Vol3 - Part 23 - Design and Operations of Road Safety - Cs - V2a

Volume 3
Part 23
Design and Operations
of Road Safety
DESIGN AND OPERATIONS OF ROAD SAFETY PART
23
Disclaimer
The State of Qatar Ministry of Transport and Communications (MOTC) provides access to the Qatar
Highway Design Manual (QHDM) and Qatar Traffic Control Manual (QTCM) on the web and as hard copies
as Version (2.0) of these manuals, without any minimum liability to MOTC.
Under no circumstances does MOTC warrant or certify the information to be free of errors or deficiencies
of any kind.
The use of these manuals for any work does not relieve the user from exercising due diligence and sound
engineering practice, nor does it entitle the user to claim or receive any kind of compensation for damages
or loss that might be attributed to such use.
Any future changes and amendments will be made available on the MOTC web site. Users of these manuals
should check that they have the most current version.
Note: New findings, technologies, and topics related to transportation planning, design, operation, and
maintenance will be used by MOTC to update these manuals. Users are encouraged to provide feedback
through the MOTC website within a year of publishing these manuals, which will be reviewed, assessed,
and possibly included in the next version.
Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved.
QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL | VOLUME 3

PART DESIGN AND OPERATIONS OF ROAD SAFETY
23
This page intentionally left blank.
VOLUME 3 | QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL

23
Contents Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................................vii
1 Road Safety Principles................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Basic Principles............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1. Safe System............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2. A Shared Responsibility........................................................................................................ 3
1.1.3. Results-Focused Approach.................................................................................................. 3
1.1.4. Data-Driven Analysis............................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Using Data to Inform Road Safety Policy and Safety
Countermeasures Implementation....................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Crash Data...................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Road Safety Engineering Management Tools.................................................................................. 9
2 Speed ............................................................................................................................19
2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 19
2.1.1. Safe System Approach....................................................................................................... 19
2.1.2. Road Characteristics............................................................................................................ 21
2.1.3. Design Characteristics........................................................................................................ 21
2.1.4. Design Speed......................................................................................................................... 21
2.1.5. Actual Speeds (Operating or Travel Speed)............................................................... 22
2.1.6. Self-Explanatory Roads..................................................................................................... 22
2.1.7. Posted Speed Acceptance................................................................................................ 22
2.1.8. Road Hierarchy...................................................................................................................... 23
3 Setting Posted Speeds................................................................................................25

3.1 General......................................................................................................................................................... 25
3.1.1. Roles and Organizational Responsibility.................................................................... 26
3.1.2. Speed Limit Working Group.............................................................................................. 26
3.1.3. Overseeing Organization................................................................................................... 26
3.1.4. The Ministry of Transport and Communications...................................................... 26
3.1.5. Public Works Authority....................................................................................................... 27
3.1.6. Traffic Police........................................................................................................................... 27
3.1.7. Accredited Practitioner...................................................................................................... 27
3.1.8. Posted Speed Assessment for Existing Roads......................................................... 27
3.1.9. New Roads.............................................................................................................................. 28
3.1.10. Function versus Use of the Road................................................................................... 29
3.1.11. Existing Roads....................................................................................................................... 29
3.1.12. Safety Countermeasures................................................................................................... 31
QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL | VOLUME 3 i

23
3.1.13. Posted Speed Review Report.......................................................................................... 31

3.1.14. Signing Posted Speeds...................................................................................................... 32
4 Traffic Calming..............................................................................................................33
4.1 General......................................................................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Relationship between Speed and Injury Severity....................................................................... 33
4.3 Objectives.................................................................................................................................................... 34
4.4 Benefits and Disadvantages of Traffic Calming.......................................................................... 34
4.4.1. Benefits.................................................................................................................................... 34
4.4.2.Disadvantages....................................................................................................................... 35
4.5 Types of Traffic Calming Measures................................................................................................... 35
4.5.1. Vertical Measures................................................................................................................. 35
4.5.2. Horizontal Measures........................................................................................................... 35
4.5.3. Other Measures..................................................................................................................... 36
4.6 General Design Criteria.......................................................................................................................... 36
4.7 Vertical Measures..................................................................................................................................... 37
4.7.1. Speed Tables.......................................................................................................................... 37
4.7.2. Speed Humps......................................................................................................................... 38
4.7.3. Rumble Devices..................................................................................................................... 38
4.8 Horizontal Measures............................................................................................................................... 39
4.8.1. Road Narrowing.................................................................................................................... 39
4.8.2. Traffic Splitter Islands/Pedestrian Refuges.............................................................. 40
4.8.3. Gateway Entry Treatments Physical Measures........................................................ 40
4.9 Design Process.......................................................................................................................................... 42
4.9.1. Process Overview................................................................................................................. 42
4.9.2. Step 1 – Identification of Need for Traffic Calming Measures............................ 42
4.9.3. Step 2 – Data Collection and Analysis.......................................................................... 43
4.9.4. Step 3 – Preparation of Preliminary Design................................................................ 44
4.9.5. Step 4 – Consultation.......................................................................................................... 45
4.9.6. Step 5 – Detailed Design.................................................................................................... 46
4.9.7. Step 6 – Construction.......................................................................................................... 46
4.9.8. Step 7 – Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................... 46
4.10 School Zones.............................................................................................................................................. 47
4.10.1.Speed........................................................................................................................................ 48
4.10.2.Components............................................................................................................................ 48
4.10.3.Process..................................................................................................................................... 50
5 Roadside Clear Zones..................................................................................................54

5.1 General......................................................................................................................................................... 54
5.1.1. New Designs.......................................................................................................................... 56
ii VOLUME 3 | QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL

23
5.1.2. Existing Layouts................................................................................................................... 56

5.2 Urban and Low Volume Roads............................................................................................................ 57
5.3 Design Criteria........................................................................................................................................... 57
5.3.1. Surface Conditions............................................................................................................... 58
5.3.2.Slopes........................................................................................................................................ 59
5.3.3. Drainage Channels............................................................................................................... 60
5.3.4.Obstructions........................................................................................................................... 61
5.3.5.Curbs.......................................................................................................................................... 61
5.3.6. Nonmotorized Users............................................................................................................ 62
5.4 Horizontal Curves..................................................................................................................................... 63
6 Vehicle Restraint Systems..........................................................................................67

6.1 General......................................................................................................................................................... 67
6.1.1. Provision of Vehicle Restraint Systems....................................................................... 67
6.1.2. Reduction of Risk Level Posed by a Safety Concern.............................................. 67
6.1.3. Clear Zone Concept.............................................................................................................. 68
6.2 Longitudinal Safety Barriers and Containment Curbs............................................................... 68
6.3 Median Safety Barriers and Containment Curbs.......................................................................... 69
6.4 Verge Safety Barriers and Containment Curbs............................................................................. 69
6.4.1. Roadside Conditions............................................................................................................ 70
6.4.2. Side Slopes.............................................................................................................................. 70
6.4.3. Selection of a Verge Safety Barrier or Containment Curb.................................... 72
6.5 Impact Severity Level............................................................................................................................. 73
6.6 Deflection Characteristics..................................................................................................................... 73
6.7 Safety Barrier Layout.............................................................................................................................. 74
6.8 Vehicle Parapets....................................................................................................................................... 81
6.8.1. Height of Vehicle Parapets............................................................................................... 81
6.8.2. Impact Severity Level......................................................................................................... 82
6.8.3. Deflection Characteristics................................................................................................. 82
6.8.4. Addition Vehicle Parapet Considerations.................................................................... 82
6.9 End Treatments/Terminals................................................................................................................... 83
6.10 Transitions.................................................................................................................................................. 85
6.11 Impact Attenuators.................................................................................................................................. 86
6.12 Additional Vehicle Restraint Systems’ Selection Considerations.......................................... 88
6.13 Passive Safety Lighting and Signposts........................................................................................... 89
References...............................................................................................................................90
QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL | VOLUME 3 iii

23
Tables
Table 1.1 Types of Data Used to Inform Safety Policy and Countermeasures............................................ 6
Table 1.2 Stakeholders and Crash Data Uses............................................................................................................ 8
Table 1.3 Road Safety Engineering Management Tools – New Roads............................................................ 9
Table 1.4 Road Safety Engineering Management Tools – Existing Roads...................................................10
Table 1.5 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Road Safety
Impact Assessment and Economic Appraisal......................................................................................11
Table 1.6 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – iRAP.....................................................12
Table 1.7 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Road Safety Audit..........................13
Table 1.8 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Safe System
Review................................................................................................................................................................14
Table 1.9 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Near-Miss Observational
Studies................................................................................................................................................................14
Table 1.10 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Blackspot
Location Analysis and Treatment............................................................................................................15
Table 1.11 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Posted Speed
Review...............................................................................................................................................................16
Table 1.12 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Maintenance Inspections............17
Table 1.13 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Pedestrian and
Cyclist Environment Reviews....................................................................................................................17
Table 1.14 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Crash
Investigation....................................................................................................................................................18
Table 4.1 Traffic-Calming Measures for Use in School Zones..........................................................................50
Table 5.1 Straight Road Clear Zone Widths for Standard Design Speeds....................................................58
Table 5.2 Clear Zone Width Increase for Noncontainment Curbs Greater Than
100 mm in Height..........................................................................................................................................61
Table 5.3 Clear Zone Run-out Lengths for Standard Design Speeds............................................................64
Table 5.4 Curve Clear Zone Widths for Standard Design Speeds– Czm (m)
Curve = 2o – Radius = 875m.......................................................................................................................64
Curve = 3o – Radius = 580m.......................................................................................................................64
Curve = 4o – Radius = 435m.......................................................................................................................65
Curve = 5o – Radius = 350m.......................................................................................................................65
Curve = 6o – Radius = 290m.......................................................................................................................65
iv VOLUME 3 | QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL

23
Table 6.1 Minimum Length L2 Required to Reduce the Risk of a Vehicle Sliding
On or Behind a Safety Barrier..................................................................................................................76
Table 6.2 Minimum Set Back Values...........................................................................................................................80
Table 6.3 Minimum Performance Levels for Impact Attenuators....................................................................87
Figures
Figure 1.1 The Safe System Approach for Roadway Systems............................................................................. 2

Figure 1.2 Data-Driven Analysis of Road Safety Countermeasures and Policies......................................... 5
Figure 2.1 Crash Types and Indicative Fatality Risks at Various Speeds......................................................20
Figure 2.2 Road Characteristics and Their Impact on Driver Acceptance of Posted
Speeds................................................................................................................................................................23
Figure 4.1 Raised Pedestrian Crossing........................................................................................................................38
Figure 4.2 Road Narrowing using a Build Out..........................................................................................................39
Figure 4.3 Example of a Traffic Island Narrowing the Roadway.......................................................................40
Figure 4.4 Gateway into a School Zone......................................................................................................................41
Figure 4.5 Process for Developing and Monitoring Traffic-Calming Measures...........................................42
Figure 5.1 Typical Clear Zone for Cut Slope including Shoulder.......................................................................56
Figure 5.2 Typical Clear Zone for Fill Slope including Shoulder........................................................................56
Figure 5.3 Clear Zone Width for Compound Fill Slopes.........................................................................................60
Figure 5.4 Clear Zone Width for Drainage Channel................................................................................................60
Figure 5.5 Design Chart for Curb–VRS Combinations by Posted Speed and Offset
Distance.............................................................................................................................................................62
Figure 5.6 Additional Clear Zone Dimensions around Horizontal Curves......................................................63
Figure 6.1 Steps to Consider Before Providing a VRS...........................................................................................68
Figure 6.2 Working Width and Vehicle Intrusion Zones (Safety Barriers).....................................................74
Figure 6.3 Minimum Length of Safety Fence for Single Lane Roads..............................................................76
Figure 6.4 Minimum Length of Safety Fence for Dual Lane Roads.................................................................76
Figure 6.5 Required Length of Need in Relation to Speed and AADT
(No Hardshoulder)..........................................................................................................................................78
Figure 6.6 Required Length of Need in Relation to Speed and AADT
(3m Hardshoulder)........................................................................................................................................79
Appendixes
Appendix A Designer Checklist for School Zones......................................................................................................93

Appendix B School Consultation Guide..........................................................................................................................98
QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL | VOLUME 3 v

23
vi VOLUME 3 | QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL

23
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AADT annual average daily traffic
ADT average daily traffic
Ashghal Public Works Authority
AusRAP Australian Road Assessment Programme
CERS Cyclist Environment Review System
EuroRAP European Road Assessment Programme
FHWA Federal Highway Administration (United States)
GIS geographic information system
iRAP International Road Assessment Programme
km kilometer(s)
kph kilometers per hour
m meter(s)
MASH Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware
mm millimeter(s)
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program (United States)
NMU nonmotorized user
MOTC Ministry of Transport and Communications
NGO nongovernmental organization
NRA National Roads Authority
OIV occupant impact velocity
ORA occupant ridedown acceleration
PERS Pedestrian Environment Review System
QHDM Qatar Highway Design Manual
QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL | VOLUME 3 vii

23
QNRSS Qatar National Road Safety Strategy
QTCM Qatar Traffic Control Manual
RSA Road Safety Audit
RSIA Road Safety Impact Assessment
usRAP United States Road Assessment Program
VRS Vehicle Restraint System
viii VOLUME 3 | QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL

23
1 Road Safety Principles

This Chapter addresses the basic principles of road safety: the Safe System, the need for a
shared responsibility among transportation experts and road users, taking a results-focused
approach, and data-driven analysis. The Chapter also explains how crash data and other road
safety data can be used to inform safety countermeasures and policies.
1.1 Basic Principles

In its publication World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention (World Health Organization,
2004), the World Health Organization recognized road safety as a public health issue. The
report highlighted the preventable and predictable nature of road crashes, clearly stating
that it is a human-made issue that is amenable to rational analysis and countermeasures.
1.1.1 Safe System

The Qatar National Road Safety Strategy (QNRSS) has adopted the Safe System approach.
In a Safe System, the road transport system is designed to anticipate and accommodate
human error, protect the vulnerable human body, and thus ensure that the forces the body is
exposed to in a crash are survivable.
The challenge under the Safe System approach is to manage the interaction between road
users, vehicles, travel speeds and roads not only to reduce crashes but also, most importantly,
to ensure that any crashes that occur do not result in death or serious injury. This approach
requires working holistically and collaboratively across each of the four core Safe System
elements:
• Safe road users are competent and compliant with traffic laws. This element includes
road user education, managing the licensing of drivers, and taking action against those
who break the rules.
• Safe vehicles have technology that can help prevent crashes and safety features that
protect road users in the event of a crash. This element includes the promotion of safety
features to encourage consumers and fleet operators to purchase safer vehicles.
• Safe roads are self-explanatory and forgiving of mistakes to reduce the risk of crashes
occurring and to protect road users from fatal or serious injury should a crash occur. This
element requires roads and roadsides to be designed, built, and maintained to reduce the
risk and severity of crashes, supplemented by law enforcement and public education.
• Safe speeds at which vehicles travel that suit the function and the level of safety of the
road to ensure that crash forces are kept below the limits that cause death or serious
injury. This element requires the setting of appropriate posted speeds supplemented by
enforcement and education.
QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL | VOLUME 3 1

23
The Safe System is also supported by the following:
• Road safety management: Effective management of road safety to improve road

safety performance.
• Post-crash response: Effective post-crash response that minimizes the severity of

injuries received and facilitates fast and comprehensive rehabilitation.
The Safe System approach requires a shift in thinking by transportation experts to recognize
that people will always make mistakes and that it is the responsibility of the roadway
agency to ensure the safety of all road users. The Safe System approach challenges those
responsible for designing and maintaining the roadway system to share the responsibility of
managing the interaction between road users, vehicles, travel speeds, and roads.
Figure 1.1 illustrates the Safe System approach.
Figure 1.1 The Safe System Approach for Roadway Systems
2 VOLUME 3 | QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL

23
1.1.2 A Shared Responsibility

An important road safety principle is that everyone has a role to play in reducing traffic
crashes and improving road safety. While road users are expected to be alert to risk and
compliant with road rules, the Safe System recognizes they will continue to make mistakes.
It is the shared responsibility of all involved to ensure that road use is safe, including those
who plan, design, build, maintain, and regulate roads and vehicles, as well as the community
that uses the road.
Organizations with a responsibility for improving road safety include the following:
• Road authorities and road operators
• Traffic police
• Health authorities, hospitals, and ambulance service
• Fire and rescue service
• Legislators and regulatory bodies
• Driver training, testing, and licensing authorities
• Vehicle testing and licensing authorities
• Educators (for example, schools, government ministries, and media)
• Private sector (for example, petrochemical organizations, haulage organizations, and

organizations that take an interest as part of their social responsibility program)
• Vehicle manufacturers and suppliers
• Insurance companies
• Public transportation operators (including taxi companies)
• Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (for example, the Red Crescent Society and road
safety charities).
1.1.3 Results-Focused Approach

When measuring road safety performance, road safety stakeholders and practitioners have
traditionally measured the amount of effort, activities, and resources spent. However, best
practices suggest a results-focused approach instead.
Taking a results-focused approach places the emphasis on collecting and monitoring a range
of quantifiable safety indicators that are either final outcomes or intermediate indicators of
safety performance.
Final outcomes are directly related to safety levels such as the numbers of fatalities and
injuries. These can be expressed as absolutes or as rates, such as fatalities per population,
fatalities per number of registered vehicles, fatalities per vehicle kilometers driven.

23
Intermediate indicators are strongly linked to improvements in final outcomes Typical

measures include average or 85th percentile speeds, helmet or seatbelt wearing rates, road
conditions, and standard of vehicle fleet.
Monitoring and evaluating against final outcomes and intermediate indicators should occur
both at the highest strategic level in terms of national priorities and targets, as well as at
the level of the individual road safety countermeasure. Monitoring and evaluating can be
undertaken on all aspects of road safety activity, including the following:
• National casualty reduction targets

• Local plans and strategies
• Education and public awareness campaigns
• Enforcement campaigns
• Mass engineering treatments
• Individual blackspot sites
In an effort-focused approach, resources can be wasted on ineffective safety countermeasures

and initiatives and it becomes difficult to make a business case for investment if the impact
of different countermeasures is not known. However, moving from an effort-focus to a
results-focus is not easy. It requires commitment and dedication to collect data and measure
results so that unsuccessful safety countermeasures and policies can be highlighted.
1.1.4 Data-Driven Analysis

Road safety is increasingly viewed as a public health issue, and as such, the public health
approach can be applied (as shown in Figure 1.2). It is critical that data are used to inform,
measure, and evaluate road safety activities without taking a data-driven approach, it is
likely that traffic safety resources and efforts will not be invested in the most efficient and
effective manner.
It is important to understand how and why road crashes occur by analyzing the data. This
analysis will identify high-risk locations, predominant crash types, and road users and
behaviors that need targeted countermeasures. In addition, it is important to evaluate safety
countermeasures so that those that are effective can be scaled up and repeated and those
that are ineffective are not repeated and resources are not wasted.

23
Figure 1.2 shows data-driven analysis as a cyclical model with the following five steps.
These steps are a continuous process towards road safety improvement:
• Step 1 defines the issue through systematic data collection and analysis.
• Step 2 uses data to identify the causes of the issue and who is at risk.
• Step 3 plans safety countermeasures based on the data and research.
• Step 4 evaluates the safety countermeasures to determine their effectiveness, under

what circumstances they are effective, and for whom they were effective.
• Step 5 develops those safety countermeasures and policies that are proven effective.
Figure 1.2 Data-Driven Analysis of Road Safety Countermeasures and Policies
1.2 Using Data to Inform Road Safety Policy and Safety

Countermeasures Implementation
The United Nations’ Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020
(United Nations Road Safety Collaboration, 2010) identifies the importance of crash and
other road safety data in formulating safety policy and countermeasures. Table 1.1 lists the
types of data that should be used to inform policy and countermeasures.

23
Table 1.1 Types of Data Used to Inform Safety Policy and Countermeasures
Type of Data Detail

Crash • Traffic police crash data recorded at the scene by a traffic police officer
• In-depth data from crash investigation and fatality files
Health • Injury surveillance data collected at hospitals (provides more accurate

information about injury severity than a traffic police officer can record at the
roadside)
• Vital register containing information about traffic fatalities
Traffic • Traffic volumes (for example, annual average daily traffic [AADT])
• Vehicle speeds (for example, 85th or 50th percentile speeds)
• Classified counts
Socio-Spatial • Population (counts, densities, age/gender distribution, etc.)

• Deprivation
• Ethnicity
• Media usage
Road Inventory • Information about the condition of the roadway relating to maintenance
(surface condition, rutting, potholes, etc.)
• Information about road design features and land use relating to safety (lane
width, presence and type of median, intersection type, roadside geometry and
objects, pedestrian and cyclist facilities, land use and type of development,
etc.)
Road User • License holders by class

• Violation/penalty point data
• Attitudinal surveys
• Survey data on protective equipment or distractions (seatbelt and child
restraint use, helmet use, mobile phone use, etc.)
Vehicle • Vehicle features (type, age, safety features, models, etc.)
Safety • Education data (take-up, target audience, medium, etc.)

Countermeasure • Engineering data (features, locations, dates, costs, density, etc.)
• Enforcement data (labor hours, offenses, etc.)
Without crash and other road safety data, it is not possible to:
• Set road safety targets

• Measure progress against targets
• Benchmark against performance in other similar countries or among regions
• Plan and prioritize road safety countermeasures
• Evaluate countermeasures and learn from what does, and does not, work
• Make a business case for investment in road safety

23
1.3 Crash Data

Crash data records contain information gathered by traffic police officers at the scene of a
crash. The numerous elements of information are recorded in a standardized way, using a
crash form or booklet. This information is the most commonly used data develop road safety
countermeasures and determine their effectiveness. Ideally, the traffic police record the
following detailed information about a crash:
• Type of crash (head-on, pedestrian-related, animal-related, shunt, side impact at

intersection, side-swipe, run-off-the-road, overturning, etc.) and maneuver (turning,
parking, crossing the road, etc.)
• Precise location of the crash
• Road characteristics (urban or rural, number of lanes, posted speed, lane and shoulder
width, surface type, lighting, intersection type, surface condition and state, straight or
curve, median, road works, etc.)
• When the crash occurred (date, day, time of day, weather conditions, etc.)
• Why the crash occurred (contributing factors such as traffic controls, speed and route
type, road characteristics, weather impacts, road classification, number of persons
involved in the crash, driving under the influence, and light conditions at time of crash)
• Casualty details (mode, location in vehicle, age, injury severity, seatbelt or helmet use,
alcohol or drug use, etc.)
• Vehicle details (type of vehicle make or model, vehicle defect, age of vehicle, damage
sustained, etc.)
Injuries resulting from a crash are coded according to their severity as follows:
• Fatality: A person who dies as the result of a crash. A fatality is recorded if the person
dies up to 30 days after the crash occurs, in accordance with international best practice.
• Serious injury: A person receives injuries including fractures, concussion, internal

injuries, crushing, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, or severe general shock
requiring treatment and who is detained in a hospital as an in-patient. An injured person
who dies 30 days or more after the crash is recorded as a serious injury.
• Minor injury: A person who receives a slight injury such as a sprain (including whiplash);
a bruise or cut that is not determined to be severe; or slight shock requiring roadside
attention. Generally, this definition includes injuries not requiring medical attention.

23
Similarly, the crashes themselves are coded according to the following severity:
• Fatal: A crash in which at least one person is killed at the scene or dies within 30 days
of the crash.
• Serious: A crash where no one is killed, but at least one person is seriously injured.
• Minor: A crash where no one is killed or seriously injured, but at least one person receives
a minor injury.
• Damage only: A crash where no one is injured and vehicles or roadway facilities
(including fixed objects in the roadside), or both, are damaged.
These data are centrally held by the traffic police and shared with all road safety
stakeholders so they can conduct their own analyses and develop informed safety policy
and countermeasures. The data shared with stakeholders has sensitive information, such
as crash victim names and addresses, hidden or removed. Table 1.2 lists safety stakeholders
and how they use the crash data.
Table 1.2 Stakeholders and Crash Data Uses
Stakeholder Crash Data Use

National Traffic Safety • To set and monitor performance against national targets.
Committee • To identify focus areas for targeted action.
• To benchmark performance.
• To monitor emerging trends.
Traffic Police • To target enforcement of high-risk behaviors and road user groups.
• To target enforcement at high-risk locations.
Hospitals and Rehabilitation • To ensure appropriate levels of staffing and resources available to
Services treat persons with different injury severities.
Ambulance Services and Civil • To determine the location and level of resourcing required for
Defense effective and efficient response to traffic crashes.
Legislators • To identify priority areas for new or improved legislation.
Engineers • To identify high-priority locations (areas, corridors, or individual

blackspots) that require treatment and to use intelligence about
the type of crashes occurring to ensure safety countermeasures are
targeted correctly.
Educators • To ensure that educational activities are targeted at high-risk road

user groups and behaviors; applies to road safety education in
schools, campaigns and awareness programs, and driver training
and testing.
Vehicle Safety Experts • To identify vehicle defects and lack of protective qualities and to
introduce legislation or incentives to improve vehicle safety.

23
1.4 Road Safety Engineering Management Tools

Many road safety engineering management tools are available that should be used to ensure
that new and existing roads are as safe as possible. These tools match key functions that
must be fulfilled to effectively manage road safety within the road infrastructure:
• Management of the road safety of new roads:
−− Assess safety impact and costs and benefits of different options
−− Assess safety at conceptual design stage, preliminary design stage, detailed

design stage and pre-opening
−− Monitor and review safety of newly opened roads
• Management of the road safety of existing roads:
−− Identify and treat locations with safety concerns
−− Identify and treat crash themes specific to routes or areas
−− Identify and treat network-wide emerging crash themes and trends
−− Assess the likely impact of programs and their cost effectiveness
Table 1.3 lists the road safety engineering management tools for new roads. Table 1.4 lists
the road safety engineering management tools on existing roads.
Table 1.3 Road Safety Engineering Management Tools – New Roads
Road Safety Management Need Tools

Assess safety impact and costs and benefits of • Road Safety Impact Assessment (RSIA) and
different options Economic Appraisal
• iRAP1
Assess safety at conceptual design stage, • Road Safety Audit (RSA)

preliminary stage, detailed design stage and pre- • Safe System Review
opening • iRAP
Monitor and review safety of newly opened roads • RSA (post-opening stage)
• Near-miss observational studies
Note:
1
The International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) is a registered charity dedicated to preventing more
than 3,500 traffic deaths that occur every day worldwide.

23
Table 1.4 Road Safety Engineering Management Tools – Existing Roads
Road Safety Management Need Tools

Identify and treat locations with safety concerns • Road Safety Impact Assessment (RSIA)
• Safe System Review
• iRAP1
• Blackspot location analysis and treatment
• Near-miss observational studies
• Posted speed review
• Maintenance inspections
• Pedestrian and cyclist environment review
Identify and treat crash themes specific to routes • RSIA

or areas • Safe System Review
• iRAP
• Road network screening/route or area analyses
• Posted speed review
• Maintenance inspections
• Pedestrian and cyclist environment review
Identify and treat network-wide emerging crash • Road network screening/route or area analyses
themes and trends • Crash Investigation
Assess the likely impact of programs and their • RSIA and Economic Appraisal
cost effectiveness • iRAP
Note:
1
The International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) is a registered charity dedicated to preventing more
than 3,500 traffic deaths that occur every day worldwide.
Each of these road safety engineering management tools is described in more detail in
Table 1.5 through Table 1.14.

23
Table 1.5 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Road Safety
Impact Assessment and Economic Appraisal
Road Safety Impact Assessment and Economic Appraisal

Description Road Safety Impact Assessment (RSIA) is a strategic comparative analysis of the
impact of a new road or a substantial modification to the existing road network
on the safety performance of the road network. The methodology allows the
consideration of different options and their relative impact on road safety at an
early stage of project development.
An Economic Appraisal assigns a monetary value to an impact assessment,
comparing the costs of different options and treatments to the benefits of the
treatment. This economic approach to appraisal assigns a monetary value to all
costs and benefits and compares these over a period to give an indication of the
net benefit of a particular potential project.
Calculating the benefits of the treatment requires an estimation of the likely injury
savings expected over a defined time multiplied by the crash cost. These figures
provide an estimate of the value of preventing a fatal, serious, minor, or damage
only crash.
Several different economic appraisal measures can be used to express the size of
the benefits: first year rate of return, benefit-to-cost ratio, net present value, or
internal Rate of Return.
Urban/Rural Suitable for both urban and rural locations
Data/Software Must have:

Requirements • Crash costing values (for fatal, serious, minor, and damage only crashes)
• A database indicating the potential impact of different options (preferably from
local studies)
Personnel Road safety engineer with a good understanding of crash modification factors and
Requirements economics

23
Table 1.6 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – iRAP

iRAP
Description iRAP and its regional programs, including EuroRAP, usRAP, and AusRAP, have
developed drive-through inspection methodologies for the systematic assessment
of existing roads. Using this methodology allows safety concerns related to the
four main crash types (head-on, run-off-the-road, intersection, and vulnerable road
user) to be identified and safety improvement programs to be proposed. Results
are presented cartographically, with star ratings allocated to lengths of road,
allowing color-coding of the results.
Inspection methodologies involve the capture of high-resolution video data that
are geo-referenced. A rating team then code approximately 30 variables along
the inspection network using specialized software. The models in the iRAP
methodology estimate the number of people likely to be killed along the road
network that trigger potential treatments to mitigate safety concerns, and propose
appropriate safety engineering programs. The tools estimate the number of
fatalities that should be reduced if the treatments are implemented, which in turn
allows a cost-benefit analysis to be presented (comparing the cost of treatment
with the potential economic savings associated with the likely fatality reduction).
The iRAP methodology has been designed for use on existing roads. However, it
is increasingly being used to assess the relative safety impact of different design
options for new roads and to assess the intrinsic safety of new roads. By entering
different design parameters into the iRAP model, the impact on overall safety and
the iRAP star rating can be quantified. This allows an assessment of different
options to be made.
It is not mandatory but is a tool to enable road safety priorities should be set.
Urban/Rural Can be used on both urban and rural roads
Data/Software Specialized equipment and software are required to record the road attribute data
Requirements from videos. This equipment must be accredited by iRAP.
iRAP has developed its own software for the analysis of data in accordance with
iRAP protocols.
Some crash data are required to calibrate the iRAP models.
Personnel The road characteristic coding task is necessarily labor intensive and so a team of
Requirements highly motivated individuals is required. These individuals require specific training
in the iRAP methodology by iRAP.
It is recommended that iRAP outputs be reviewed by an experienced road safety
engineer.
Notes:
AusRAP = Australian Road Assessment Programme
EuroRAP = European Road Assessment Programme
iRAP = International Road Assessment Programme
usRAP = United States Road Assessment Program

23
Table 1.7 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Road Safety Audit
Road Safety Audit1

Description An RSA is an independent review of a roadway project that conducted by a
multidisciplinary team of experts to identify potential road safety concerns that
may affect any users of the roadway.
These audits are also called Road Safety Assessments or Road Safety Inspections
when conducted on existing roads to identify any prevailing road safety concerns.
Crash data should also be reviewed during these assessments.
RSAs are intended to identify road safety concerns early in the life of a project to
make sure that any issues are identified and addressed both before the road works
begin and treatments are implemented and after construction is complete.
An RSA is not a check against design standards, a technical audit, or a redesign
exercise. It is a common misconception that a design that fully meets the relevant
design standards will have no road safety concerns.
During an RSA, the auditors seek to identify any aspects of the project that
could either contribute to crashes or increase the severity of a crash should
one occur. After identifying and explaining the concern, auditors should make
recommendations on how to remove or reduce the risk posed by the identified
road safety concern. However, the designer and client have the final responsibility
on how these recommendations are implemented.
RSAs need to be undertaken at every stage of the design process (conceptual
design, preliminary design, detailed design, pre-opening, and post-opening) and
take into account the safety of all road users.

Nonmotorized user (NMU) audits may be used in areas with high pedestrian
volumes
Data/Software Crash data are required for post-opening stage monitoring audits that are
Requirements conducted after the road has been opened for traffic and for Road Safety
Assessments.
If a new project is to upgrade or replace an existing road, crash data should be
supplied to identify issues on the existing road that need to be considered during
the new design.
No specific software is required, although access to current design standards and
works specifications is necessary.
Personnel The RSA team is made up of at least two road safety engineers: an audit team
Requirements leader and an audit team member. The RSA team can be augmented by specialists
relevant for the type of audit being undertaken.
RSAs are only as good as the auditors themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to
ensure that auditors have the necessary skills and experience. It is good practice
to have clear requirements in place regarding the experience and qualifications of
road safety auditors when selecting the RSA team members.
Notes:
1
Refer to Volume 3, Part 24, Road Safety Audits, of this Manual, for additional information on Road Safety
Audits.
RSA = Road Safety Audit

23
Table 1.8 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Safe System
Review
Safe System Review

Description A Safe System Review is similar to a RSA, except it focuses on the Safe System
principles. In a Safe System Review, a multidisciplinary team (often including road
safety engineers. as well as traffic police, educators, psychologists, etc.) will review
the plans or existing road based on the Safe System principles.
Data/Software There are no clear requirements for data or software, although data should be
Requirements analyzed to help inform the process.
Personnel Personnel must be familiar with Safe System principles and should be experienced
Requirements in road safety engineering or crash investigation.
Table 1.9 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Near-Miss

Observational Studies
Near Miss Observational Studies

Description Near-miss observational studies are conducted to study the effect of road design
changes on driver behavior and near misses. They can also be used to investigate
emerging concerns on existing roads.
In near-miss observational studies, traffic conflicts (events that would have
resulted in a crash if the vehicles had not changed their direction or speed) are
recorded and rated according to their severity. A serious conflict is one that nearly
results in a crash, in which the road user makes evasive maneuvers at the last
moment.
Recent progress in software for analyzing video images has transformed the study
of traffic conflicts. In the past, the study of traffic conflicts was somewhat of a
subjective technique that relied on manual coding by human observers. Although
these observers were able to make reliable observations when properly trained,
a subjective element remained. Modern techniques for processing video images
allow for the objective estimation of time to collision by estimating the speed and
trajectories of the road users involved. It is then possible to classify conflicts more
accurately and consistently than before and, therefore, study their relationships to
crash occurrence more rigorously.
Data/Software These studies require sophisticated equipment and video analysis software.
Requirements
Personnel These techniques require skilled personnel, particularly when dealing with
Requirements algorithms for automatic detection of near misses.

23
Table 1.10 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Blackspot

Location Analysis and Treatment
Blackspot Location Analysis and Treatment

Description Blackspot or cluster analyses indicate locations on the road network that have
a high number of crashes. Different countries have different criteria that define
whether a location is a blackspot or not. The number of crashes, the time period in
which they occurred, and the distance between them all vary, as indicated by the
following examples:
• Three or more similar injury crashes within 3 years and a relative coefficient
of 0.8 (a factor of the crash rate), based on 250-m rolling length along the
route; at least five crashes of similar type within 1 year based on 250-m rolling
length along the route (Austria).
• At least four crashes and statistically different than the normal expected
(Denmark).
• Five crashes in 12 months or three serious injury crashes in 36 months
(Germany).
• A location less than 100 m long where at least four injury crashes occurred in
the last 5 years (Norway); a section less than 1 km where at least 10 crashes
occurred in the last 5 years.
In some countries, the number of crashes is weighted by severity.
In Qatar, blackspots will be identified on the road network to develop the national
crash database and it is recommended that the same criteria as in Norway is
applied.
Make sure the blackspot analysis reflects a real safety issue rather than random
variation. This can be checked by reviewing multiple years (at least 3 years) of
data.
Once blackspots have been identified, further analysis at each site should be
carried out to determine the nature of the crashes at each site and to rank sites
for treatment. Potential safety countermeasures can be identified at each site,
together with the likely benefit of each.
Analysis of crashes at the blackspot site should continue after the implementation
of any remedial project so that its effect can be evaluated. Care should be taken
to ensure that all evaluations have control sites and that any positive changes
observed are not just simply regression to the mean.
A blackspot analysis can be carried out for different road user types since locations
with safety concerns for pedestrians may be different than locations with safety
concerns for motorcyclists.
Data/Software Crash data must include accurate location coordinates.

Requirements Software that supports spatial analysis of crash clusters is required.
Personnel Personnel should be trained in conducting blackspot analysis and should have
Requirements basic knowledge of statistics and data analysis.
Notes:
km = kilometer(s)
m = meters

23
Table 1.11 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Posted Speed
Review
Posted Speed Review1

Description A posted speed review is conducted to determine the appropriateness of the
posted speeds along the road network. Traditionally posted speed reviews
have been conducted based on a review of actual vehicle speeds, notably the
85th percentile speed of traffic. However, current best practice is to review posted
speeds based on Safe System principles, taking into consideration the likely levels
of posted speed acceptance. The speed review methodology developed for Qatar
assesses two main components:
• Road type – The road type will suggest the ideal speed at which the road should
operate in order to fulfill its function in the road network.
• Road characteristics – The characteristics of the road determine the level of
safety and the acceptability of a posted speed and its affect:
— Safety – Road characteristics impact the survivability of crashes at differ-
ent speeds
— Posted speed acceptance – Road characteristics impact the acceptability
of a speed limit by road users and, therefore, the level of compliance that
might be achieved
To use the Safe System methodology, a road safety engineer inputs details
about the road (number of lanes, median treatment, roadside objects, etc.) and
assigns the road a function within the road hierarchy. Using a number of simple
rules based on Safe System principles, the decision-aid tool highlights any road
characteristics considered to lack safety at the desired speed of the road. These
issues, along with actual driven speeds, are considered and a treatment program
developed.
Data/Software While particular software is not necessary for conducting a posted speed review,
Requirements a simple tool based on the Safe System principles has been developed for use in
Qatar. Actual observed speeds from speed surveys should be considered as part of
the review process.
Personnel A road safety engineer should use the posted speed review tool.
Requirements
Note:
1
Refer to Chapter 2, Speed, in this Part for additional information on posted speed limits.

23
Table 1.12 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Maintenance

Inspections
Maintenance Inspections
Description A maintenance inspection periodically reviews the road characteristics to
identify any issues or wear that require maintenance work for reasons of safety.
Maintenance Inspections are designed to identify those issues that are or are
likely to create a safety concern to the public and, therefore, require immediate
attention. Normally, maintenance inspections are mobile inspections carried out
from a slow-moving vehicle, with the occasional need to proceed on foot, which
are conducted at frequencies that reflect the importance of a particular road.
The frequency of a maintenance inspection will be determined by the type of road.
For the high-volume roads, inspections should be carried out on a regular basis (for
example, every 6 weeks).
Different levels of defect are recorded by the maintenance inspection and
these have different levels of priority and requirements for action. Maintenance
inspections include the road surface, roadway edge or verge, pedestrian paths,
bike paths, drainage, road signs, crash barriers, etc.
Data/Software No particular software or data are required for maintenance inspections.

Requirements Efficiencies can be made if a crash triggers a maintenance inspection to determine
if any damage occurred to the road infrastructure.
Personnel The inspections are normally carried out by a two-person team.

Requirements
Table 1.13 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Pedestrian and
Cyclist Environment Reviews
Pedestrian and Cyclist Environment Reviews

Description A pedestrian or cyclist environment review is a specialized approach that can be
used systematically to assess the provision for pedestrians or cyclists.
The Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) and Cyclist Environment
Review System (CERS) are software tools that create systematic frameworks so
that pedestrian and cyclist provision can be assessed, reviewed, and audited with
a standard and consistent methodology. PERS and CERS provide a methodology
for a holistic audit to be undertaken on the pedestrian environment and can assist
in the identification of opportunities to improve pedestrian walking routes, public
spaces, and bike routes.
Urban/Rural Most suitable for urban locations
Data/Software PERS and CERS require a team to record conditions on a standard data template.
Requirements These data are then entered into a software application called street audit. This
tool allows detailed analysis and GIS mapping.
Personnel PERS and CERS auditors require some basic training to use the software tools.
Requirements
Note:
GIS = geographic information system

23
Table 1.14 Details of Road Safety Engineering Management Tool – Crash

Investigation
Crash investigation
Description A crash investigation is conducted by experienced crash investigators who collect
in-depth crash data that provide a greater level of detail than can be found in
standard traffic police crash reports. Generally, a crash investigation is only
conducted for fatal or serious crashes. The degree of examination depends on the
severity of the crash.
A crash investigation will piece together the fine details of the crash. Information
gathered from the scene and witness statements is used to reconstruct the
most probable sequence of events leading up to the crash. A detailed vehicle
examination is also conducted. Details such as vehicle defects, human factors,
visibility, accurate vehicle speeds, vehicle stability, weather conditions, stopping
distances, road layout, and geometry are recorded and analyzed.
Specialized computer software is used to analyze the pre-impact and post-impact
trajectories of vehicles; to reconstruct the visibility available to the driver and
witnesses; and to prepare plans from photographs of the scene and other analyses
that assist in understanding a crash.
Data/Software Specialized equipment is required to take measurements at the scene.

Requirements Specialized computer software can be used for analyses and reporting.
Personnel On average, a crash investigator will require 1 working week to complete all the
Requirements work necessary to produce a technical report on a single fatal crash.
Internationally, the basic training program for an investigator takes between
1 and 2 months. To obtain an internationally recognized qualification takes
approximately 2 years. It takes approximately 5 years to complete all the training
necessary to be recognized as an expert in Forensic Crash Investigation.

23
2 Speed
2.1 Introduction
The management of speed on a road network is a core activity to create a safe road
environment.
The setting and signing of posted speeds and the location and signing of speed radars are just
two elements that should be included in a comprehensive speed management strategy. It is
recommended that a comprehensive multi-sector speed management strategy be developed
to supplement the setting and signing of posted speeds. Such a strategy should include
road safety education countermeasures, a comprehensive speed enforcement strategy, and
extensive engineering improvements. However, in the absence of that overarching strategy,
posted speeds need to be reviewed and applied in a consistent way that provides users with
a clear understanding of what speed is appropriate on a particular road.
Posted speeds need to be safe, understandable, and enforceable to all users. To determine the
appropriate posted speed for any new or existing road, each characteristic of the road needs
to be compared against an idealized set of characteristics for that road type. Where there are
discrepancies, a set of parameters have been established that can be consulted to set the
maximum target speed at which all characteristics are considered safe and understandable.
Even a new road has to have its design speed carefully aligned with the proposed posted
speed to operate successfully. The following issues should be considered when determining
the design speed of a new road:
• Gap analysis and review, which will compare the existing practice in Qatar with
international best practice regarding posted speed setting and signage, and radar
locations and associated signage
• Setting speed limits
• Identifying radar locations and associated signage
2.1.1 Safe System Approach

A Safe System approach has been adopted to review and assess appropriate posted speeds.
Countries that have adopted a similar approach to road safety are leading the way in road
safety performance. Within the Safe System, the forces experienced by road users in the
event of a crash are managed so that crashes become survivable. Setting safe posted
speeds and managing driver compliance with those posted speeds is critical to achieving a
substantial reduction in fatal crashes.
The safe speed is the impact speed at which crashes are survivable for the majority of
people. These speeds have been calculated by crash type using in-depth crash investigation

23
data (Wramborg, 2005). This has resulted in the fatality risks, as shown in Figure 2.1. The
following principles are not necessarily posted speeds, but a guide to managing conflict
points in a road network:
• Where conflicts between pedestrians and cars are possible (unrestricted roads), the
survivable impact speed is approximately 30 kilometers per hour (kph)
• Where side impacts are possible at intersections (for example, crossroads and
T-intersections), the survivable impact speed is approximately 50 kph
• Where head-on crashes are possible (for example, where there is no median separation),
the survivable impact speed is approximately 70 kph
Figure 2.1 Crash Types and Indicative Fatality Risks at Various Speeds
Source: Wramborg, 2005
According to research in A Safe Road Transport System—Factors Influencing Injury Outcome

for Car Occupants (conducted by Stigson [2009]), a road is considered “safe” for run-off-the-
road crashes if it:
• Has a posted speed not higher than 50 kph

• Has a safety zone of at least 4 meters (m) and a posted speed not higher than 70 kph
• Has a safety zone of at least 10 m and a posted speed higher than 70 kph
Using these principles, it is possible to develop a posted speed hierarchy that takes into
account the level of risk to all road users that exists on the road network. It becomes possible
to match the type of road and its design with an improved level of safety. For example, on
freeways and expressways, higher speed can be adopted as the potential for head-on or
right-angle crashes is removed by constructing medians and grade-separated interchanges.

23
On urban arterial roads, the potential for right-angle crashes can be reduced by installing
signalized intersections.
Ideally, the posted speed corresponds with the need to ensure safety, the speed required
for traffic to flow reliably based on function, and the engineering design of the road. This is
not always possible, and where there are high travel speeds or unacceptable crash histories,
additional actions need to be taken. This may include treating the road through engineering
measures to improve the passive safety of the road or increasing enforcement efforts to
ensure vehicles are traveling at the posted speed.
2.1.2 Road Characteristics

The characteristics of the road determine the safety of the posted speed and the degree
to which the posted speed will be accepted by road users. Road characteristics describe all
aspects of the road including the basic geometry of the road (for example, lane widths and
median treatment) and the environment in which the road functions (for example, type and
level of development, parking, and presence of service roads).
Five different posted speeds have been developed to apply to all roads in Qatar based on the
Safe System criteria.
However, the initial allocations of posted speed do not align directly with the road types
listed in Volume 1, Part 2, Planning, of this Manual, since these functional classifications
can contain different road characteristics. The recommended posted speeds are assessed as
safe when a road conforms to a set of typical road features and the safety assessment rules.
2.1.3 Design Characteristics

The engineering design characteristics have a major impact on the safety performance of
the road and can influence driver behavior. It is important that design characteristics such
as stopping sight distance, curve radii, lane widths, and super elevations correspond to the
posted speed of the road. However, there needs to be a balance between core engineering
characteristics and potential risk to road users. Over-designing these engineering
characteristics can contribute to speeding, which can be a concern if there is conflicting road
use, such as the presence of nonmotorized users (NMUs), adjacent parking, short weaving
maneuvers, or numerous at-grade intersections or private accesses.
Drivers often do not perceive the risk created by conflicting road use and may travel at
unacceptable speeds. A range of strategies can be adopted to manage safety in these
circumstances, such as speed enforcement, restricting access to the road by both pedestrians
and vehicles, or implementing engineering treatments to mitigate safety concerns on the
road.
2.1.4 Design Speed

When new roads are designed, an appropriate design speed is determined for the road,
which is an expectation of the posted speed. Historically, the relationship between design

23
speed and posted speed has been confused, with many instances where the posted speed
is actually higher than the design speed. To resolve this, a consistent approach has been
adopted within this Manual so that the design speed for any given road will always be equal
to or higher than the posted speed.
2.1.5 Actual Speeds (Operating or Travel Speed)

Operating speeds are determined on existing roads by conducting surveys of vehicle speeds
to determine the speed that drivers choose to drive when they are not restricted by other
traffic. These surveys require observation over at least 48 hours, and preferably over 7 days,
to obtain sufficient data. Only vehicles that have the opportunity to select their desired
speed should be analyzed. These vehicles can be determined by defining a sufficient distance
between vehicles that their presence does not restrict speed. This distance is related to the
average reaction time at a given speed, typically 1 to 3 seconds. From this survey, a range of
parameters for evaluation can be determined, for example, 85th and 50th percentile speeds,
different speeds by vehicle class, and traffic volumes.
The actual speed is useful for prioritizing speed management countermeasures; however, it
should not be used to set posted speeds. This is because the characteristics of the existing
road may not be consistent with the Safe Systems approach, especially if the road has been
in existence for some time. The assessment of actual speeds will assist in determining
whether or not the road is self-explanatory and being used appropriately.
2.1.6 Self-Explanatory Roads

Roads are self-explanatory when they align with the expectations of the road user, eliciting
safe behavior simply by design. In reference to posted speeds, a road is self-explanatory
and the posted speed is accepted if driving above the posted speed is uncomfortable either
physically or psychologically and obvious to the road user. It is important to design roads so
that their appearance provides road users with consistent and appropriate information about
their function, and so that the posted speed is acceptable and intuitive for road users. If the
characteristics of a road indicate to drivers that a higher speed is permissible, in comparison
with the typical characteristics for a particular type of road, there is the potential that the
posted speed will not be observed and alternative safety countermeasures will be needed
to ensure compliance.
2.1.7 Posted Speed Acceptance

Each road type has a set of features that provide the road user with an indication of how
fast, or how slow, they should drive on the road see Figure 2.2. Where typical design
characteristics are exceeded, there is a risk that drivers may choose to drive faster than is
desirable and safe.
A closed environment is one where development buildings are multi-story and close to the
edge of the road corridor. An open environment is one where there is no development or
development is low lying and set well back from the road corridor.

23
An example of a conflict between driver acceptance of a posted speed and safety would be
a wide, straight, multi-lane road with a school adjacent to the roadway. The posted speed
would be 30 kph; however, the road would give an impression of being appropriate for much
higher speeds. In this instance, the posted speed would be flagged as potentially in conflict
with driver acceptance and additional measures including safety countermeasures such as
traffic calming devices or speed enforcement would need to be considered.
Figure 2.2 Road Characteristics and Their Impact on Driver Acceptance of Posted
Speeds
Not only do posted speeds need to be designed to be safe, they need to be operated safely
by those who use them. This relies on users understanding the risk that has been assessed
through the development of the design characteristics. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 in Volume 1,
Part 2, Planning, of this Manual, list typical road characteristics for each road type for driver
acceptance in urban and rural environments, respectively.
2.1.8 Road Hierarchy

Volume 1, Part 2, Planning, of this Manual, lists five main types of road within the Qatar
urban road network and four types of road within the rural road network. These roads
can have different design characteristics within each functional classification. The design
characteristics influence both design speed and driver speed.

23

23
3 Setting Posted Speeds
3.1 General
Chapter 2 provided detailed background on how the posted speed categories had been
derived for application across the main road types of the network. These posted speeds
cover all the typical cross sections included within the road classifications and direct
comparison has been developed for the multiple characteristics that are included within
each classification of the Qatar road hierarchy. The range of possible posted speeds detailed
in Section 2.1.8. Intersections may be subject to the same posted speed as the approaching
road, but may also be treated separately, depending on their form of control.
Where it is other than a priority intersection, signal controlled or roundabout, and more than
one posted speed applies on the approaches, the intersection shall be subject to the lower
of any posted speed in force on the approaches.
The default posted speeds for urban areas shall be 50 kph, and for rural roads will be 100 kph.
To minimize the number of signs needed across the whole network, repeater signs shall not
be used when the posted speed is 50 kph on urban roads and 100 kph on rural roads.
For all other posted speeds, repeater signs will be required as defined in the Qatar Traffic
Control Manual (QTCM), Volume 1, Part 2, General Road Signs. All posted speeds shall be
specifically signed, and the terminal points clearly identified as defined in Volume 1, Part 2,
General Road Signs, of the QTCM.
The process of setting appropriate posted speeds aims is to ensure that the posted speed is:
• In accordance with the posted speed recommended for the type of road
• Safe in accordance with the rules described previously
• Accepted by road users
• Close to the majority of observed speeds on the road
If all of the speeds for the road align, then the posted speed should be observed readily by
drivers and the impact speed should be survivable for most people if a crash occurred.

23
Consequently, an overall framework has been developed that provides the ideal combination
of elements to derive the appropriate posted speed in both the rural and urban setting.
However, the analysis in the Setting Speed Limits report (Ashghal, 2013) demonstrates that
it is not always easy to derive the appropriate posted speed with the existing roads in Qatar.
Even a new road has to have its design speed carefully aligned with the proposed posted
speed to operate successfully. Design speeds are determined from the 85th percentile speed
of traffic; the posted speed is generally determined from the 50th percentile posted speed
of traffic. To align these, in Qatar design speeds and posted speeds up to and including
80 kph will be equal. Above this speed, design speed will exceed posted speed by 20 kph.
3.1.1 Roles and Organizational Responsibility

The posted speed agreed for any length of road is a legal limit and is required to be
enforced by the Traffic Police, and has to be supported by all parties involved. However,
the assessment framework in Setting Speed Limits (Ashghal, 2013) provides five distinct
posted speeds to be applied to a range of different circumstances. These need to be made
clear to all road users and the key parameters applied in a consistent way across the entire
road network. There will be circumstances where not all parameters align consistently and
alternative approaches for resolving that misalignment may be different on different lengths
of road. The assessment tool provides a consistent framework for consideration, but the
various agencies still need to agree the final solution before implementation.
3.1.2 Speed Limit Working Group

It is recommended that posted speeds be reviewed by a Speed Limit Working Group comprising
representatives from the Overseeing Organization and the other relevant stakeholders, and
that appropriate legislation is put in place to legally define the basis for implementing posted
speeds across the road network. The responsibility for setting posted speeds should rest
with the relevant authority and the responsibility for enforcement with the Traffic Police.
3.1.3 Overseeing Organization

The Overseeing Organization is responsible for the overall planning of roadway development
in Qatar. As such, they need to be involved in the posted speed review process to ensure that
design standards and development layout give the greatest opportunity for posted speeds
to be understood by the general road user from the outset.
3.1.4 The Ministry of Transport and Communications

The Ministry of Transport and Communications (MOTC) is responsible for the conceptual
design of new roads. It is at this stage that the design speed is determined. Therefore, they
need to consider, through the application of this Manual, how design speed and posted speed
are consistently related through the design process.

23
3.1.5 Public Works Authority

The Public Works Authority (Ashghal) is responsible for the development and maintenance
of the main road network and therefore need to apply appropriate posted speeds to the
road network. To assess any modification to the road network that might be necessary to
apply the revised posted speeds on the network, a full program of speed surveys on all roads
in Qatar has to be undertaken. Speed surveys can then be used to measure performance
of speed management programs and inform enforcement programs. Posted speed reviews
can be conducted with short-term observational speed surveys (that is, hand-held radar
or moving observer). However, to revise posted speeds without any understanding of the
current speed characteristics potentially imposes an additional and unacceptable burden on
both road users and the Traffic Police.
3.1.6 Traffic Police

The Traffic Police are responsible for the enforcement of traffic laws, and in this instance
the adherence to posted speeds. They need the support of appropriate legislation to specify
the legal framework for signing and enforcing posted speeds so that both the traffic police
and road users know what is being enforced. An analysis of the speed survey sites in Setting
Speed Limits (Ashghal, 2013) noted a number of locations where additional enforcement or
the use of speed cameras may be necessary to ensure compliance with the posted speed.
In determining the appropriate solution to posted speeds on individual lengths of road, the
traffic police will need to agree on any potential enforcement solutions proposed through
the assessment process.
3.1.7 Accredited Practitioner

An accredited road safety/roadway design practitioner should be responsible for reviewing
any modification to posted speeds by following the procedure detailed in the Setting Speed
Limits report (Ashghal, 2013) and presenting the recommendations to the Speed Limit
Working Group.
The Road Safety Audits Guidelines and Procedures (Ashghal, 2014) summarized in Volume 3,
Part 24, Road Safety Audits, of this Manual, provides details of the definition of an accredited
practitioner.
3.1.8 Posted Speed Assessment for Existing Roads

This posted speed assessment process is described fully in the Setting Speed Limits report
(Ashghal, 2013), but is summarized in this section and for consistency within other parts of
this Manual; speed limits are referred to as posted speeds.
The assessment should be used to identify the appropriate posted speed for any road. The
recommendations from this process will not only include the proposed posted speed, but
also the potential measures, either engineering or enforcement, that need to be in place to
ensure maximum compliance from the driving public.

23
The assessment will identify a number of alternative treatments that could be applied to each
length of road for it to comply fully with the assessment. For instance, if the recommended
speed is higher than the speed suggested by the safety assessment, then engineering
treatments may have the potential to raise the posted speed of the road. Alternatively, if the
actual/observed speeds are in excess of the speed suggested by the assessment and posted
speed, then there is an option to increase enforcement to reduce vehicle speeds.
If it is decided that engineering measures are appropriate, then the Overseeing Organization
would be responsible for their implementation.
If it is decided that enforcement is the appropriate approach, then Qatar Traffic Police would
be responsible for the safety countermeasure.
Different agencies will be responsible for the most appropriate measures needed to achieve
safe observed speeds.
Whatever safety countermeasure is identified, the responsible party must prepare a budget
estimate for its successful implementation and submit a report to the Speed Limit Working
Group for approval.
There may also be a need for an education campaign to support the changes in the posted
speed and signing requirements. This should be fully explored through the Speed Limit
Working Group.
It may be assumed that enforcement has a negligible cost. However, any enforcement
needs the trained personnel and relevant technology to be in place to correctly identify and
process all infringements. Similarly, engineering measures have more than just the cost of
implementation. They also have an ongoing cost of maintenance that needs to be accounted
for in the evaluation of any appropriate measures.
All parties need to agree to the costs and commitment involved for both the overall strategy
and on a case by case basis when the appropriate posted speed on each length of existing
or new road is being considered.
3.1.9 New Roads

For new roads, the posted speed shall be equal to the design speed for all roads with design
speeds up to and including 50 kph. Above 50 kph, posted speeds are generally lower than
design speeds. Posted speed for roads with design speeds of greater than 50 kph and less
than 80 kph is 10 kph lower. For roads with design speeds of 80 kph or greater, posted speed
is 20 kph lower.
Where different design speeds are deemed appropriate for specific road links, these shall be
signed with a specific posted speed in accordance with Volume 1, Part 2 General Road Signs,
of the QTCM. This signing should provide a logical step down from the mainline posted speed
to the minor road posted speed.

23
Posted speeds on connector roads shall be at least one posted speed below the mainline
posted speed. In the case of a freeway connecting to a rural arterial that have respective
posted speeds of 120 and 100 kph, it is acceptable to have a connector road speed of
100 kph, since the design standards in the link will be compatible with both the links at
either side.
However, the lower posted speed shall not be used to justify the use of a reduced design
standard. In these circumstances, an advisory posted speed shall be used to identify the
particular features such as a limited radius curve that represents a departure from the
relaxations permitted for the overall design speed of that link.
3.1.10 Function versus Use of the Road

Ideally, roads operate with a single function and can be designed and built specifically to
that function. Modern expressways are a good example of this approach. Unfortunately, in
urban areas, the function of the road and the way local communities use the road can lead
to conflict. Local communities will demand on-road parking, pedestrian access, and driveway
accesses. In addition, as traffic load increases, there will be a need for additional and larger
intersections. Accordingly, the function and use of the road come into conflict.
In these cases, it is important that the posted speed reflect the use of the road and provide
an acceptable level of safety to the local community. Abu Dhabi’s Urban Street Design
Manual and UK’s Manual for Streets and Manual For Street 2 documents provide suitable
design principles for low speed traffic environments where the place function and pedestrian
safety are high priorities. Low and high vehicle speeds on roads are defined in Clause 10.4 of
Volume 1, Part 2, Planning, of this Manual.
3.1.11 Existing Roads

Volume 1, Part 2, Planning, of this Manual, defines the road hierarchy across Qatar. This
establishes the default posted speeds across the existing road network from a functional
point of view.
To establish the correct posted speed for each link on the road network, its overall
characteristics need to be assessed against the criteria identified and, if necessary, which
safety countermeasures are needed to achieve the appropriate posted speed need to be
determined.
The first step in any assessment of posted speeds is to identify the length of road that is
being considered for review. This may be specified by a local understanding, such as Corniche
or Doha Expressway. This may not relate to a coherent length of road in posted speed terms.
Therefore, it is essential that before any assumptions are made, the length of road under
consideration is clearly identified. In addition, a site visit is essential to determine the key
characteristics that are likely to influence the speed assessment.
It is necessary to identify homogeneous lengths of road. A homogeneous length of road is

determined by the consistency of key characteristics. If none of the characteristics change

23
over several kilometers, there is no need to subdivide the road into shorter lengths. Only
where a particular parameter changes should subdivision be considered.
There are two outcomes for any difference between assessed and recommended speed:
• Recommended speed higher than assessed speed:
−− Where the recommended speed is higher than the assessed speed, changes need
to be made that raise the assessed speed to match the recommended speed. In
many cases, it may be possible to make the recommended changes quite easily,
especially where there are only isolated instances where the characteristics fail
to meet the required level.
−− If the change is to only one or two characteristics, such as median treatment,
parking provision, or infrequent roadside obstacles and it is over a short segment
(less than 1 km), then it may be better to alter that characteristic to be consistent
with the rest of the length to match the recommended speed for the road.
−− However, if a major change needed to improve the highlighted assessed elements,
it is more likely that the posted speed will need to be lowered to match the assessed
speed rather than engage in extensive reconstruction and improvement until
there is a wider economic justification, that is, major development or upgrading
of the road.
−− For example, if a multi-kilometer length of rural freeway has all grade-separated
intersections except for one location with an intersection that requires crossing
of median, closure of the median crossing or major works to make the intersection
fully grade-separated (surface accesses would need to join a parallel connector
road that would join the main road at a grade separated intersection) would allow
the whole length to be safely posted at 120 kph.
−− If that is not undertaken, then a substantial length either side of the median
crossover must have a posted limit of 80 or 100 kph to give drivers advance
warning of turning vehicles. This would need to cover at least 500 m either side of
the crossover. Note: advance warning signage must continue beyond the crossover
to account for vehicles merging into the outside lane, as well as those slowing
down to leave the outside lane.
• Assessed speed higher than recommended speed:
−− If the assessed speed is higher than the recommended speed, then the
recommended speed should be used as the posted speed in order to move towards
a consistent set of posted speeds by road type. The actual observed speeds and
the posted speed assessment should be used to determine whether increased
enforcement or traffic calming might be required in order to achieve compliance.
−− It is most likely that this situation will arise on the rural undivided roadways,
which are subject to an 80-kph posted speed, and extensive treatments will be
required to ensure their safe operation. It is unlikely that engineering measures
will be appropriate (other than extensive improvement to divided roadways) and
an overall enforcement strategy will need to be developed in conjunction with
Qatar Traffic Police to make these posted speeds effective.

23
−− On these lengths of road, there may also be isolated features such as small
embankments or drainage culverts that also need to be protected, even if the
recommended speed is to be lowered in line with the assessed speed.
−− There is also the possibility that the assessed speed and the recommended speed
will be equal. In this instance, it will be necessary for the practitioner to review the
actual speeds and the posted speed acceptance assessment to determine whether
it is likely that road users will comply with the posted speed without additional
countermeasures being implemented. If actual observed speeds are significantly
higher than the recommended speed, if the acceptance assessment suggests that
there are characteristics of the road that may suggest to the road user that the
posted speed may be higher than it is, or both, then additional engineering or
enforcement efforts may be appropriate.
3.1.12 Safety Countermeasures

A combination of approaches is required to ensure that the posted speed and actual speeds
align. Research has shown substantial benefits have been achieved simply by reducing the
posted speed; however, even greater casualty savings can be achieved using a combination
of safety countermeasures:
• Engineering
−− To improve the passive safety of the road (for example, introduce obstacle-free
zones or crash barriers, provide median separation, or improve intersection design)
−− Reengineering the road to improve driver acceptance of the posted speed
−− Using traffic calming devices to reduce speed where NMUs are present
• Enforcement
−− Speed cameras, traffic patrols, etc.

• Education
−− Campaigns on the importance of obeying the speed limit, use of dynamic message
signs, vehicle-activated signs, etc.
Once the review has been undertaken, it may be recommended that the posted speed is
changed to be in line with the assessed speed for the road.
However, it is necessary to ensure the road and roadside is maintained to ensure a safe
operating environment correspond with the posted speed. For example, a rural freeway
(recommended speed of 120 kph) with roadside obstacles within 4 m of the edge of the
road should only have a posted speed of 120 kph if the obstacles are removed to create a
safe zone of more than 10 m or if a high-quality containment barrier is installed.
3.1.13 Posted Speed Review Report

Whichever strategy is proposed, the evaluation of the posted speed must be reported
to the Speed Limit Working Group for their approval. The report must be prepared by the

23
experienced practitioner giving full details of the review and issues addressed, together
with recommended actions and any cost implications.
A typical report must include the following:
• Reason for the report being presented
• Brief description of the length(s) of road being considered
• Current posted speed
• Existing vehicle speeds and volumes (if known)
• Results of the assessment evaluation, either full compatibility of all parameters or

identification of those elements that do not align
• Outline of measures that need to be implemented to align all parameters
• Signing implications
• Any enforcement requirements
• Any known safety issues
• Outline of costs
• Any wider considerations, implication on adjacent lengths or development proposals
• Overall recommendation with technical justification
In this way, the Speed Limit Working Group can make a considered decision taking into
account not only the posted speed strategy, but also the longer-term implications and costs
of enforcement or improvement, or both, and achieve a posted speed that is both acceptable
and consistent with the road hierarchy. It can then agree the legal basis for any posted speed
to be applied.
3.1.14 Signing Posted Speeds

The posted speed is the legal posted speed for any length of road as shown on the signs
installed along the roadway. Signs are the primary way of communicating the posted speed
of a road to drivers, especially where this changes from one location to the next. Clear signing
where a posted speed changes, together with repeater signs placed at appropriate intervals
and after major intersections to remind drivers, is an important means of controlling traffic
speeds. Careful consideration needs to be given to the use and placement of signs to ensure
that all drivers on a given section of road are given consistent information to comply with the
posted speed for that length of road.
The way in which posted speeds are signed is critical to the successful implementation and
efficient enforcement of any posted speed.
Details of posted speed signs are provided in Volume 1, Part 2 General Road Signs, of the
QTCM.

23
4 Traffic Calming
4.1 General
The purpose of this section is to outline the different ways in which traffic engineers can
find solutions to traffic speed problems within residential or other low-speed environments,
such as around schools, mosques, or community parks.
Consideration is given to a variety of neighborhood traffic concerns and to the characteristics

of these concerns on a case-by-case basis. Each situation is reviewed with respect to the
available traffic calming measures that have been, or could be, found effective to alleviate
the neighborhood traffic concern.
The remainder of this section sets out the guidelines and procedures, which can be used
to develop the optimum solution or solutions to each particular situation. There are many
factors taken into consideration when reviewing traffic speeds and driver behavior on local
roads, to determine the most feasible traffic calming measure. These factors may include
the surrounding local and minor road network, resident access, speeds and volume of traffic,
crash history, pedestrian facilities, and construction in the nearby area.
4.2 Relationship between Speed and Injury Severity

There are multiple variables that affect the severity of any injuries arising from a crash.
These factors include the following:
1. The injured person(s), their age, gender, existing medical conditions, or if they were
using a seatbelt at the time of the crash
2. Vehicle factors, including the overall safety of the vehicle and its ability to protect
passengers, the speed at which it was traveling, the vehicle type, and its interaction
with other vehicles at the time of the crash
3. The road environment, including variables such as the road layout and any objects struck
Extensive research across Western Europe, the United States, and Australasia has been
conducted into the effects of speed on injury severity and the likely outcomes of a crash. For
vehicle-to-vehicle or vehicle-to-object crashes, there has been extensive research previously
conducted and used to enhance vehicle design and in the promotion of new roads design
standards. Testing and analysis of vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes have also been extensively
studied predominantly in terms of the relationship between impact speed and risk of fatality.
The risk of pedestrian fatality calculated using logistic regression for child, adult, and elderly
pedestrians exponentially increases once the impact speed is greater than approximately
50 kph.

23
While on high-speed roads such as arterial or expressways, there is a low exposure of

pedestrian movements to vehicles traveling at speed. When drivers do not comply with
posted speeds on local roads where there is much higher pedestrian exposure, the risk of
serious or fatal injuries resulting from a crash is significant.
This is where traffic calming is best used.
4.3 Objectives
One of the primary objectives of the State of Qatar is to have safe roads for all road users,
and traffic calming can be used as part of the overall approach to:
• Promote a safer and better environment for residents, pedestrians, cyclists, and
motorists on local roads.
• Reduce cut-through traffic on local roads.
• Reduce speeding on local roads.
• Preserve and enhance pedestrian and bike access to neighborhood destinations such as
parks, mosques, and shopping areas.
• Improve the environment through reduced noise and emissions.
• Encourage resident and school pupil involvement in residential traffic calming planning.
Provide a process to address residential traffic concerns that balances the needs of the
neighborhood with those of the entire community
4.4 Benefits and Disadvantages of Traffic Calming

Traffic calming projects are typically implemented to tackle concerns with vehicles traveling
at speed and crash risks. Additionally, the careful application of traffic calming measures
can help to improve road safety through enhanced connectivity and overall environment
for pedestrians and other NMUs. Traffic calming projects require careful design and are not
without potential disadvantages.
4.4.1 Benefits
Where properly designed and constructed, traffic calming measures can do the following:
• Reduce vehicle speeds
• Reduce the number and severity of crashes
• Address road safety concerns of residents
• Shift the priority of the road environment
• Encourage walking and cycling
• Reduce the severing effect on communities of traffic traveling at speed

23
• Integrate easily with other project types
• Improve the environment by reducing vehicle noise and emissions, including particulates
• Encourage traffic to use more suitable routes
4.4.2 Disadvantages
It should be noted that, as with all other engineering countermeasures, there can be a number
of disadvantages that arise from the implementation of traffic calming projects, particularly
those which have not given due consideration to the overall road environment or existing
conditions, including:
• Potential discomfort for drivers and passengers, particularly those with back or neck
problems
• Vehicle damage where drivers fail to adjust their speeds to the road environment
• Potential delays for emergency services response times and damage to equipment
• Potential increase in bus journey times

• Increased noise and vehicle emissions usually associated with braking or acceleration
of vehicles and body/load noise for trucks
4.5 Types of Traffic Calming Measures

Traffic calming measures can be broadly classified into three types: vertical measures,
horizontal measures, and other measures, which are typically used in conjunction with other
features.
4.5.1 Vertical Measures

Vertical measures are characterized as those that result in a vertical shift of the roadway;
within the context of this Manual, they are limited to:
• Speed tables
• Speed humps
• Rumble devices
4.5.2 Horizontal Measures

Horizontal measures are characterized as those that result in a horizontal shift or deflection
of the traveled way; within the context of this QHDM, they are limited to:
• Road narrowing – both build-outs and chicanes

• Traffic splitter islands or pedestrian refuges
• Gateway entry treatments (physical measures)
• Compact roundabouts

23
4.5.3 Other Measures

Other measures, which can be used to enhance a traffic calming project, or used individually,
include the following:
• Traffic signs and posted speed

• Gateway entry treatments (soft measures)
• Vehicle-activated signs
• Speed cameras
• Permanent road closures
• Traffic management and traffic control
• Pavement markings and colored surfacing in gateways
4.6 General Design Criteria

This Section outlines the general types of traffic-calming measures available and the design
criterion to be followed.
It should be noted that traffic calming is a remedial measure and is not a panacea to
inadequate geometric design.
When developing a traffic-calming project, where any type of feature or series of features
are used, there are a number of key design issues to be addressed, including the following:
• Drainage: Where a raised feature is installed that may affect surface water drainage.
• Street lighting: To ensure there is an adequate level of illumination during the hours of
darkness for any vertical or horizontal measures introduced.
• Existing pavement construction: The introduction of traffic calming may result in

drivers using the available road space differently; is the existing construction adequate
to cope with different vehicle loading?
• Existing land/area use: How is the existing road space and surrounding land space
used, is there on street parking, are there a high number of intersections is there a
school, mosque, or other major trip generator nearby?
• Existing conditions: Including the presence of any buried utilities or services, or

structures such as culverts, pedestrian subways, etc.
• Utilities: Access to manhole or inspection chambers already within the roadway area.

23
4.7 Vertical Measures

4.7.1 Speed Tables
Speed tables are designed to extend the full width of the roadway, curb to curb, and include
ramped entries/exits.
Ashghal standard drawings give the full dimensions of speed tables. However, the general
dimensions of a speed table with a minimum of 3-m plateau length can be increased to
6 m on bus routes. This increase is to enable a bus to continue forward and have both sets
of wheels on the table plateau before descending, eliminating the tail kick effect that can
occur, which can, in some cases, be uncomfortable for passengers, or result in passengers
being unseated or falling.
It should also be noted that the absolute minimum length of a raised table plateau excluding
the ramps is 2 m. At shorter lengths, there is a high risk of lower vehicles grounding.
The gradients of the approach slopes shall be 1:13.3 to 1:16. Gradients outside this
specification can be either very severe or too shallow, which reduces the overall speed
reduction effect. The entry ramps should be marked in accordance with Volume 2, Part 6,
Road Markings, of the QTCM and signed in accordance with Volume 1, Part 2, General Road
Signs, of the QTCM.
The overall height of the raised table should not normally exceed 150 mm, as this increases
the risk of vehicle grounding. However, in special circumstances where an extended table
plateau is used, a considered ramp specification can reduce this risk.
Raised tables can also be incorporated with pedestrian crossings. When this is used, an ideal
arrangement includes a distance of 1 m between the edge of the crossing area and the edge
of the table plateau. Figure 4.1 shows a raised pedestrian crossing.
Raised tables can also be incorporated within signalized and non-signalized intersections.
The designer of the scheme should consider likely impacts on traffic volumes, capacity,
pedestrians, utilities and drainage before the scheme can be developed and implemented.
The designer should consult the Overseeing Organization before a raised intersection table
scheme is fully developed.

23
Photo courtesy of Ashghal
Figure 4.1 Raised Pedestrian Crossing
4.7.2 Speed Humps

Speed humps typically extend the full width of the roadway, curb to curb, and have a domed
profile. They are intended to reduce traffic speeds without requiring a vehicle to come to a
complete stop to continue forward. They are typically used as a series of speed humps, or in
combination with other measures.
Ashghal standard drawings give the full dimensions of speed humps.
Speed humps should be marked in accordance with Volume 2, Part 6, Road Markings, of the
QTCM and signed in accordance with Volume 1, Part 2, General Roas Signs, of the QTCM.
Vertical traffic-calming measures such as speed humps shall not be used on routes with a
posted speed in excess of 50 kph.
4.7.3 Rumble Devices

Rumble devices are raised markings or strips that are part of the roadway and are made of
materials that create a noise or vibration as vehicles pass over. They are a useful alerting
device before a safety concern or fixed object but may not reduce speeds. They are generally
unsuitable for built-up areas and at all times should be at least 300 m from the nearest
residential property boundary.

23
The use of rumble devices such as raised road markings are generally unsuitable for use
within local roads (nonarterial or expressway), because there are more effective traffic-
calming measures that can be used for speed reduction, and the use of rumble devices can
create excessive noise generation when a vehicle travels over them.
4.8 Horizontal Measures

4.8.1 Road Narrowing
A road narrowing or “pinch point” is created typically as part of a gateway feature when
entering a traffic-calmed area. The design intention is to reduce vehicular approach speeds
by a narrowing of the roadway. This speed reduction is typically achieved by either altering
the existing edge of roadway curb line or by introducing a splitter type island.
In cases where the roadway width is reduced, the design must be carefully considered to
ensure that the overall narrowing does not introduce the risk of head-on type conflicts.
Road narrowings are generally only suitable where there is adequate forward visibility; for
the purposes of design guidance, the minimum forward visibility should be no less than the
stopping sight distance for the posted speed. However, in rural or more secluded locations
where vehicle speeds may be higher as a consequence of low traffic volumes, it is prudent
to use the 85th percentile speed on the entry of the area instead of the posted speed on
the approach.
Ashghal standard drawings give the dimensions of a standard road narrowing and an example
is given in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2 Road Narrowing using a Build Out

23
4.8.2 Traffic Splitter Islands/Pedestrian Refuges

Traffic splitter islands, where space permits minimum lane width and island sizes, can be
used to create localized narrowing of the available roadway width; these must be used with
the appropriate traffic signs (which side to pass on) detailed in Volume 1, Part 1, General
Information and Index of Signs, of the QTCM and road markings (lead in tapers) detailed in
Volume 2, Part 6, Road Markings, of the QTCM. An example of a typical installation is shown
in Figure 4.3.
Traffic islands or refuges can be used for a variety of purposes, including the following:
• Providing a facility for pedestrians and cyclists to cross a road
• Housing internal roads furniture, such as signs and signal posts including gateways
• Segregating different streams of traffic including bike by-passes at traffic-calming

measures
• Preventing overtaking and reducing vehicle speeds by the channelization of traffic
Where traffic islands are used, they should be carefully positioned to avoid obstructing access
to properties, and thought should be given to the consequences for future maintenance of
the road on which they are placed. Additionally, where traffic islands are used, it is essential
to ensure that there is an adequate level of road lighting.
Figure 4.3 Example of a Traffic Island Narrowing the Roadway
4.8.3 Gateway Entry Treatments Physical Measures

The gateway entry treatment is used to alert drivers to a change in the character of the area
through which they are traveling. This can consist of a combination of measures such as the
following:

23
• A minor narrowing of the roadway width

• Traffic signs (posted speed, area name, safety messages, and similar information)
• Use of pavement markings or colored surfacing, or both
Gateway entry treatments should be located on straight sections of road, with a minimum
of the 85th percentile speed stopping sight distance and clear forward visibility. Figure 4.4
shows a gateway into a school zone.
Entry treatments are normally used in urban areas to indicate the start of a traffic-calming
project, often where drivers turn off a major road into a side road. They commonly incorporate
the following:
• Raised areas of a high-quality material, which contrasts with both the road surface and
the sidewalk surface. These are often raised to the sidewalk level, or dropped curbs are
used to provide convenient crossing points for NMUs
• High-quality internal road furniture such as cast iron or timber bollards, which are
used to enhance the feature and prevent vehicles overrunning the sidewalk. Bollards
and other internal roads furniture should contrast in color with the road surface and
be located a minimum of 0.5 m back from the curb face. Bollards should incorporate
reflective banding, to alert drivers to their presence.
• Landscaping to heighten the visual impact. This should not obscure drivers’ and
pedestrians’ intervisibility of each other.
No isolated physical traffic-calming feature (horizontal of vertical deflection shall be used.
Figure 4.4 Gateway into a School Zone

23
4.9 Design Process

This section details the seven-step design process to be followed in preparing a traffic
calming project, or the incorporation of traffic calming features into a roads project.
When considering a traffic-calming project as a solution to a traffic management problem,

it is important to seek to minimize the potential drawbacks of the project, so an acceptable
balance has to be struck between the benefits and disadvantages identified earlier.
It should be understood that, particularly with traffic calming or the introduction of a roads
project, resistance could be encountered from certain aspects of any community or type of
road user.
4.9.1 Process Overview

Figure 4.5 shows the seven-step process for developing and monitoring traffic-calming
measures.
Figure 4.5 Process for Developing and Monitoring Traffic-Calming Measures
4.9.2 Step 1 – Identification of Need for Traffic Calming Measures

The key questions to be asked in deciding if an area or route is suitable for or requires the
implementation of traffic calming measures are as follows:
• Is there a clear crash reduction potential from the use of traffic calming to reduce
speeds?
• Are the existing traffic speeds inappropriate and are vulnerable road users particularly
at risk?
• Has through traffic diverted from the arterial or expressway routes onto less appropriate
roads?

23
• Will the introduction of traffic calming help promote walking or cycling, in particular for
the journey to school or linkage between residential areas and community facilities such
as mosques or shopping areas?
• Is there a community demand for speed reduction within a particular area?
If the answer to any or all of these questions is yes and the road is not a main arterial road or
expressway and the posted speed is not greater than 60 kph, then there is the potential to
introduce a traffic-calming project. This may be either as a standalone road project or as part
of other road works, such as resurfacing, environmental improvements, or new developments.
4.9.3 Step 2 – Data Collection and Analysis
4.9.3.1 Definition of Project Objectives

How a project would help to achieve the State of Qatar Road Safety/and other planning
objectives needs to be identified, including the following:
• Road Safety Plan objectives

• Local Transport Strategy objectives
• Community objectives
• Safety
If available, the total number of crashes should be recorded, disaggregated into the following
categories:
• An injury or fatality
• An injury or fatality to vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and

motorcyclists
• An injury or fatality where speed is suspected as a contributory factor
4.9.3.2 Traffic Characteristics

The following traffic data should be collected:
• Results of traffic speed surveys within the study area, including volumes and vehicle
classifications
• Identification of any emergency response and public transport routes
• Results of any pedestrian studies or counts and identification of any pedestrian trip
generators and associated desire lines

23
4.9.3.3 Physical Characteristics of the Road Environment.

Information to be collected to determine the physical environment includes the following:
• Width of the road
• Typical cross sections including set back of buildings and dimensions
• Parking provision within the area and demand
• Land use, including undeveloped plots and any future development plans
• Road layout, including alignment and details on gradients and related factors
• Existing level of pedestrian footway provision and facilities such as crossing points
• If present, locations, type, accessibility, and connectivity of bus stops
• Locations of schools, shopping areas, places of work, and mosques
4.9.3.4 Environment
The existing quality of the environment where the proposed traffic-calming project will be
implemented is also essential in developing a balanced project. The following should be
considered as part of the project planning:
• Levels of traffic noise
• Levels of traffic emissions sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and
particulates
• Density of residential housing/number of households within the roads project study

area
• Overall quality of the streetscape, including maintenance condition, plantings,

landscaping, and visual aesthetic
4.9.4 Step 3 – Preparation of Preliminary Design

Based on the information collected during Step 2, the planning of traffic calming, either
forming part of a roads project, or as a standalone project, must be designed to suit local
road conditions. This includes consideration of the following:
• Existing access/egresses from private residences, businesses, etc. and land use
• If the roads project includes a bus route or emergency services vehicle route
• Bus stops, if present
• The extent of any on-street parking
• Utilities or services, buried or overhead

23
These considerations, in conjunction with vehicle speeds, historical crash records, 3 years
previous is ideal, land use, trip generators, and pedestrian movements can be used to shape
the preliminary design of the project in terms of the following:
• Limits or entry/exit points from the traffic-calmed area and gateways
• Locations requiring pedestrian facilities to be incorporated, raised speed tables, for

example, to ensure a cohesive and connected approach to accommodating pedestrians
safely
• Locations with historical crashes
• Spacing of other traffic-calming measures, including humps or any horizontal measures
• Limitations imposed by existing site conditions, such as accesses, proximity to side

roads, and existing infrastructure
4.9.5 Step 4 – Consultation

As part of the design process, consultation with the following three major groups must be
considered:
• Emergency services and first responders

• Public transportation operators, including taxi operators
• Local residents, business owners, or land occupiers, including schools
4.9.5.1 Emergency Services, First Responders, and other Major Stakeholders

Emergency service operators, first responders, and other major stakeholders are essential
stakeholders in the development of any traffic-calming project. They rely on being able to
reach the location of a crash or other emergency quickly. It is imperative that the designer
engages with them to identify emergency routes used, to ensure that any proposed traffic
calming does not affect response times and that the type of traffic-calming measures
proposed are acceptable.
4.9.5.2 Public Transportation Operators

Consultation with public transport operators, including public, private, and school bus services
and taxi operators, can ensure that the design considers the full spectrum of vehicle types
that may be disadvantaged by the implementation of a traffic-calming project within an
area or along a route. This enables the designer to ensure that any proposed traffic-calming
measures consider the safety concerns in the area being studied and are considerate of
public service vehicles.
4.9.5.3 Local Residents, Business Owners or Land Occupiers, Including Schools

Consultation with residents, landowners, businesses, and schools provides opportunities to
give an informed introduction to the project, its objectives, and how the roads project has
been developed.

23
Local involvement and acceptance of any proposed traffic-calming project is essential for
its success. By consulting with those affected by traffic issues, a clearer picture on the local
issues is formed, which enables the identification of local solutions to local problems.
4.9.5.4 Format of Consultation

Though consultation can take many forms, it is recommended that it be done through direct
engagement, particularly for emergency services. Likewise, a similar approach can be used
with public transit operators.
For consulting with members of the public, a key dimension is the advertising of the proposed
traffic-calming measures. This can be achieved through letter drops, media campaigns, or
door-to-door polling, or though more direct means such workshops in mosques or schools or
exhibitions in public facilities to discuss the proposed traffic-calming project and received
feedback.
4.9.5.5 Analysis of Feedback

After consultation is completed, the feedback and comments received are reviewed to gauge
the viability of any proposed traffic-calming measures. Then, to make sure the proposed
project fits within the context of the area or route being studied, that local solutions are
considered for local problems and the proposed traffic-calming project has community
support.
4.9.6 Step 5 – Detailed Design

The detailed design should incorporate suitable aspects of the consultation process and that
the design will be modified accordingly.
At this point, if the original objectives of the roads project are still achieved by the works,
the traffic-calming project can then proceed to construction, once all other Overseeing
Organization procedures have been completed.
4.9.7 Step 6 – Construction

Construction should be undertaken in line with appropriate health and safety guidelines and
other traffic management considerations highlighted in the QTCM, Volume 2, Part 8, Road
Signs and Markings’ Specifications, and this Manual.
4.9.8 Step 7 – Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation form an integral part of the design process, as it allows the
evaluation of any measures introduced. This can be used to inform policy decisions, in
addition to the identification of solutions tailored to local conditions.
The monitoring and subsequent evaluation of each roads project must be done against the
areas of concern and problems originally used in the identification and road project selection.
It is anticipated that these will include the following:

23
• Average vehicle speeds (before measures and after measures – speed change)
• Average traffic volumes (before measures and after measures – traffic volume change)
• Parking surveys
• Crash data, including damage-only crash data
• Customer complaints, comments, and feedback
• Any other metric used in the roads project identification
Data collection should be from the same locations for both the before- and after-
implementation collection periods.
At the completion of the monitoring and evaluation period, the data collected and analyzed
should be summarized in a short report and a single-sheet summary that sets out key
indicators. This report should be agreed upon with the relevant Overseeing Organization and
standardized to enable the collection of comparator sites to enable a wide-scale, ongoing
assessment of different measures.
4.10 School Zones

The roads adjacent to schools contain, at times, large numbers of young pedestrians and
parents. School-aged children can behave unpredictably and are at greater risk of being struck
be a moving vehicle. It is important that the roads adjacent to schools are designed and built
for safe speeds and are able to be crossed safely. Drivers also need to be informed that they
are passing a school and that they may, at any time, encounter school-aged pedestrians.
Within a community, schools are an important destination (traffic generator) and provision
must be made for cars and buses. It is important to note that some children will be dropped
off close to the school (“drop-and-ride”), while others will be accompanied by an adult into
the school premises and will require vehicle parking spaces. Other children arrive at the
school in a bus, which requires a space where passengers can safely disembark.
A school zone is a network of local roads adjoining a school. In Qatar, they are marked with
prominent fluorescent-yellow signs, and traffic is managed with integrated traffic-calming
measures that include safe and convenient pedestrian crossings and parking spaces. The
posted speed in a school zone is 30 kph.
School zones are not installed on high-speed roads speed with limits of 80 kph and greater.
Schools already built on high-speed roads should only be accessed by service roads or
adjoining low-speed roads
The challenge in managing a school zone is to provide safe and convenient access for both
school-aged and adult pedestrians in a high-traffic-volume environment, peaking over a
short period. The school zone must also have adequate parking for cars and buses.

23
School zones should be designed so that they do the following:
• Provide safe and convenient pedestrian access to the school
• Easily accessible for cars and buses
• Provide parking for cars and buses
• Provide space for cars and buses to safely drop off passengers
• Clearly marked and obvious to approaching drivers
4.10.1 Speed
Research has shown that the likelihood of surviving a vehicle impact decreases rapidly
with increasing speed as shown in Figure 2.1. Accordingly, many effective road safety
countermeasures are designed to manage impact forces (through vehicle speeds) to
survivable levels.
For survivable pedestrian-to-vehicle impacts, speeds need be controlled to 30 kph or less.
4.10.2 Components
A variety of components are used in combination to create a road environment for a school
zone that is safe for all road users that at the same time efficiently manages large numbers
of vehicles. The combination of components is also used to communicate to drivers changes
in the road environment:
• Signs: School zones are clearly marked with high-profile fluorescent-yellow signs. The
signs are used at the gateway to the school zone, and highlight pedestrian crossings
and speed humps/tables within the school zone. School zone signs are described in
Volume 1, Part 3, Signs Relating to Specific Types of Roads and Road Users, of the QTCM.
• Pavement markings: A band of colored pavement with a posted speed numeral should
be provided at the gateway to the school zone. This helps further highlight the school
zone and provides visual feedback to the driver that they are entering (or exiting) the
school zone. An example of school zone pavement markings is provided in Volume 2,
Part 6, Road Markings, of the QTCM.
• Gateway: Gateways inform the driver that they are entering or exiting a school zone.
They consist of a combination of signs on both sides of the road and pavement markings,
and may include a splitter median with a localized narrowing.
• Pedestrian crossings: Pedestrian crossings are a key part of school zones. In addition
to assisting people to cross the road, pedestrian crossings highlight the changed
road environment to drivers. Pedestrian crossings must be designed and constructed
on identified pedestrian desire lines and may be installed in combination with raised
speed tables. Volume 2, Part 6, Road Markings, of the QTCM provides layouts of various
pedestrian crossings.

23
Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings must not be used on multi-lane roads.
• Parking bays: The provision of formal parking is a key element in designing an effective
school zone. Depending on the need or road width, available parking can be provided in
parallel or angled parking bays. Angled parking is to be designed as “nose-in” for school
zone schemes. Volume 1, Part 3: Roadway Design Elements, of this Manual, provides
additional information regarding parking layouts.
• Drop-and-ride: Drop and ride facilities are useful for parents or caregivers who prefer
to drop children off close to the school entrance. The drop-and-ride facility should be
designed to allow a vehicle to pass a stationary vehicle, which maintains constant
traffic flow within the drop-and-ride facility. Design consideration must also be given to
ensure that approaching vehicles can park with the passenger door adjacent to the curb,
enabling passengers to climb out onto the footway and not into the roadway.
• Medians: As well as assisting in calming traffic, the median can be used to control cross-
turning traffic. This reduces turbulence and can improve traffic flow and efficiency.
• Bollards: Bollards are used to prevent unauthorized parking. Parking on the sidewalk
or crossing is risky to pedestrians, as vehicles are intruding into the space for walking.
Other measures can be used instead of bollards to prevent parking on footways such as
pedestrian guardrail, street furniture and landscaping features. Unauthorized parking is
also managed by providing sufficient numbers of parking bays.
• Sidewalk: The sidewalk is the space between the curb and the property boundary. This
space is used for placing roadside furniture and for pedestrians to walk. The sidewalk
should form a continuous and level area to assist pedestrians, including children, persons
with disabilities, and persons with prams or pushchairs. Due to the large numbers of
pedestrians, the minimum width of a sidewalk in a school zone should be 3 m. In some
circumstances, the width may be reduced to 2 m if necessary
• Traffic-calming devices: There is a range of traffic-calming devices available that are

often used in combination in a school zone. The designer must consider the need and
road environment, to select the device or combinations of devices that achieves the
overall objective, that of safety and traffic management. Traffic-calming measures for
use in school zones are summarized in Table 4.1.

23
Table 4.1 Traffic-Calming Measures for Use in School Zones
Device Comment
Raised speed table (platform) Can be installed with or without pedestrian crossing
Speed hump Can reduce speeds
Chicane (also known as an angled slow Can be designed to accommodate one-way or two-way
point) traffic
Median Useful for managing U-turns, ad-hoc turning movements,

and providing space for pedestrians to stand
Splitter island at intersections Will guide turning traffic and provide space for pedestrians,
and can assist to moderate vehicle speeds
Pinch point Can be installed on one-way or two-way roads and with or

without speed table or pedestrian crossing
Curb build-out Can be useful for managing parking lanes and providing
a space for pedestrians to stand with clear visibility. Curb
build-outs can be an effective tool in discouraging drivers
using long lay-bys as driving lanes. A long lay-by should be a
maximum of 100m and any longer should be split by a curb
build out.
Lane narrowing Narrowing of lanes can be useful in reducing speeds
Device: Mini-roundabouts Effective at moderating speeds, changing the angle of

conflict points, and improves access by allowing safe
u-turns.
4.10.3 Process
School zone designers must accommodate a broad range of needs to create an effective
School Zone; that is, one that is safe for all road users and able to service large numbers of
vehicles and pedestrians over a short period. Every school zone will have different needs,
and the principles in this section can be applied to achieve the objectives of good design.
A checklist is provided to further assist this process at Appendix A. However, the main
considerations are listed in the following list of bullets.
Identify all access points to the school property:

• Identify pedestrian and vehicular access points to the school property. The school zone
must be designed to service these points.
−− Pedestrian facilities must align with pedestrian access points and be placed on
pedestrian desire lines
−− Authorized vehicular traffic must be able to access the school in an efficient

manner and the design must address conflicts with pedestrians, internal circulation,
impacts on traffic flow, such as stacking or turning across moving traffic

23
Identify all vehicular access points to the school zone:

• All access and exit points to the school zone must be clearly defined with a gateway.
The signs should be installed as close to the school premises as is practical.
• Gateway signs are to be supplemented with a band of colored material on the road
surface and a roadway roundel showing the posted speed.
• Cars and buses must be able to exit the school zone easily. This allows the traffic peak
to be efficiently managed. Depending on road width available, it may be necessary to
operate a one-way system.
Identify roads where speeds are likely to be a problem:

• Roads longer than 200 m generally allow vehicles to generate higher speeds and need
to have traffic calming installed.
Identify parking and drop-off needs:

• Determine how many parking spaces are needed. Consider the size of the school and
age of students. For existing schools, it is necessary to visit the school during peak
periods and meet with the principal.
• Investigate the ideal location for a drop-and-ride facility. Consider how it will operate
and ensure there is sufficient space for vehicles at the back of the queue to exit the
facility.
Identify bus operating needs:

• Ideally, bus movements are separated from cars and must be kept away from pedestrians.
Note where buses are parked when not in use.
Identify pedestrian crossing locations:

• Crossings must be safe by ensuring clear intervisibility between pedestrians and
vehicles, and managing vehicle speeds
• Crossings must be convenient, by locating on pedestrian desire lines
• Note: Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings should not be installed on multi-lane roads
Ensure there is safe vehicular access that does not do the following:
• Conflict with pedestrian movement
• Obstruct or create additional conflicts with vehicular movement
Reduce unauthorized parking:

• Unauthorized parking can reduce sight distance to pedestrians on crossings and can
create additional conflict points when vehicles intrude into the pedestrian space.
Unauthorized parking can be managed by installing carefully positioned bollards.
When installing bollards, it is important that they do not become a safety concern for
pedestrians.

23
Conduct consultation:
• The school should be consulted during the road design process and before beginning
construction. The school principal can provide advice on pedestrian and vehicular desire
lines and parking needs.
• A framework to assist consultation is provided in Appendix B.

23

23
5 Roadside Clear Zones
5.1 General
As discussed in Chapter 1, a Safe System approach has been adopted in the development of
the Qatar road system that involves a holistic approach to safety across all the core elements,
of which road design is one. This approach requires that the forces experienced by road
users in the event of a crash are managed so that crashes become survivable.
It also recognizes that motorists will run off the defined road surface and that serious
injury can be reduced if a drivable recovery area free from unyielding obstacles is provided
alongside the defined traffic lanes.
According to A Safe Road Transport System—Factors Influencing Injury Outcome for Car
Occupants research (Stigson, 2009), a road is considered safe for run-off-the-road crashes if
it has the following:
• Has a posted speed not higher than 50 kph
• Has a safety zone of at least 4 m and a posted speed not higher than 70 kph
• Has a safety zone of at least 10 m and a posted speed higher than 70 kph
A road may also be considered safe if the safety zone requirements noted above are not met
and an appropriate mitigation is in place. Also, any significant hazard beyond the clear zone
should be considered either to be frangible or be protected by a road safety barrier as these
hazards can be struck by errant vehicles.
Design options for treatment of unsafe elements within the cross sections should be
considered in the following order:
• Remove the obstacle or redesign it so it can be traversed safely, create a clear safety
zone
• Redirect vehicles by shielding the obstacle with a longitudinal vehicle restraint system
(VRS), which is described in Chapter 6, Vehicle Restraint Systems, in this Part.
• Reduce the impact severity by using appropriate breakaway devices
• Relocate the obstacle to a point outside the defined safety zone where it is less likely
to be struck
This section considers the detailed requirements for establishing safety zones, or clear
zones as an integral part of the roadway cross section. Details for implementing any VRS
requirements are addressed below.

23
A clear zone is defined as an unobstructed width adjacent to the live traffic lane over which
vehicles can safely travel should they unintentionally leave the marked traffic lanes. The
clear zone is situated either side of the travel lane or lanes forming the road. The purpose of
the clear zone is to provide sufficient width and length for a vehicle leaving the travel lane
to recover without impact with obstacles.
Clear zones are used to provide an area in which a vehicle can safely stop or significantly
reduce speed in a situation where the vehicle has run off the live lane. The clear zone also
fulfills the function of a recovery zone. This allows a driver additional space to recover the
vehicle to the travel lane in the event of such causes as distraction or a minor incident which
has caused the vehicle to leave the travel lane.
To allow this, clear zones must be unobstructed, provide a suitable surface and gradient, both
longitudinal and transverse combined, for the vehicle to traverse safely, and allow control to
be regained.
The clear zone should not just be clear from obstruction in width at the road level but also
be clear of higher-level obstructions from signs, roadside structures, or other road furniture
and equipment.
For relatively flat and level roadsides with a wide right of way reservation, the clear zone
concept is relatively simple to apply. However, it is less clear when the road is in a fill or cut
section where roadside slopes may be positive, negative, or variable, or where a drainage
channel exists close to the moving traffic lanes. Consequently, these features need to be
considered in order to understand the clear zone concept completely.
If a roadside is not flat, a motorist leaving a travel lane will encounter a parallel fill or cut
slope; a transverse slope where crossovers, intersections, and accesses are present; a
drainage channel; or combination thereof. Each of these features has an effect on a vehicle’s
lateral encroachment and trajectory when leaving the defined traffic lane unexpectedly.
Clear zones should be designed without obstructions or safety concerns such as severe
slopes, greater than 1:3, roadside features such as trees, lighting columns, sign posts, or
ditches. They should provide a surface that allows safe stopping of the vehicle and that
does not cause unnecessarily severe deceleration or rollover of the vehicle. Figure 5.1 and
Figure 5.2 illustrate typical clear zones for a cut slope and fill slope.

23
Figure 5.1 Typical Clear Zone for Cut Slope including Shoulder
Figure 5.2 Typical Clear Zone for Fill Slope including Shoulder
5.1.1 New Designs

Clear zones should be included in the design of new roads where an assessment of the traffic
and layout conditions warrants. Where clear zones cannot be physically or economically
achieved, for example, where there are existing large structures, roads are built along the
line of steep slopes or in deep cuttings other treatments such as VRS should be considered.
Alternatively, measures to reduce the safety concern such as reducing posted speeds or
alternative design features, for example, frangible sign supports, may be implemented.
5.1.2 Existing Layouts

Existing layouts should be assessed by carrying out an RSA to determine where improvements
are required. More details on RSAs are included in Volume 3, Part 24, Road Safety Audits, of
this Manual. Where improvements can be achieved both practically and economically by the
creation of a clear zone, this should be implemented. In areas where the clear zone cannot be
fully achieved, other treatments such as barriers and vehicle restraints should be considered.
Alternatively, measures to reduce the safety concern such as reducing posted speeds may
be implemented.

23
5.2 Urban and Low Volume Roads

Clear zones are not applicable to any road that has a posted speed of less than 70 kph.
For arterials and other noncontrolled access facilities in an urban area, rights of way are
often extremely restricted and, in many cases, establishing an adequate clear zone is not
practical. However, within these environments, the principles of clear zones and providing
areas adjacent to the traffic lanes that allow for some degree of driver error can still be
applied within a consistent design framework.
Where posted speeds are in excess of 70 kph and features such as hard strips, verges,
adjacent service roads, and parking are present these can offer some degree of recovery
for vehicles or protection for vulnerable road users and street furniture without needing a
fully developed clear zone. Appropriate selection of critical design elements can achieve the
required mitigation without necessarily demanding a full VRS.
Similarly, many low volume roads do not clearly define the edge of the traffic lane from which
the clear zone distance is usually measured. Although for low-volume roads, a clear area
should be provided that permits a stranded vehicle to pull completely off the road whenever
practical. Roadside slopes and ditches and overall cross sections become important design
considerations for providing some opportunity for these vehicles.
Where the principles of a clear zone cannot be incorporated in the roadway cross section,
posted speeds are in excess of 70 kph, and the potential for striking unprotected fixed
objects in the roadside is present, then an appropriately designed VRS must be incorporated.
5.3 Design Criteria

The design criteria used for clear zones are dependent on the speed of traffic, the volume
and type of traffic, the existing physical obstructions, and constraints such as available width.
The level of risk or safety concern of roadside features is also a function of the road geometry
where curvature, gradient, cross fall, and lane width all have a bearing.
By policy in Qatar, the posted speed is directly related to the design speed. This relationship
is set out in Clause 10.4 of Volume 1, Part 2, Planning, of this Manual. Considering the
parameters set out in Clause 5.1 of this Part, clear zone requirements must therefore be applied
to any roadway with a design speed above 80 kph. For roads with lower design speeds, and
particularly those roadways within the urban area, clear zones are not appropriate. However,
the risk associated with striking unprotected structures and particularly vulnerable road
users at design speeds in excess of 80 kph must still be considered in the design process
even within urban areas.
Table 5.1 lists the basic recommended clear zone widths for a straight road at various design
speeds and traffic volumes. Other elements to take into consideration within these defined
distances are discussed in the following paragraphs.

23
Table 5.1 Straight Road Clear Zone Widths for Standard Design Speeds
Curve = 0° - radius = Infinity
Design Cut Slope (Up) Flat Fill Slope (Down)

Speed
(kph) ADT 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:10 0 1:10 1:6 1:5 1:4
<1,500 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.5 5.8 7.0
80 <6,000 5.2 5.2 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.1 6.4 7.9
6,000+ 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.7 7.3 8.8
<1,500 6.6 7.2 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.2 9.1 9.8 12.0
100 <6,000 7.2 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 13.2
6,000+ 8.1 8.7 9.0 9.6 9.7 9.7 10.9 11.9 14.4
<1,500 7.3 7.9 7.8 9.0 9.3 9.3 10.2 11.3 13.9
1201 <6,000 7.9 8.5 8.8 9.4 9.8 9.8 11.1 12.5 15.1
6,000+ 8.8 9.4 9.8 10.4 10.8 10.8 12.0 13.4 16.3
Note
When design speeds are greater than the values provided, the designer may provide clear zone distances
greater than those shown in the table.
5.3.1 Surface Conditions

The surfaces of clear zones need to be suitable for vehicles to brake and maneuver. These
areas should be kept clear of debris and materials that may reduce skidding resistance, such
as sand. They should not be susceptible to becoming soft due to water or ground instability.
It is recommended that materials such as loose gravel not be used, since there is a danger of
rollover or over-running at high speed. The area needs to be compacted in a similar way to
the road formation in order to provide a firm recoverable surface. Areas of soft sand or other
soft material need to be removed and adequately compacted to support errant vehicles.
5.3.1.1 Shoulders
Shoulders are normally considered as part of the clear zone. They are present on both sides
of the traffic lanes, although their width will vary depending whether they are on the right
side or on the left adjacent to the median.
Precautions need to be taken to prevent unnecessary obstruction of shoulders. Such

precautions may also be considered necessary in order for the shoulder to perform its desired
function. Maintenance materials and plant should not be stored on them. Vehicles stopped
on the shoulder and debris that may accumulate should be removed promptly.
Where shoulders forming part of the calculated clear zone width are used as temporary travel
lanes for maintenance, or when the shoulder is used for travel when an incident occurs on

23
the travel lanes, suitable temporary posted speeds should be set and enforced so that the
remaining clear zone width is appropriate for the traffic speed.
5.3.2 Slopes
The slope within the clear zone is critical to the design width. The slope used for design
calculations should be the maximum slope calculated from a combination of both the
longitudinal and transverse gradients. Where the slope of the clear zone changes transversely,
the average gradient may be used for calculations. Designs with downslopes exceeding 1:4
(nonrecoverable slopes) should be avoided, particularly where there is the opportunity to
flatten the slopes within the existing topography.
Where transverse slopes are present, a 1:10 gradient is desirable, but this may be limited
by the width restrictions and maintenance problems associated with long, tapered ends of
pipes and culverts.
Transverse slopes of 1:6 or flatter are recommended for high-speed roads, with steeper
gradients being considered in urban areas and low-speed facilities.
5.3.2.1 Recoverable and Nonrecoverable Slopes

Fill slopes flatter than 1:4 are considered to be recoverable; that is, a slope on which an
errant vehicle may recover to the travel lane assuming that the vehicle has not left the travel
lane due to damage, steering problems, braking failures, tire deflation, etc.
Fill slopes of 1:4 to 1:3 are considered nonrecoverable, and the vehicle will continue to the
bottom. Such slopes should have an equivalent flat area at the bottom included within the
clear zone distance that is sufficient to safely contain the vehicle. This compensates for
the nonrecoverable section included within the clear zone distance. If such a flat area is
unavailable, a suitable VRS should be considered.
Fill slopes steeper than 1:3 are considered too steep, placing a vehicle at risk of overturning,
and would consequently need protection with an appropriate VRS.
Figure 5.3 illustrates a compound fill slope within the clear zone where slope 2 is between
1:4 and 1:3, and requires the flat recovery area beyond to be included within the clear zone
consideration.

23
Figure 5.3 Clear Zone Width for Compound Fill Slopes
5.3.3 Drainage Channels

Where the clear zone includes a parallel drainage channel, the slopes of the drainage channel
should not create a safety concern. Therefore, slopes should not exceed 1:6. unless a flat
bottom should be provided to the drainage channel. In such cases, slopes shall not exceed
1:3
Slopes steeper than 1:3 are considered too steep, placing a vehicle at risk of overturning, and
would consequently need protection with an appropriate VRS.
The design may consider the average gradient across the slopes, taking into account any
longitudinal gradient (Figure 5.4). Roadside furniture should not be located in or near the
ditch bottom or on the cut slope near the drainage channel. Any vehicle leaving the defined
travel lanes may be funneled along the drainage channel bottom or encroach to some
extent on the cut slope, thus making impact more likely. Frangible posts may not function as
intended if the vehicle is airborne or sliding sideways when contact is made.
Figure 5.4 Clear Zone Width for Drainage Channel
Where cross drainage structures are located within the clear zone, the preferred treatment is
to extend or shorten it to intercept the road embankment and to match the inlet and outlet
slope to match the cut or fill slope of the embankment.

23
For cross drainage structures less than 900 mm in diameter, no other treatment is necessary
to make these traversable by the majority of errant vehicles. For larger structures, these can
be made traversable by installing bar grates or multiple pipes. Any such safety treatment
needs to be hydraulically efficient and further design modification may be needed to
maintain the overall hydraulic performance.
5.3.4 Obstructions
Where obstructions cannot be located outside the clear zone, suitable mitigation through VRS
or the provision of frangible posts or supports should be considered. Where a large number
of obstructions occur relatively close together within a given Clear Zone, consideration
should also be given as to whether the provision of a VRS through this section may be more
appropriate than a clear zone.
An obstruction is defined as any vertical element that is more than 89 mm in width or diameter
and is exposed above ground to a height greater than 100 mm from the surrounding ground
level, and that is not “passively safe.”
Fixed objects that have been successfully proven to be passively safe through successful
testing to BS EN 12767 (2007) shall not be considered as an obstruction and are permitted
to be installed within a clear zone.
5.3.5 Curbs
Curbs are commonly used for drainage control, pavement edge support, and delineation.
They are intended to discourage drivers from deliberately leaving the marked traffic lanes.
In general, curbs are not desirable along high-speed roads. If a vehicle is spinning or slipping
sideways as it leaves the road, making contact with a curb can cause the vehicle to overturn.
Sloping curbs present less of a safety concern and are more readily traversed by a motorist
when necessary. Low and high vehicle speeds on roads are defined in Clause 10.4 of
Where a standard (non-containment) curb greater than 100 mm in height is interposed

between the travel lane and the clear zone, additional width is required to allow for the
potential launch effect of the curb. These are given in Table 5.2 below.
Table 5.2 Clear Zone Width Increase for Noncontainment Curbs Greater Than
100 mm in Height
Design speed Width

(kph) (m)
80 3.4
100 5.1
Realistically, curbs have limited redirectional capabilities, and these occur at speeds of less
than 50 kph.

23
For speeds greater than 50 kph, curbs can still influence driver behavior by providing positive
guidance, but do not provide a physical redirection function. They may not be adequate
protection for pedestrians or adjacent footways in an urban situation or for shielding isolated
obstructions.
Curb-VRS combinations shall comply with the requirements shown in Figure 5.5.
Source: Based on Figure 46 in NCHRP Report 537, Recommended Guidelines for Curb & Curb-Barrier
Installation, 2005
Figure 5.5 Design Chart for Curb–VRS Combinations by Posted Speed and Offset
Distance.
On roads with posted speeds of 70 kph or less, any combination of a sloping-faced curb that
is 150 mm or shorter and a strong-post VRS can be used at a lateral offset of 0 m (i.e, the
curb is flush with the face of the VRS).
Above posted speeds of 70 kph, VRS should only be used with 100 mm high or shorter
sloping-faced curbs, and the curbs should be placed at 0 m offset (i.e, the curb is flush with
the face of the guardrail).
Above posted speeds of 90 kph, the sloping face of the curb must be no more than 1:3 and
must be no more than 100 mm high.
5.3.6 Nonmotorized Users

Clear zones should be designed in a manner that guards against them being used for
nonmotorized traffic such as pedestrians, bikes, wheelchairs, or the movement of animals.

23
5.4 Horizontal Curves

The tables listed below should be used for the design of suitable clear zones to take
account of horizontal curvature. These modifications would normally only be considered
when available crash histories indicate such a need (such as on existing roads). If a specific
site investigation shows a definitive crash potential that could be significantly lessened by
increasing the clear zone width using the RSA process detailed in Volume 1, Part 24, Road
Safety Audits, of this Manual, and if such an increase would be cost effective.
Horizontal curves, particularly on high-speed facilities, are usually super-elevated to increase

safety and ride comfort. Increased banking on curves where the super elevation is inadequate
is an alternative method of increasing road safety within a horizontal curve.
Any increase in width needs to be developed over an appropriate distance, as noted in

Figure 5.6. This is the run-out length and is the transition length between the tangent clear
zone width and the start of the horizontal curve. Therefore, the full curve clear zone width
should be achieved by the start of the curve.
Table 5.3 provides dimensions for the run-out length for various design speeds. Table 5.4
through Table 5.8 list indicative increases in clear zone width for a range of design speeds
and horizontal curvature.
Where an increase in clear zone width on the outside of curves is provided, a comparable
reduction in width on the inside of the curve is permissible to maintain a consistent overall
right of way width.
The widths and distances given are based on design principles developed by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA).
Figure 5.6 Additional Clear Zone Dimensions around Horizontal Curves

23
Table 5.3 Clear Zone Run-out Lengths for Standard Design Speeds
Run-out Length (LR) (m)

Design Speed Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
(kph) >6,000 6,001 – 1,500 <1,501
80 98 90 85
100 129 118 112
120 155 141 135
Curve = 2o – Radius = 875m
Czm – Tangent Widths - Curve = 2o – Radius = 875m

speed
(kph) ADT 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:10 0 1:10 1:6 1:5 1:4 1:3*
<1,500 4.3 4.9 5.2 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.1 6.7 7.9 14.6
80 <6,000 4.9 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.7 7.3 8.8 16.2
6,000+ 5.5 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 7.3 8.2 9.8 18.0
<1,500 6.7 7.9 8.5 9.1 9.8 9.8 9.8 11.0 12.0 14.6 33.1
100 <6,000 7.3 8.8 9.4 9.8 10.4 10.8 10.8 12.3 13.3 15.9 36.5
6,000+ 8.0 9.8 10.4 10.7 11.7 12.0 12.0 13.5 14.6 17.8 40.2
<1,500 8.2 9.4 10.1 10.2 11.3 11.7 11.7 13.0 14.3 17.7 39.9
120 <6,000 8.8 10.4 11.0 11.3 12.3 13.1 13.1 14.2 16.0 19.4 43.7
6,000+ 9.9 11.3 11.9 12.2 13.6 14.3 14.3 15.4 17.2 21.2 47.9
Notes:
*1:3 downslopes exceed the limit for vehicle recovery to the road.
ADT = average daily traffic
Czm – Curve Clear Zone Max. Width - Curve = 3o – Radius = 580m
speed
(kph) ADT 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:10 0 1:10 1:6 1:5 1:4 1:3*
<1,500 4.6 5.2 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 6.4 7.0 8.5 15.2
80 <6,000 5.2 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 7.0 7.6 9.4 17.1
6,000+ 5.8 6.4 6.7 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.9 8.5 10.4 18.9
<1,500 7.2 8.8 9.4 9.8 10.5 10.8 10.8 12.0 13.1 15.9 36.3
100 <6,000 8.0 9.5 10.4 10.7 11.4 11.8 11.8 13.3 14.6 17.5 39.9
6,000+ 8.7 10.4 11.4 11.7 12.6 13.0 13.0 14.6 15.9 19.4 43.9
<1,500 9.4 10.4 11.0 11.3 12.8 13.1 13.1 14.3 16.2 19.4 43.9
120 <6,000 9.9 11.4 11.9 12.6 13.7 14.5 14.5 16.0 17.7 21.3 48.6
6,000+ 11.0 12.3 13.3 13.6 14.9 15.7 15.7 17.2 19.4 23.2 53.0
Notes:
* 1:3 downslopes exceed the limit for vehicle recovery to the road.

23
speed
(kph) ADT 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:10 0 1:10 1:6 1:5 1:4 1:3*
<1,500 4.9 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.7 7.3 8.8 16.2
80 <6,000 5.5 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 7.6 8.2 9.8 18.0
6,000+ 6.1 6.7 7.0 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 8.2 9.1 10.7 19.8
<1,500 5.5 6.9 7.3 7.5 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.4 10.1 12.1 27.9
100 <6,000 5.9 7.5 8.0 8.2 8.9 9.1 9.1 10.3 11.2 13.5 30.9
6,000+ 6.6 8.2 8.9 9.1 9.8 10.1 10.1 11.4 12.3 14.9 33.8
Notes:
Design speeds above 100 kph exceed practical or allowable limits for this radius.
speed
(kph) ADT 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:10 0 1:10 1:6 1:5 1:4 1:3*
<1,500 5.2 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 7.0 7.6 9.4 16.8
80 <6,000 5.8 6.4 6.7 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.9 8.5 10.4 18.9
6,000+ 6.4 7.0 7.3 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.5 9.4 11.3 20.7
Notes:
speed
(kph) ADT 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:10 0 1:10 1:6 1:5 1:4 1:3*
<1,500 5.2 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 7.3 8.2 9.8 17.7
80 <6,000 6.1 6.7 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 8.2 8.8 10.7 19.8
6,000+ 6.7 7.3 7.9 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.1 9.8 11.9 21.6
Notes:
* 1:3 downslopes exceed the limit for vehicle recovery to the road.

23

23
6 Vehicle Restraint Systems
6.1 General
Vehicle Restraint Systems (VRS) refers to any system installed on a road to provide a level of
containment for an errant vehicle. These systems include the following:
• Longitudinal safety barriers (which can be further divided into rigid, semi-rigid, and
flexible systems)
• Containment curbs
• Vehicle parapets
• End treatments and terminals
• Transitions
• Impact attenuators
Containment curbs are those curbs which have, under full-scale impact testing, been shown
to be able to safely contain and redirect an errant vehicle. They may be used instead of a
safety barrier in the verge or the median.
This section provides guidance for identifying the need for a VRS, together with their
minimum performance requirements.
6.1.1 Provision of Vehicle Restraint Systems

Generally, the provision of a VRS is warranted if the consequences of an errant vehicle
striking the VRS are considered less serious than those resulting from a vehicle striking an
unshielded fixed object in the roadside.
Therefore, prior to the selection of any VRS for a particular location, the need for the system
should first be quantified. The installation of a VRS at a site will itself present a safety
concern to road users and, therefore, a VRS should only be installed as a last resort.
6.1.2 Reduction of Risk Level Posed by a Safety Concern

The designer must first identify local safety concerns, within or immediately adjacent to the
roadway. These are fixed objects that may cause injury to the occupants of an errant vehicle
or give rise to a secondary event were the vehicle to reach the fixed object. In addition, the
risk of an errant vehicle to third parties must also be examined.
These fixed objects should be identified during a visit to the site under consideration so that
a full review of the fixed objects and other safety concerns at the site can be identified. It
is important that an actual visit to the site is undertaken, and this assessment is not solely
based on drawings, photographs, or satellite imagery.

23
The risk posed by each individual fixed object should first be reduced, and this should be
undertaken for each object located within the clear zone. In some high-risk situations, it may
be necessary to provide a safety barrier to protect a hazard outside the clear zone. In such
cases, details shall be agreed with the Overseeing Organization. Figure 6.1 illustrates the
steps to consider before providing a VRS.
Figure 6.1 Steps to Consider Before Providing a VRS
If each of these steps has been attempted and the safety concern remains unchanged, the
option of installing a VRS should be followed.
6.1.3 Clear Zone Concept

The clear zone is the width of land adjacent to the road that should be kept clear of fixed
objects, or that contain fixed objects that will present only a low level of risk to road users
(National Roads Authority [NRA], 2009). If this is not possible, the provision of a VRS should
be considered.
The zone is measured from the nearest edge of the trafficked lane; that is, the shoulder or
hard strip forms part of the clear zone. The zone does not normally include the boundary
fence or areas of land beyond the road boundary. However, in some circumstances, it may be
necessary to consider fixed objects on or beyond the road boundary.
The width of the zone is affected by the following three factors, and each should be
considered in determining the appropriate dimensions of the Clear Zone:
• Vehicle speed
• Radius of the road at the point of departure from the roadway
• Terrain over which the vehicle passes after leaving the roadway
Detail design considerations for applying clear zones are given in Chapter 5, Roadside Clear
Zones, in this Part. Where this width is not available or is not clear of fixed objects, or both,
a VRS will normally be required. Any significant hazards, either within or beyond the clear
zone, should be considered to be removed, made frangible or protected.
6.2 Longitudinal Safety Barriers and Containment Curbs

All longitudinal safety barriers and containment curbs shall have demonstrated compliance
with European standard BS EN 1317 (2010), or the American recommendations in either

23
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 (FHWA, 2004) or the
Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH [American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials [AASHTO], 2009]). Evidence of this shall be presented and approved
by the Overseeing Organization prior to the use of these systems. Only systems approved
by the Overseeing Organization shall be used. Barrier systems must be installed as per
manufacturer’s instructions.
6.3 Median Safety Barriers and Containment Curbs

In general, the purpose of median safety barriers is to reduce the risk of injury caused by
vehicles traversing into the opposing roadway.
In all cases, the minimum containment/test level of the median safety barrier shall be as
follows:
• For roads with a posted speed over 80 kph, H2 (in accordance with BS EN 1317 [2010])
or TL4 (in accordance with NCHRP Report 350 [FHWA, 2004] or MASH [AASHTO, 2009])
• For roads with a posted speed of 80 kph, H1 (in accordance with BS EN 1317 [2010]) or
TL4 (in accordance with NCHRP Report 350 [FHWA, 2004] or MASH [AASHTO, 2009]).
In the median of rural local roads or urban arterial roads (with a posted speed less than
80 kph), a median safety barrier or a containment curb may be required based on the number
and location of local fixed objects. In such cases, the minimum containment or test level of
the median safety barrier or containment curb shall be as follows:
• For roads with an posted speed of 50 kph, N2 (in accordance with BS EN 1317 [2010])
or TL3 (in accordance with NCHRP Report 350 [FHWA, 2004] or MASH [AASHTO, 2009])
Increased containment levels (for example, H4b to BS EN 1317 [2010] or TL5 to NCHRP
Report 350 [FHWA , 2004] or MASH [AASHTO, 2009]) should be considered for areas of
high risk where the containment of an errant vehicle (such as a heavy truck) is the prime
consideration. Such areas include close proximity to bridge piers, overhead gantries, and
where the roadway contains a high proportion (over 10 percent) of heavy trucks.
6.4 Verge Safety Barriers and Containment Curbs

In general, the purpose of safety barriers installed in the verge is to reduce the risk of injury
caused by vehicles colliding with fixed objects or traversing the roadside, or both.
The verge of urban expressways shall be equipped with a longitudinal safety barrier with a
minimum containment/test level of H1 (in accordance with BS EN 1317 [2010]) or TL4 (in
accordance with NCHRP Report 350 [FHWA, 2004] or MASH [AASHTO, 2009]).
In the verge of all other road types with a design speed of 80 kph or greater, the clear
zone concept described in Chapter 5, Roadside Clear Zones, in this Part shall be applied.
Where the hazard is within the clear zone width or the width is not available, the posted

23
speed is less than 80 kph, the area is not clear of fixed objects, the verge is made of sand
or a material or surface that is prone to cause rollover crashes for errant vehicles, or any
combination thereof, the need for a verge safety barrier or a containment curb will need to
be determined. However, hazards outside of the clear zone should also be considered to be
removed, made frangible or be protected. On newly constructed roads with a design speed of
80kph or greater, multiple and frequent hazards along the verge and median will likely result
in the need, practicality and cost-benefit reasons of installing road safety barriers along the
whole or majority length of the new road. On existing roads, a priority assessment of hazard
protection, and cost-benefit analysis of countermeasures are suitable processes to take in
this instance before undertaking the preferred options.
6.4.1 Roadside Conditions

The number and type of conditions present on the roadside is high and wide-ranging.
However, the conditions described in the following clauses should be considered as part of
the assessment of risk for the site under consideration.
6.4.2 Side Slopes
6.4.2.1 Fill Slopes

Fill slopes can present a safety concern to an errant vehicle with the degree of severity
dependent upon the slope and height of the embankment. Providing embankment slopes
that are 1:4 or flatter can mitigate this concern. If flattening the slope is not feasible or cost
effective, the installation of a barrier may be appropriate (NRA, 2009).
6.4.2.2 Cut Slopes

A cut slope is usually less of a safety concern than a safety barrier if the toe is rounded to a
minimum radius of 4 m. The exceptions are a slope steeper than 1:2 or a rock cut with a rough
face that could cause vehicle snagging rather than providing relatively smooth redirection
(NRA, 2009).
6.4.2.3 Combined Slopes

Where combinations of side slopes occur, these shall also have a minimum of 4 m radius.
6.4.2.4 Fixed Objects

Any significant hazards, either within the clear zone, should be removed, made frangible or
protected. Fixed objects that have been successfully proven to be passively safe through
successful testing to BS EN 12767 (2007) shall not be considered safety concerns. This
includes circular, hollow-section steel posts or supports with a diameter equal to or less than
89 mm nominal diameter and 3.2 mm nominal wall thickness.
The use of passively safe support structures in encouraged in all areas as an alternative to
the installation of a VRS.

23
Due to the presence of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, the use of passively
safe support structures that are designed to detach from their foundations shall only be
permitted in areas where the risk of injury to other road users is low (for example, in rural
areas and/or on roads with restricted pedestrian access). However, in such areas, the use of
passively safe support structures that are designed to not detach from their foundations is
encouraged.
The following items should be considered safety concerns if they are located within the clear
zone and cannot be mitigated; note that this list is not exhaustive:
• Lighting columns
• High-mast road lighting columns
• Sign and signal gantry supports if they are not passively safe
• Aboveground structural supports, bases, or foundations that are positioned less than
3 m above the adjacent paved roadway.
• Drainage culvert headwalls.
• Restricted headroom at a structure or part of a structure.
• A retaining wall that does not have a “smooth” face adjacent to the traffic extending for
at least 1.0 m above the adjacent roadway level. A smooth face may include a surface
that may have an irregular surface finish subject to the maximum amplitude of the steps
and undulations in the surface not exceeding 30 mm when measured with respect to
a plane through the peaks. The plane must be broadly parallel to the road alignment.
A structure that has a 25mm wide chamfered construction joint in its surface would be
regarded as smooth.
• Strengthened or geotextile-reinforced slopes.
• Environmental noise barriers or screens.
• Roadway boundary fences and walls.
• Small retaining walls surrounding safety concerns or fixed objects such as drainage
access manholes and communication cabinets.
• Permanent or expected water feature with depth of water 0.6 m or more, such as a wadi,
reservoir, pond, or lake.
• Large signs typically those higher than 2 m located in a position where the fascia could
be struck by an errant vehicle.
• Aboveground communications control cabinets, pillars, and equipment other than
emergency telephones.
• Stores for emergency or diversion signs and similar permanent structures.
• A tree or trees having, or expected to have, trunk girths of 100 mm or more, measured
at a height of 0.3 m above ground level at maturity.
6.4.2.5 Other Safety Concerns

There may be occasions where the road being assessed crosses or runs alongside a linear
feature such as a road or railway, and in such instances, consideration shall be given to
the risk posed to the associated third parties. Additionally, the protection of pedestrians,

23
pedestrian routes and congregation areas should be implemented on high speed roads and
other areas of concern. Low and high vehicle speeds on roads are defined in Clause 10.4 of
6.4.3 Selection of a Verge Safety Barrier or Containment Curb

If it is identified that one or more of the safety concerns described in this Section is present
within the required clear zone and it or they cannot be removed, moved, or made passively
safe, a verge safety barrier or containment curb shall be installed.
There are a variety of safety barriers available on the international market, from a very
flexible wire rope safety fence through to the very rigid concrete barrier systems. The choice
on which barrier is suitable in which location will depend on a number of factors, such as:
• The whole life cost of the barrier system, that is, not just the cost to install it, but also
the cost to maintain and inspect the barrier throughout the life of the product.
• The visual influence of the barrier system, that is, not only does the barrier have an
acceptable level of aesthetic value, but, more importantly, will the installation of the
barrier system affect forward visibility for road users?
• The containment or test level of the safety barrier, that is, which type(s) of vehicle(s)
has the system successfully contained during controlled full-scale impact testing.
• The impact severity level of the system, that is, how high is the risk to vehicle occupants
if they were to collide with the safety barrier.
• The deflection characteristics of the system, that is, how far does the system deflect on
impact during controlled full scale impact testing and, in the case of high sided vehicles,
how much does the vehicle roll over the top of the barrier? It is therefore very important
to know and understand the space available between the safety barrier and the fixed
object or feature in front of which it has been installed.
For example, if a highly flexible system is installed in a location where there is only a small
amount of deflection space available, there is a risk that on impact, the barrier system will
deflect, and that the errant vehicle will still impact the hazard, increasing the risk of injury
to the vehicle occupant(s). Similarly, rigid barrier systems, which do not deflect on impact,
will often have a higher impact severity level and hence, they should only be used in those
circumstances where the amount of available space is small. In all cases, it is essential to
understand the site restrictions associated with a proposed barrier installation, and then
specifying and selecting the most appropriate class of barriers for that particular installation.
Tasmania’s Road Safety Barriers Design Guide Part A (Table 2.1 [2010]) provides guidance
on road side barrier types and the typical severity indices for various features and design
speeds.

23
If a safety barrier or a containment curb is to be installed, the minimum containment or test

level of the barrier or containment curb shall be as follows:
• For roads with a posted speed of 80 kph or above, H2 (in accordance with BS EN 1317
[2010]) or TL4 (in accordance with NCHRP Report 350 [FHWA, 2004] or MASH [AASHTO,
2009]) or,
• For roads with a posted speed of 50 kph, N2 (in accordance with BS EN 1317 [2010]) or
Increased containment levels (for example, H4b to BS EN 1317 [2010] or TL5 to NCHRP
Report 350 [FHWA, 2004] or MASH [AASHTO, 2009]) should be considered for areas of
high risk where the containment of an errant vehicle (such as a heavy truck) is the prime
consideration. Such areas include close proximity to bridge piers, overhead gantries, and
railways, and where the roadway contains a high proportion (over 10 percent) of heavy
trucks.
6.5 Impact Severity Level

For both median and verge safety barriers and containment curbs, the impact severity
level shall be as low as practicable to reduce the risk to the occupants of errant vehicles.
For systems tested to BS EN 1317 (2010), impact severity level A shall be preferred over
level B, and levels A and B preferred over level C. For systems tested to NCHRP Report 350
(FHWA, 2004) or MASH (AASHTO, 2009, lower values for occupant impact velocity (OIV) and
occupant ridedown acceleration (ORA) should be preferred.
At specific locations where the containment of an errant vehicle, such as a heavy truck,
is the prime consideration, or where there is limited space available, a safety barrier may
need to be installed with a higher impact severity level. This is acceptable if the associated
levels of risk can be recorded and justified. Such areas include safety barriers located in close
proximity to bridge piers, overhead gantries, and railways, and where the roadway contains
a high proportion, over 10 percent, of heavy trucks.
6.6 Deflection Characteristics

VRS of different levels of stiffness are available on the market, from very rigid systems,
such as concrete barriers, to very flexible systems, such as wire rope safety fencing. The
suitability of these systems will vary, depending on the space available at a particular site,
and the location of safety concerns in relation to the line of the VRS.
In order to classify products in terms of their stiffness, the European standard BS EN 1317
(2010) incorporates working width classes that classify the distance that a safety barrier
has deflected during the full scale containment testing.
No fixed object shall be located within the deflection zone of the safety barrier system (that
is, within the working width of the system). If such a case is likely to arise, a more rigid safety
barrier must be selected.

23
In all cases, the risk associated with a vehicle rolling on the top of the safety barrier should be
considered and mitigated through the choice of the safety barrier. In the case of BS EN 1317
(2010) systems, tested to H and L levels within BS EN 1317-1 and 2:2010 (2010), no fixed
object shall be located within the vehicle intrusion zone of the safety barrier, Figure 6.2
refers.
The ‘Zone of Intrusion’ concept should be considered while assessing the working width of
rigid (concrete) barriers in respect to the proposed height and containment levels provided.
British Columbia’s Zone of Intrusion and Concrete Barrier Countermeasures (Table 1, TACH,
2010) report should be followed to calculate suitable requirements.
Figure 6.2 Working Width and Vehicle Intrusion Zones (Safety Barriers)
6.7 Safety Barrier Layout

The safety barrier layout must be carefully planned to minimize the number of approach
ends, as the ends themselves represent a safety concern. Where new safety barriers are
required and gaps of 200 m or less arise between two separate safety barrier installations,
where practicable, the gap must be closed, and the safety barrier made continuous.

23
The treatment and positioning of the ends of safety barriers must also be carefully considered
to minimize the risk they pose.
The safety barrier provided to protect a single fixed object must be a continuous length that
may or may not be made from one type of product, e.g., a metal safety barrier to concrete
safety barrier to metal safety barrier would constitute a continuous length.
The minimum length of safety barrier provided shall be calculated as follows:
• The safety barrier will have a minimum length required in order for it to perform. This
minimum length (L1) will be specified in the test report according to BS EN 1317-2
(2010).
• The safety barrier shall have a length of at least L2 in front of the area of concern to
prevent sliding or driving behind it (refer to Table 6.1, Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4).
• For single-lane roads with oncoming traffic (see Figure 6.3), the length of safety barrier L2
shall be installed on both sides of the area of concern. On such roads, a reduction of the
containment level of the safety barrier by one level in the area of length L2 is possible
in the area of 0.5*L2 farthest from the area of concern. A reduction of the containment
level to H2 is possible at containment level H4b within this area.
• For dual lane roads (see Figure 6.4), the length of safety barrier L2 shall be installed on
the approach to the area of concern. On the departure of the area of concern, a minimum
length of 30 m of safety barrier shall be installed. The containment level can be reduced
by one level, 15 m behind the area. A reduction of the containment level to H2 is then
possible for containment level H4b.
• If driving behind the protective device can be excluded (that is, by a high and/or steep
embankment slope) and the minimum length required to protect road users from the
sliding on criterion according to Table 6.1 is not available, length L2 shall be a minimum
of 40 m. In such cases, a reduction of the containment level of the safety barrier is not
possible within this 40-m length.
This length shall meet the minimum requirements identified in Table 6.1.

23
Table 6.1 Minimum Length L2 Required to Reduce the Risk of a Vehicle Sliding On
or Behind a Safety Barrier
Criterion Type of Road Arrangement of the Protective Device
Parallel to the Road Offset Laterally
Sliding on, where the area Single-lane 100 m -

of concern ≥1.5m behind
the front edge of the safety
barrier Divided 140 m -
Single-lane 80 m 60 m
Driving behind
Divided 100 m 60 m
Figure 6.3 Minimum Length of Safety Fence for Single Lane Roads
Figure 6.4 Minimum Length of Safety Fence for Dual Lane Roads

23
• If the end of the safety barrier is offset laterally away from the edge of the roadway
(i.e., it is flared away from the roadway) at an offset of 1:20 – up to 1:12 in exceptional
cases, the length L2 (refer to Table 6.1) can be reduced. In such cases, the safety barrier
shall be installed for at least 15 m parallel to the roadway prior to the start of the area
of concern for two-lane roads, and at least 10 m for single lane roads. This length is
included in the lengths listed in Table 6.1.
• If the start of the safety barrier is installed in a slope, these must be offset laterally
outward at an offset of 1:20 – and up to 1:12 in exceptional cases.
The designer of a scheme proposing road safety barriers can also use barrier layout guidance
contained in the US’s Roadside Design Guide and Austroads’s Guide to Road Design Part 6
manuals, or use the Figures 6.5 and 6.6 tables when calculating length of needs in advance
of the area of concern (hazard) for typical road and barrier layouts. Other combinations of
road and barrier layouts can be calculated using the US Roadside Design Guide and Austroads
Section 6.

23
Figure 6.5 Required Length of Need in Relation to Speed and AADT (No
Hardshoulder)

23
Figure 6.6 Required Length of Need in Relation to Speed and AADT (3m
Hardshoulder)

23
Roadside furniture and equipment must not be positioned in front of a new or existing VRS.
Consideration shall also be given to visibility and sightlines over and in front of safety
barriers.
Obstructions immediately adjacent to the edge of the paved roadway result in drivers
reducing speed and positioning their vehicles away from the obstruction. The set-back
is the lateral distance between the front face of the VRS and the edge of the roadway
including any hardstrip or hardshoulder. Its purpose is to reduce the effect of the VRS on
driver behavior and driver shyness.
The minimum dimensions to be used are given in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Minimum Set Back Values
Location Minimum Set Back Value (mm)

In verges with no adjacent hardstrip or shoulder 1200
In verges with an adjacent hardstrip or shoulder 600
In the median 1200
In a limited number of cases, the Overseeing Organization may, where justified, consider
relaxations to these minimum set-back requirement as follows:
• In high speed environments where verge or footway adjacent to the road is higher than
the roadway and has curbs, the guardrails should be installed in line with the curb (i.e. at
a lateral offset of 0 mm with curb flush with the face of the guardrail), or at a distance
as per manufacturer’s requirements for their product’s curb offset. Low and high vehicle
speeds on roads are defined in Clause 10.4 of Volume 1, Part 2, Planning, of this Manual.
• In verges with no adjacent hardstrip or shoulder, a relaxation to 600 mm for roads of

speed limit 50 kph or less (including temporary mandatory posted speed).
• In verges with an adjacent hardstrip or shoulder, a relaxation to 1,000 mm on existing

roads with physical constraints (for example a structure) where it would be difficult to
provide the desirable value.
• In the median, a relaxation to 450 mm will be permitted where it is considered necessary

to position the VRS away from the edge of an existing embankment in order
In the median where there are no obstructions and there is only one double sided deformable
VRS between roadways, the set-back on both sides of the VRS must be as stipulated in
Table 6.2 but they must not be less than the Working Width of the safety barrier minus the
actual width of the safety barrier.
The rate of change of set-back shall not exceed 1 in 16 for deformable safety barriers or
1 in 20 for rigid safety barriers in either the verge or the median.

23
6.8 Vehicle Parapets

All vehicle parapets shall have demonstrated compliance with the European standard
BS EN 1317 (2010), or the American recommendations in either NCHRP Report 350 (FHWA,
2004) or MASH (AASHTO, 2009). Evidence of this shall be presented and approved by the
Overseeing Organization prior to the use of these systems. Only systems approved by the
Overseeing Organization shall be used.
All edges of a bridge shall be equipped with a vehicle parapet (including the median in the
case of divided roadways).
On over bridges, a safety barrier must be provided on each approach end and on each
departure end of the vehicle parapet, to prevent a vehicle from reaching the fixed object
or safety concern below and to reduce the risk of injury from colliding with the end of the
vehicle parapet. The length of safety barrier as stated in Table 6.1 is the minimum to be
provided. This length must be increased if it is considered that a significant risk still exists
from a vehicle leaving the roadway at a greater distance from the bridge and continuing to
the fixed object, that is, where a vehicle could leave the roadway before the start of the
adjoining safety barrier and travel behind the barrier and onto a roadway or railway running
underneath the bridge.
In all cases, the minimum containment or test level of the vehicle parapet shall be as follows:
• For roads with a posted speed of 120 kph, 100 kph, or 80 kph, H2 (in accordance with
BS EN 1317 [2010]) or TL4 (in accordance with NCHRP Report 350 [FHWA, 2004] or
MASH [AASHTO, 2009]) or,
• For roads with a posted speed of 50 kph, N2 (in accordance with BS EN 1317 [2010]) or
Increased containment levels should be considered for areas of high risk where the
containment of an errant vehicle (such as a heavy trucks) is the prime consideration, such as
on bridges over railways, power plants, and chemical works.
6.8.1 Height of Vehicle Parapets

The height of vehicle parapets must be measured above the adjoining paved surface and
shall not be less than the following:
• 1,000 mm for vehicle parapets, except as in specific instances below
• 1,500 mm for all other bridges and structures over railways, except as below
• 1,400 mm for bike lanes immediately adjacent to the vehicle parapet
• 1,500 mm for very high containment applications where the containment of an errant
vehicle (such as a truck) is the prime consideration, such as on bridges over railways,
power plants, and chemical works
• 1,800 mm for automated railways

23
6.8.2 Impact Severity Level

For vehicle parapets, the impact severity level shall be as low as practicable to reduce the
risk to the occupants of errant vehicles. For systems tested to BS EN 1317 (2010), impact
severity level A shall be preferred over level B, and levels A and B preferred over level C. For
systems tested to NCHRP Report 350 (FHWA, 2004) or MASH (AASHTO, 2009) lower values
for OIV and ORA should be preferred.
At specific locations where the containment of an errant vehicle (such as a heavy truck) is
the prime consideration, or where there is limited space available, a vehicle parapet may
need to be installed with a higher impact severity level. This is acceptable if the associated
levels of risk can be recorded and justified. Examples of such include bridges over railways,
power plants, and chemical works.
6.8.3 Deflection Characteristics

The parapet shall be selected so that the deflection zone of the vehicle parapet (that is, the
working width of the system) is less than the space available between the front face of the
bridge parapet and the edge of the bridge deck. If such a case is likely to arise, a more rigid
parapet shall be selected.
In all cases, the risk associated with a vehicle rolling on the top of the parapet should be
considered and mitigated through the choice of the parapet. In the case of BS EN 1317
(2010) systems, tested to H and L levels within BS EN 1317-1 and 2:2010 (2010), no fixed
object shall be located within the vehicle intrusion zone of the parapet.
6.8.4 Addition Vehicle Parapet Considerations
6.8.4.1 Infilling
It is not practical to make vehicle parapets completely unclimbable, but where pedestrians
have access, infilling must be provided such that the parapet should not provide toeholds.
Where metal vehicle parapets of open construction are provided, they must have infill for
railway applications. Metal vehicle parapets must be provided with additional solid or mesh
sheeting on the outer (nontraffic) face of the parapet, extending to its full height with the
lower part shaped to cover the outer ledge.
6.8.4.2 Vehicle Parapet Design

The vehicle parapet’s anchorages and main structure (including the plinth) must be designed
to resist without damage all loads that the vehicle parapet is theoretically capable of
transmitting, up to and including failure, in any mode that may be induced by vehicular
impact. Where it is an integral feature of the design of the vehicle parapet, it is acceptable
for the failure to occur within the attachment system (for example, holding down bolts), but
not within the anchorage, which is embedded within the supporting structure.

23
The design of vehicle parapet attachment systems and anchorages must be such that
removal and replacement of damaged sections of the vehicle parapet may be readily achieved
without damage to the supporting structure. The design will need to allow for replacement
of holding down bolts or sleeved threaded bar that can be withdrawn from the plinth.
6.9 End Treatments/Terminals

All end treatments shall have demonstrated compliance with the European standard
BS EN 1317 (2010) or the American recommendations in either NCHRP Report 350 (FHWA,
Overseeing Organization shall be used. End treatments/terminals must be implemented as
per manufacturer’s instructions.
If an end terminal is to be installed, the minimum containment or test level of the end
treatment/terminals shall be as follows:
• For end terminals on roads with a posted speed of 80kph or more, P4 (in accordance with
BS EN 1317-4 [2010]) or TL3 (in accordance with NCHRP Report 350 [FHWA, 2004] or
MASH [AASHTO, 2009]) for terminals facing oncoming traffic, or P1 (BS EN 1317-4) or
TL3 (NCHRP 350/MASH) for terminals that do not face oncoming traffic.
• For end terminals on roads with posted speeds of less than 80kph, P1 (in accordance
with BS EN 1317-40 [2010]) or TL3 (in accordance with NCHRP Report 350 [FHWA,
2004] or MASH [AASHTO, 2009]). TL2 (NCHRP 350/ MAS) could also be acceptable if
the design speed is less than 70 kph.
• For crash cushions on roads with posted speeds of 80kph or more, the performance
class shall be 110 kph velocity test level (in accordance with BS EN 1317-3 [2010]) or
• For crash cushions on roads with posted speeds of less than 80kph, the performance
class shall be 80kph velocity test level (in accordance with BS EN 1317-3 [2010]) or
The untreated end of a safety barrier is extremely dangerous if hit in a head-on type crash,
as the longitudinal beam element of the system can penetrate the passenger compartment.
In turn, this can result in injuries to the vehicle occupants.
Terminals must therefore be provided at the ends of all safety barriers unless the Overseeing
Organization specifically agrees to their omission; however, this agreement will be granted
in only a very small number of isolated cases. Justification of a proposal not to use a terminal
must be provided with a full and detailed risk assessment.
A crashworthy end treatment is therefore essential if the safety barrier is within an area that
is likely to be struck head on by an errant vehicle. The termination of the system should not
spear, or cause the vehicle to vault or roll for head-on or angular impacts. For impacts within

23
the length of need, the end treatment should have the same redirectional properties as the
safety barrier system. That is, the end treatment requires anchorage.
There are a number of different types of end treatments and each functions on a number of
different principles, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Breakaway terminals
• Energy absorbing systems
• Special anchorages for cable-based systems
• Anchorage into embankments
• Ramped end terminals
It is essential that the most appropriate form of end treatment be chosen for each particular
situation. However, it should be noted that ramped end terminals should only be used in
low-speed environments, 50 kph or less, or where the terminal cannot be struck head on
by a vehicle, that is, on one-way roads or on divided roads with a protective median barrier.
Given the different function of different terminal systems, it is essential that the correct
terminal is connected to any given safety barrier system. In all cases, the manufacturer or
promoter of the system should be consulted to ensure that the terminal system proposed
would not invalidate or adversely affect the performance of the safety barrier system to
which it is connected.
Ramped end terminals being proposed outside the roadside clear zone should only be
installed if considered acceptable following an appropriate road safety assessment.
Road safety improvements’ programs should seek opportunities, as part of road maintenance
and renewal activities, to progressively replace existing ramped end terminals in high-risk
locations with appropriate crashworthy terminals.
Ramped concrete barrier end treatments also pose a significant risk and should not be
installed where an end-on impact is possible. The ends of concrete barriers should be treated
either by an appropriate Impact Attenuator or by an appropriate transition to steel barrier
followed by a crashworthy end terminal.
Currently, neither BS EN 1317 (2010) nor NCHRP Report 350 (FHWA, 2004) or MASH
(AASHTO, 2009) currently considers performance during impacts with heavy trucks, coaches,
or buses, that is, testing is restricted to cars and pick-ups.
For end terminals, the impact severity level shall be as low as practicable to reduce the risk of
injury to the occupants of errant vehicles. For systems tested to BS EN 1317 (2010), impact
severity level A shall be preferred over level B. For systems tested to NCHRP Report 350
(FHWA, 2004) or MASH (AASHTO, 2009), lower values for OIV and ORA should be preferred.
Adequate clearance of the terminal to any fixed object or an area used by motorists or NMUs
(that is, behind the installation) shall be maintained and not compromised. In some situations,
this may preclude the use of certain terminals.

23
Adequate clearance shall also be provided to allow any impacting vehicle to come to rest in
a controlled manner. The distance required for this should be available within the associated
test report for the terminal system.
In the case of gating terminal, i.e., where, during full-scale impact testing the test vehicle
traversed behind the original traffic face of the VRS, the length of the connecting barrier,
and the location and use of such a terminal shall be such that there is an acceptable level of
risk associated with an errant vehicle reaching the fixed object. This may mean that a longer
length of connecting barrier is required for such a terminal.
6.10 Transitions
All transitions shall have demonstrated compliance with the European standard BS EN 1317
(2010) or the American recommendations in either NCHRP Report 350 (FHWA, 2004) or
MASH (AASHTO, 2009). Evidence of this shall be presented and approved by the Overseeing
Organization prior to the use of these systems. Only systems approved by the Overseeing
Organization shall be used.
The longitudinal safety barrier requirements for containment level, impact severity level, and
deflection characteristics shall also apply to transitions.
Transitions provide continuity of protection when two different restraint systems are joined
together, or where a system connects into a rigid object such as a bridge pier. The transition
section must be of the same strength or stronger than both of the systems to which it
connects, or that it is used to connect. Transitions may be between systems of different
material, profile, performance level, deflection characteristics, or any combination thereof,
or may be from different manufacturers. In all cases, there are a number of challenges to
overcome, and it shall be demonstrated to the Overseeing Organization that these have
been sufficiently considered and addressed.
The transition should be of sufficient length that significant deflections are not experienced
in a short distance and that a vehicle will not become stopped abruptly within the length of
the transition. In general, the length of the transition should be 10 to 12 times the difference
in the lateral deflection between the two connected systems, but this will vary depending
on the systems connected, their material, and in the design of the transition.
The stiffness of the transition should increase smoothly and continuously from the less
rigid to the rigid system. This can be achieved in a number of ways, by increasing post sizes,
decreasing post distance, increasing the number of longitudinal beam elements, or any
combination of these.
The barriers should be connected in such a way that alignment is maintained between the
two connected systems.
Where the transition is composed of posts and rails, the end(s) of a terminated rail(s) must
be treated to reduce the possibility of an errant vehicle colliding directly with it. This may be

23
achieved by flaring the ends of the rail away from the traffic face of the connected systems,
or by reducing the height of the upper rail through a gradual decrease in height. This decrease
shall be no greater than 8 percent.
In the specific case of a transition between a concrete bridge parapet and a safety fence, the
parapet shall be extended beyond the bridge expansion joint before the transitions are made
(that is, the transition shall not occur between the bridge expansion joints).
Drainage systems, ditches, and similar features should be avoided within transition locations,
as they may introduce vehicle instability.
6.11 Impact Attenuators

All impact attenuators shall have demonstrated compliance with the European standard
BS EN 1317 (2010) or the American recommendations in either NCHRP Report 350 (FHWA,
Overseeing Organization shall be used.
Impact attenuators, like full-height end terminals, reduce the risk to road users from
colliding with fixed objects, particularly in a head-on crash. Impact attenuators achieve
this by absorbing the impact energy at a controlled rate, thus preventing errant vehicles
from colliding with fixed or rigid unprotected objects or structures. Unlike terminals, impact
attenuators are standalone items of roadside furniture and, therefore, are not connected to
a safety barrier or to the fixed object that they are located in front of.
Although the conditions at each potential impact attenuator installation site will vary, the
majority of the following criteria should be considered before deciding whether to install an
impact attenuator system:
• There is a history of an above average number of crashes at the location involving

vehicles colliding with an obstruction, the impact attenuator would then be installed to
reduce the risk of this obstruction being struck again.
• The posted speed for traffic is 80 kph or above.
• A significant number of vehicle lane-change maneuvers occur.
• Traffic is required to travel in close proximity to the potential obstruction and it is not
feasible to install an adequate length of safety barrier in front of, and prior to, the
obstruction, for example, obstructions located immediately to the rear of a substandard
diverge nosing.
• The obstruction has a high value to the overall operation of the road network and, if
damaged, could cause severe traffic disruption.
• The roadway geometry and cross section is below desirable minimum standards.

23
• The installation is likely to be economically justified in terms of both initial provision and
future maintenance.
• A combination of potential difficulties for drivers exists at the site.
If it is decided, after consideration of these factors, that the installation of an impact

attenuator is justified, the minimum performance requirements for the impact attenuator
shall be in accordance with Table 6.3.
Table 6.3 Minimum Performance Levels for Impact Attenuators
Minimum Performance
Posted Speed Level Minimum Test Level
(kph) (BS EN 1317 [2010]) (NCHRP Report 350 and MASH)
120* 110 TL3
100 100 TL3
80 100 TL3
50 80 TL2**
Note:
* Currently, neither BS EN 1317 (2010), NCHRP Report 350 (FHWA, 2004), nor MASH (AASHTO, 2009)
considers performance at speeds in excess of 110 kph and 100 kph respectively. In cases where the
operating road speed is 120 kph, TL3 and performance level 110 impact attenuators may be acceptable if
sufficient justification can be provided to the Overseeing Organization.
* Subject to individual site assessment that posted speeds are consistent with 50 kph.
In addition, these standards do not currently consider the performance of Impact Attenuators
during impacts with heavy trucks, coaches, or buses, that is, testing is restricted to cars and
pick-ups.
For impact attenuators, the impact severity level shall be as low as practicable to reduce the
risk to the occupants of errant vehicles. For systems tested to BS EN 1317 (2010), impact
severity level A shall be preferred over level B. For systems tested to NCHRP Report 350
(FHWA, 2004) or MASH (AASHTO, 2009), lower values for OIV and ORA should be preferred.
Adequate clearance of the impact attenuator to any fixed object or an area used by motorists
or NMUs, that is, behind the VRS installation, shall be maintained and not compromised. In
some situations, this may preclude the use of certain impact attenuators.
Adequate clearance shall also be provided to allow any impacting vehicle to come to rest in
a controlled manner, the distance required for this should be available within the associated
test report for the impact attenuator’s system.

23
6.12 Additional Vehicle Restraint Systems’ Selection

Considerations
In addition to the product specific requirements outlined in the previous sections, when
specifying, designing, and installing VRSs, consideration should also be given to the following:
• The initial and whole-life cost of the system.
• Proximity of other services, for example, drainage, communications, and utilities and the
need to access these for maintenance.
• Maintenance of the system, verge, median, street furniture, or equipment, including

provision for mounting temporary signs, especially in the median.
• Drainage of the adjacent roadway, verge, or median, for example, it may be necessary to
provide drainage “weep” holes through a solid rigid safety barrier.
• The need to specify the maximum amount of vehicle intrusion over the safety barrier
that can be allowed.
• Sightline requirements, (for example, the effect of the height of the system on stopping
sight distance.
• Environmental considerations, for example, sand, where a solid system may give rise to
unacceptable levels of drifting.
• The need to limit the dead loading applied by the system to a supporting structure.
• The need to limit the impact loading applied by the system to a supporting structure.
• The availability of an installation manual in the native language of the installers.
• The soil conditions present during the testing of the system and how these relate to the
actual installation.
• Details of any toxic or hazardous materials within the road works.
• The availability of gates to provide access through the system.
• Details of training and competency requirements for installers and maintenance

operatives.
• Anticipated delivery time of system and replacement parts from placement of order.
• Any restrictions on use, as identified by the manufacturer.
• Inspection frequency and maintenance requirements.
• Any evidence of in service performance over and above the requirements of BS EN 1317
(2010), NCHRP Report 350 (FHWA, 2004), MASH (AASHTO, 2009), or combination
thereof.
• Any other evidence of in service performance.
• The aesthetic attributes of the system.

23
• The effect of temperature changes and variation on performance, for example, the
effect of temperature on any liquids or hydraulic oil in the system, and the effect of
tensioning or movement of joints on bolt torque.
• Details of any accessories (for example, lamps, reflectors, and signage).
6.13 Passive Safety Lighting and Signposts

Where a vehicle restraint system cannot be provided to protect a roadside hazard, or where
the safety barrier itself could pose a hazard, for example at a nosing, on a roundabout splitter
island or where access is required, passively safe lighting columns and signposts can be
installed to reduce the collision risk for errant vehicles.
Any passively safe lighting columns or signposts installed must be in accordance with BS EN
12767 (2007) and any system used must also be approved by the Overseeing Organization.
BS EN 12767 (2007) advises that Category NE (non-energy absorbing) lighting columns

and signposts provide a lower risk to vehicle occupants than HE or LE (high energy and low
energy absorbing), and can be the most appropriate choice for roads with low volumes of
non-motorized users. Category LE and HE lighting columns and signposts reduce secondary
and non-motorized user collision risks and have advantages on built-up roads where there is
significant volumes of non-motorized users.
TRL’s The Use of Passively Safe Signposts and Lighting Columns (Report PPR342) provides
further information and guidance on the use of passively safe lighting columns and signposts.
Also, the designer needs to take into account that there may be other roadside hazards to
be mitigated that will make passively safe lighting columns and signposts not a complete
mitigation of roadside hazards on a scheme.

23
References
Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council. Abu Dhabi Urban Street Design Manual. Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates. Vision 2030.
Austroads. Guide to Road Design Part 6: Roadside Design, Safety and Barriers. Publication no: AGRD06-
10. Australia. 2009.
Ashghal. Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Procedures. State of Qatar Public Works Authority: Doha,
Qatar..
Ashghal. Setting Speed Limits. Prepared for Public Works Authority under Contract 6: Road Safety
Consultancy Services, Task 5.2. State of Qatar Public Works Authority: Doha, Qatar. 2013.
AASHTO. Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. Washington, DC, United States. October 2009.
AASHTO. Roadside Design Guide. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Washington, DC, United States. 2011.
BS EN 1317. Compliant Road Restraint Systems. British Standards Institution: London, England. 2010.
BS EN 12767:2007. Passive Safety of Support Structures for Road Equipment. Requirements,

Classification and Test Methods. British Standards Institution: London, England. November 2007.
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resource. Road Safety Barriers Design Guide Part A. Tasmania.
2007.
Department for Transport. Relationship between Speed and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car
Occupants. Road Safety Web Publication No. 16. UK Highway Agency: London, England. September
2010. http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/pgr-roadsafety-research-rsrr-theme5-researchreport16-pdf/
rswp116.pdf. Accessed on April 18, 2014.
Department for Transport. Manual for Streets. Thomas Telford Publishing. London, England. 2007.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Devices in Work Zones. National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) Report 350. Washington, DC, United States. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/
policy_guide/road_hardware/nchrp_350/ Prepared February 2004, revised April 5, 2004.
National Roads Authority (NRA). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: TD 19, Safety Barriers. (NRA
DMRB 2.2.8A) Dublin, Ireland. January 2009.
Stigson, Helena. A Safe Road Transport System—Factors Influencing Injury Outcome for Car Occupants.
Thesis for doctoral degree. Karolinska Institutet: Stockholm, Sweden. 2009.
TACH. Zone of Intrusion and Concrete Barrier Countermeasures. Halifax, Nova Scotia. 2010.

23
The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation. Manual for Streets 2. London, England.
September 2010.
Transport Research Laboratory (TRL). The use of passively safe signposts and lighting columns. CSS
Street Lighting Project SL4/2007. Published Project Report (PPR 342). August, 2008.
United Nations Road Safety Collaboration. Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–
2020. United Nations and World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland. www.who.int/roadsafety/
decade_of_action. 2010.
World Health Organization. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Ed. Margie Peden, Richard
Scurfield, David Sleet, Dinesh Mohan, Adnan A. Hyder, Eva Jarawan, and Colin Mathers. Geneva, Switzerland.
2004.
Wramborg, Per. A New Approach to a Safe and Sustainable Road Structure and Street Design for Urban
Areas. Paper presented at Road Safety on Four Continents (RS4C) Conference, Warsaw, Poland. October
5–7, 2005.

23

23
Appendix A
Designer Checklist for
School Zones

23

23
Designer Checklist for School Zones

Item Yes No N/A Comment
ACCESS POINTS
Identify all road-based access points to the school zone
Are gateways proposed for all vehicular access points (the school
zone is contained and defined)?
Identify pedestrian access points to the school property
Identify vehicle access points to the school property
CONFLICTS
Are there pedestrian to vehicle conflict points?
Are internal vehicular movements safely managed?
Does the proposed project separate buses and cars from

pedestrians?
Are vehicles able to efficiently exit the area?
PARKING
Is additional car parking required?
Is sufficient car parking provided in the design?
Is a ‘drop-and-ride’ facility required?
Identify best location for drop-and-ride facility
Is unauthorized parking observed?
Does the design discourage unauthorized parking?
Does the proposed scheme ensure that in the area adjacent to the
pedestrian crossings is not an allowed parking from at least 10 m
before that step for easy visibility of pedestrians by the driver and
vice versa?
Does the proposed scheme ensure that there is at least 6.0 m from
the cub tangent point of the intersection to the parking bay taper
according to the Qatar Highway Design Manual, Volume 1, Part 3,
Roadway Design Elements, Figure 6.6
Does the proposed scheme provide
PEDESTRIAN
Identify pedestrian desire lines
Are pedestrian facilities located to service pedestrian desire lines?
Does the proposed scheme provide public lighting in the pedestrians

crossing. Is it expected that there will be pedestrians during the
night?
Does the proposed scheme ensure that the sight distance is enough
in the different pedestrian crossings?

23
Item Yes No N/A Comment

Is there any public bus stop near the school? If so, does the
proposed scheme ensure that there is a footpath to walk to the
public bus stop.
SPEED
Is speeding likely to be an issue?
Does the proposed traffic calming project provide for a low speed
environment?
CONSULTATION
Have you consulted with the school?
Are the issues raised by the school been addressed?

23

23
Appendix B
School Consultation Guide

23

23
School Consultation Guide

School Name:
School Principal (or delegate):
Date:
1. Do you feel there sufficient parking space within your school?
2. Do you feel there sufficient convenient parking space outside your school?
a) How many spaces are required?
b) Where should they be located?
3. Is there a sufficient space in the footpath?
4. Is there a need for a drop-and-ride facility at your school?
a) If so, where should this be located (note: normally near the main gate)?
5. Where do buses drop off and pick up students?
a) Is it adequate?
b) Where do buses park during the day?
6. Where do you see parents and children crossing the road?
7. Would you be willing to:
a) Change entry and exits?
b) Close entrances (if they are on high-speed roads)?
Note: This framework is provided as a guide only and further topics influencing design may need to be
discussed with the school.

Vol3 - Part 23 - Design and Operations of Road Safety - Cs - V2a

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

Vol3 - Part 23 - Design and Operations of Road Safety - Cs - V2a

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 3

Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved.

QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL | VOLUME 3

This page intentionally left blank.

VOLUME 3 | QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL

Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................................vii

1 Road Safety Principles................................................................................................... 1

3 Setting Posted Speeds................................................................................................25

QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL | VOLUME 3 i

3.1.13. Posted Speed Review Report.......................................................................................... 31

5 Roadside Clear Zones..................................................................................................54

ii VOLUME 3 | QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL

5.1.2. Existing Layouts................................................................................................................... 56

6 Vehicle Restraint Systems..........................................................................................67

QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL | VOLUME 3 iii

iv VOLUME 3 | QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL

Figure 1.1 The Safe System Approach for Roadway Systems............................................................................. 2

Appendix A Designer Checklist for School Zones......................................................................................................93

QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL | VOLUME 3 v

This page intentionally left blank.

vi VOLUME 3 | QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AADT annual average daily traffic

ADT average daily traffic

Ashghal Public Works Authority

AusRAP Australian Road Assessment Programme

CERS Cyclist Environment Review System

EuroRAP European Road Assessment Programme

FHWA Federal Highway Administration (United States)

GIS geographic information system

iRAP International Road Assessment Programme

kph kilometers per hour

MASH Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program (United States)

NMU nonmotorized user

MOTC Ministry of Transport and Communications

NGO nongovernmental organization

NRA National Roads Authority

OIV occupant impact velocity

ORA occupant ridedown acceleration

PERS Pedestrian Environment Review System

QHDM Qatar Highway Design Manual

QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL | VOLUME 3 vii

QNRSS Qatar National Road Safety Strategy

QTCM Qatar Traffic Control Manual

RSA Road Safety Audit

RSIA Road Safety Impact Assessment

usRAP United States Road Assessment Program

VRS Vehicle Restraint System

viii VOLUME 3 | QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL

1 Road Safety Principles

1.1 Basic Principles

1.1.1 Safe System

QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL | VOLUME 3 1

The Safe System is also supported by the following:

• Road safety management: Effective management of road safety to improve road

• Post-crash response: Effective post-crash response that minimizes the severity of

Figure 1.1 illustrates the Safe System approach.

Figure 1.1 The Safe System Approach for Roadway Systems

2 VOLUME 3 | QATAR HIGHWAY DESIGN MANNUAL

1.1.2 A Shared Responsibility

• Road authorities and road operators

• Health authorities, hospitals, and ambulance service