controls may be needed in
conjunction with cushions to ensure that large vehicles are not prevented from straddling the
cushions by parked vehicles. Cushions must not be used on roads with a speed limit
greater than 50 km/h and must only be used on roads that are lit.
E.2.33 The gap between a cushion and the kerb should normally be at least 750 mm.
This will allow cyclists to pass by unaffected but cushions may also have minimal effect on
motorcyclists. Typically, speed reductions of up to 25 km/h can be achieved at the site of
the cushion, depending on its design and the vehicle approach speed. The “between”
cushion speed reductions will be somewhat less although typically 15 km/h overall
reductions may be achieved. Cushions can be effective in bringing mean speeds down to
50 km/h but they are unsuitable for reducing speeds to 30 km/h. However, cushions are not
so effective in reducing the speed of heavy trucks.
Figure E.17 Road Humps and “Thumps” (W)

E.2.34 On major roads where there are relatively large traffic flows and high proportions of
large vehicles, speed tables (Road Humps), speed cushions or thumps are unlikely to be
used. Nevertheless, at locations where they are considered appropriate it is important that
they comply fully with current regulations in Bahrain, including signing and road marking.
For further guidance on traffic signs and road marking see Part 13 of this Manual. It should
be noted that road humps cannot be installed on roads with speed limits greater than 50
km/h without specific authority from RPDD.
E.2.35 Humps may be round top or flat top or may be used across a whole junction as a
raised table. Although humps are permitted up to 100 mm high, 75 mm is generally
recommended and for arterial roads, with high proportions of goods vehicles, 50 mm may be
more appropriate.
E.2.36 Speed reductions can be substantial with 75 mm high humps giving mean speed
reductions midway between humps of about 15 km/h depending on hump spacing and
“before” speeds. Humps of 50 mm height will have less speed reducing effect.
st
2018 88 1 Edition
E.2.37 If humps are used, care needs to be taken with their siting as they can generate
noise and vibration from large vehicles.
E.2.38 Thermoplastic humps (Thumps) may be seen as a cheap alternative to road
humps. Thumps are typically 37 mm high with a width of 900 mm measured in the direction
of travel. Widths up to 1500 mm are feasible but greater widths will result in lower speed
reductions. Thumps are not recommended for use on roads with speed limits greater than
50 km/h. Thumps can reduce mean speeds between features by 10 km/h. Whilst thumps
may be cheaper than conventional 50 mm high road humps, they need to be laid at closer
spacing (approximately 50 m) to achieve similar effects.
E.2.39 Road humps and thumps must only be used on roads that are lit.
E.2.40 Typical details of speed humps and speed tables are provided in Part 18
(Standard Details) of this Manual.
E.2.41 The locations which require speed humps or speed tables depend on the existing
condition of a stretch of road or an area. The general rule, nevertheless, is that speed
humps should be installed where there is a presence of a mosque, school, kindergarten,
hospital, playground, home for the aged, where there are handicapped people, etc.
(i) For a stretch of road with 50 km/h speed, speed humps shall be installed every 50 -
100 meters or even less depending on the presence of junctions.
(ii) For a whole stretch of road with 70-80 km/h speed, speed humps shall be installed
every 100 m to 150 m.
(iii) For a whole stretch of road with 80-100 km/h speed, speed humps shall be provided
every 375 m.
(iv) Speed humps are generally to be provided at the following locations:
a) Before busy, critical, junctions or intersections without signal controls.
b) Before pedestrian crossings or a speed table in replacement of the pedestrian
crossing.
c) Before sharp bends or along curved roads.
st
1 Edition 89 2018

BRDM - 2018 - Vol1 - Part5 - Road Safety

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

BRDM - 2018 - Vol1 - Part5 - Road Safety

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAHRAIN ROADS DESIGN MANUAL

Part 5 Road Safety

Client The Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain, as represented by

[There is no other text on this page]

The Bahrain Roads Design Manual

Part 5 Road Safety

The contents of this part are:

7.4 Simple Junctions .................................................................................................. 35

Table 2.1 Risk Assessment Matrix ......................................................................................... 21

Figure 1.1 Procedure for Accident Investigation Studies ....................................................... 12

(i) Look in the glossary for that Part

(ii) Look in the glossary in Part 1

(iii) Search on the internet (or in a dictionary of technical terms).

Definition of terms (particular to this part)

Design Speed The speed at which a vehicle is expected to progress along a

[There is no other text on this page]

1 Introduction and Scope

Collect road accident

Plot accident data on

Look for patterns in Detailed design

Detailed accident Detailed site analysis

Tabulate results of Prioritise roads for further

Figure 1.1 Procedure for Accident Investigation Studies

2 Road Infrastructure Safety Management

2.2 Road Safety Impact Assessment

2.3 Road Safety Audits

2.4 Appointment of Road Safety Auditors

2.5 Audit Brief

2.5.3 Procedures for carrying out road safety audits.

2.6 Audit Report

Audit Paragraph Risk assessment Risk assessment if

2.7 Safety Ranking and Management of the Operational Road

Figure 2.1 Steps to Remediate Accident-prone Locations

2.7.11 Implementation - Targeted remedial measures shall be prepared and

2.8 Safety Inspections

2.9 Data Management

3 Safety in Geometric Design

3.2 Design Speed

3.3 Stopping Sight Distance (SSD)

3.4 Horizontal Alignment

3.5 Vertical Alignment

3.6 Coordinated Link Design

3.6.1 It is preferable to co-ordinate the horizontal and vertical alignments of a road as

4 Roadside Hazard Management

4.2 Point Hazards

4.3 Continuous Hazards

4.4 Providing a Forgiving Roadside Environment

4.5 Other Types of Hazards and their Treatments

6 Advertising Boards / Structures

7.2 Signalised Junctions

7.3 Priority Junctions (Give Way and Stop)

7.4 Simple Junctions

7.5 Ghost Islands

7.6 Dual Carriageway Junctions

7.8 Staggered Junctions

7.9 Siting of Priority Junctions

7.11 Major Road

7.12.1 A well-designed roundabout is the safest form of intersection control. Numerous

7.13 Mini Roundabouts

7.14 Signalised Roundabouts

7.15 Roundabout Entry Width

7.16 Visibility on the Approach to Roundabouts

9 Traffic Signs and Markings